[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Luminesa]

I was following

Obviously not.

I missed a comment or two...or three...or four...no need to be rude.

[Indo-Malaysia]

Survival is the primary trait of almost every single organism, regardless of how developed it is and whether or not it has sentience, consciousness, etc.

The fetus isn't doing much to advance that, because it can't. Unlike literally every other organism.

A newborn baby can't either, but I guess it's just different right?

[Luminesa]

They do, but not every one of those on the list. And no, there are medicines to help with health issues. With all of the successes of modern medicine in dealing with health issues, many don’t have to deal with them.

That's nice, not entirely true by any extent, but nice.

Which condition on that list is not treatable?

[The New California Republic]

The fetus wants nothing, as it has an underdeveloped brain that doesn't really want anything.

Survival is the primary trait of almost every single organism, regardless of how developed it is and whether or not it has sentience, consciousness, etc.

Regardless, the fetus has no way whatsoever of exercising that trait when an abortion is imminent, so why is it relevant in the current context?

[Katganistan]

If the woman doesn’t want it, but the father does...then the child is wanted by someone. Part of the pro-choice argument is to avoid unwanted pregnancies, well this pregnancy is wanted by the father. It is both their child. By this argument, if a father is not responsible for the child, they shouldn’t be responsible for child-support services either, when they decide to run off on their kids.

^ I likings this post.

Ignoring the whole custody argument, and whether or not abortion is morally okay, I believe both parents should have an equal say in the child/fetus/blob/cells. Each contributed a half (Sperm, eggo), and thus instead of the women having an unquestioned right to whether a child lives, both parents who contributed dna in consensual sex (if it's rape, I think abortion is okay as the rapist should be publically hung) should have an equal say.

NOPE.

The father does not get a say over 15 seconds and a quarter teaspoon to a teaspoon of genetic material, while the woman contributes 9 months, the cost of her health and the risk of her life, and anywhere from eight to ten pounds of hers.

[Hrythingia]

Unless she was raped she choose to take the risk.

I was waiting on someone to get to the 'the slut should've kept her legs shut' argument.

I have not mentioned the word slut. If she wishes to have have sex for any purpose other than to have children that is her problem. But bear the inevitable consequences. I will not judge, I have no right to cast any stone. But she cannot take a life simply to avoid the repurcussions of shagging.

[Napkiraly]

Survival is the primary trait of almost every single organism, regardless of how developed it is and whether or not it has sentience, consciousness, etc.

The fetus isn't doing much to advance that, because it can't. Unlike literally every other organism.

Apart from the whole process of development, taking in nutrients, etc sure.

[Genivaria]

The fetus wants nothing, as it has an underdeveloped brain that doesn't really want anything.

Survival is the primary trait of almost every single organism, regardless of how developed it is and whether or not it has sentience, consciousness, etc.

Doesn't mean we have to enable it, I mean otherwise you're arguing that 'Mosquito Lives Matter'.

[Luminesa]

^ I likings this post.

Ignoring the whole custody argument, and whether or not abortion is morally okay, I believe both parents should have an equal say in the child/fetus/blob/cells. Each contributed a half (Sperm, eggo), and thus instead of the women having an unquestioned right to whether a child lives, both parents who contributed dna in consensual sex (if it's rape, I think abortion is okay as the rapist should be publically hung) should have an equal say.

NOPE.

The father does not get a say over 15 seconds and a quarter teaspoon to a teaspoon of genetic material, while the woman contributes 9 months and anywhere from eight to ten pounds of hers.

So the unwanted pregnancy is still unwanted, and the problem is not solved. I guess you want to solve unwanted pregnancies until bodily sovereignty comes into play?

[Genivaria]

I was waiting on someone to get to the 'the slut should've kept her legs shut' argument.

I have not mentioned the word shut. If she wishes to have have sex for any purpose other than to have children that is her problem. But bear the inevitable consequences. I will not judge, I have no right to cast any stone. But she cannot take a life simply to avoid the repurcussions of shagging.

Then mind your own business and leave it to the doctors. Mkay?

[Indo-Malaysia]

^ I likings this post.

Ignoring the whole custody argument, and whether or not abortion is morally okay, I believe both parents should have an equal say in the child/fetus/blob/cells. Each contributed a half (Sperm, eggo), and thus instead of the women having an unquestioned right to whether a child lives, both parents who contributed dna in consensual sex (if it's rape, I think abortion is okay as the rapist should be publically hung) should have an equal say.

NOPE.

The father does not get a say over 15 seconds and a quarter teaspoon to a teaspoon of genetic material, while the woman contributes 9 months and anywhere from eight to ten pounds of hers.

Yet, if you remove said teaspoons (and seconds), there is no baby. Remove pounds and months, and there is no baby.

Both are equally required for the baby to exist, so why is it get do not get an equal say?

[The South Falls]

The fetus isn't doing much to advance that, because it can't. Unlike literally every other organism.

A newborn baby can't either, but I guess it's just different right?

It's crawling, moving, drinking.


It's BORN.

[The New California Republic]

I was waiting on someone to get to the 'the slut should've kept her legs shut' argument.

I have not mentioned the word shut. If she wishes to have have sex for any purpose other than to have children that is her problem. But bear the inevitable consequences. I will not judge, I have no right to cast any stone. But she cannot take a life simply to avoid the repurcussions of shagging.

And you continue to ignore the inconvenient fact that contraception is not 100% effective. Why should a woman who practices safe sex be punished by carrying the fetus to term just because the condom or other contraceptive broke?

[Jebslund]

The qualifier you used was "life". Insects and plants are life. Get the fuck back here with those goalposts, because a foetus is about as sapient as any plant we're aware of, and less sapient than any pests commonly killed in droves for the crime of being an annoyance.

No, you are being pedantic. It was quite clear that it was in reference to human life. As a proud hunter and consumer of.. well food, the necessary destruction of the Earth's flora and fauna is justified for our survival.

Except that the only people on that list who kill for food are farmers, and, even then, what of all the creatures they kill to make space for their farms? Most of the animals are edible, even if they aren't what most people *prefer* to eat. Many of the plants, prepared properly, are, too. But those aren't the moneymakers, so they don't matter.

As for your "human life" rhetoric, born humans are treated differently because of sapience. To equate a foetus to a sapient, developed human is the same as comparing a blade of grass to a fully developed human. Sapience is what makes a person, and the lack thereof a non-person. Not DNA, because that would mean a toe is a person. Not some mystical "soul". There is a spirit, yes, but that spirit is manifested as sapience, not the other way around. Not species, because, again, sperm are of the same species as the rest of the body that produces them.

[Katganistan]

NOPE.

The father does not get a say over 15 seconds and a quarter teaspoon to a teaspoon of genetic material, while the woman contributes 9 months and anywhere from eight to ten pounds of hers.

Yet, if you remove said teaspoons (and seconds), there is no baby. Remove pounds and months, and there is no baby.

Both are equally required for the baby to exist, so why is it get do not get an equal say?

He doesn't put in equal time, risk or material, and it's not in his body.

I mean, this isn't hard to understand.

[Genivaria]

NOPE.

The father does not get a say over 15 seconds and a quarter teaspoon to a teaspoon of genetic material, while the woman contributes 9 months and anywhere from eight to ten pounds of hers.

So the unwanted pregnancy is still unwanted, and the problem is not solved. I guess you want to solve unwanted pregnancies until bodily sovereignty comes into play?

No Lumi, the point is that the 'want' of the person who doesn't have to deal with the consequences doesn't hold the same weight as the 'want' of the person who DOES have to deal with those consequences.

[The South Falls]

NOPE.

The father does not get a say over 15 seconds and a quarter teaspoon to a teaspoon of genetic material, while the woman contributes 9 months and anywhere from eight to ten pounds of hers.

Yet, if you remove said teaspoons (and seconds), there is no baby. Remove pounds and months, and there is no baby.

Both are equally required for the baby to exist, so why is it get do not get an equal say?

It's like two eggs versus 400 pounds of sugar. Both are required, one much more than the other.

[The New California Republic]

NOPE.

The father does not get a say over 15 seconds and a quarter teaspoon to a teaspoon of genetic material, while the woman contributes 9 months and anywhere from eight to ten pounds of hers.

Yet, if you remove said teaspoons (and seconds), there is no baby. Remove pounds and months, and there is no baby.

Both are equally required for the baby to exist, so why is it get do not get an equal say?

Perhaps because the fetus is not in the body of the father?

[Napkiraly]

Survival is the primary trait of almost every single organism, regardless of how developed it is and whether or not it has sentience, consciousness, etc.

Regardless, the fetus has no way whatsoever of exercising that trait when an abortion is imminent, so why is it relevant in the current context?

Because it still has that trait, regardless of whether or not it can effectively exercise it or not. That is legitimately part of the role of parenting is to protect the life in question until it is more readily able to do so. Unless you think we can just start ending anyone's life if they cannot exercise their will to live. RIP nursing home industry, you're about to go bust!

[The South Falls]

The fetus isn't doing much to advance that, because it can't. Unlike literally every other organism.

Apart from the whole process of development, taking in nutrients, etc sure.

It's still not born, even with the miniscule amount it does.

[New haven america]

That's nice, not entirely true by any extent, but nice.

Which condition on that list is not treatable?

Weight gain, mood swings, soreness and swelling, nausea can also be a big issue as even though they have medication for it it doesn't always work and can make the problem worse, etc...

[The New California Republic]

Regardless, the fetus has no way whatsoever of exercising that trait when an abortion is imminent, so why is it relevant in the current context?

Because it still has that trait, regardless of whether or not it can effectively exercise it or not. That is legitimately part of the role of parenting is to protect the life in question until it is more readily able to do so. Unless you think we can just start ending anyone's life if they cannot exercise their will to live. RIP nursing home industry, you're about to go bust!

Not at all. The crucial difference in the latter case is that personhood is involved.

[The South Falls]

Regardless, the fetus has no way whatsoever of exercising that trait when an abortion is imminent, so why is it relevant in the current context?

Because it still has that trait, regardless of whether or not it can effectively exercise it or not. That is legitimately part of the role of parenting is to protect the life in question until it is more readily able to do so. Unless you think we can just start ending anyone's life if they cannot exercise their will to live. RIP nursing home industry, you're about to go bust!

They can express their will to live however. Stop with this "you want to have abortion, well you want to kill _____ (born human group)"

[Indo-Malaysia]

Yet, if you remove said teaspoons (and seconds), there is no baby. Remove pounds and months, and there is no baby.

Both are equally required for the baby to exist, so why is it get do not get an equal say?

Perhaps because the fetus is not in the body of the father?

What's wrong with 'test tube babies'?

[Genivaria]

NOPE.

The father does not get a say over 15 seconds and a quarter teaspoon to a teaspoon of genetic material, while the woman contributes 9 months and anywhere from eight to ten pounds of hers.

Yet, if you remove said teaspoons (and seconds), there is no baby. Remove pounds and months, and there is no baby.

Both are equally required for the baby to exist, so why is it get do not get an equal say?

And so logically they should have equal responsibility in giving birth to the child right?
Except that isn't possible, so the argument fails.