[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[Contina]

What does cutting entitlements refer to?

Essentially reducing state involvement in clinics. So no subsidization.

I support abortion in all cases as well as state funding for abortion. Which option should I chose?

[Dogmeat]

Essentially reducing state involvement in clinics. So no subsidization.

I support abortion in all cases as well as state funding for abortion. Which option should I chose?

Probably #4. Or the population control one if that's your thing.

[USS Monitor]

Ahoy there! This is modly request to please keep this thread separate from the Forced Fatherhood thread.

But sure, if you want me to address the hypocrisy of your posts over there, I can do that.

If you are going to continue this argument, it does belong in the other thread.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ahoy there! This is modly request to please keep this thread separate from the Forced Fatherhood thread.

But sure, if you want me to address the hypocrisy of your posts over there, I can do that.

If you are going to continue this argument, it does belong in the other thread.

Actually, it is incredibly relevant to this thread.

If abortion is being argued, then so should child support. They go hand in hand, since many women end up aborting because they do not have the financial resources to actually do anything for their children.

If you are going to lamblast people for pointing out duplicitous arguments on the nature of pregnancy and birth and its material circumstances surrounding the event, then both threads should be closed and be a verboten discussion in NSG, since you cannot discuss one without the other -- by definition. This being a modly request by you is nothing more than you trying to define the very strict definition of the discussion, or the mod team's, and neither strict definition is valid.

[The Free Joy State]

1. So are several Middle eastern countries, yet women there still have to wear burkas and gays get killed daily

I fail to see how every country jumping in to break the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights in various ways will improve the situation...

2. The definition of sentience is the ability to feel, if a fetus can react to stimuli, it can feel.

Awareness and perception are considered important parts of sentience. The early-stage foetus does not have those.

A definition of sentience: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ne ... /sentience

3. The fetus has no faculties that is correct, but it has the potential to gain them, unlike a vegetable, which in most cases does not.

People have been known to come out of persistent vegetative states...

And women have also been known to give birth to a child that has no possibility of a normal life.

New hypothetical: a woman is pregnant. She knows - the doctors know - that the child has no chance of a normal life. It has a life-limiting medical condition and will live a very short life, filled with only pain (constant, daily physical pain). It will never be able to walk or talk. It probably won't live long enough to go to school. As you support turning off life support, would you support abortion for that foetus?

4. Im sorry the woman has to endure that, but sadly I don't think the death of a baby is okay so that the woman doesn't have to carry the child to term. If I had the option I'd carry a woman rape baby to term for her so it wouldn't be aborted.

But you can't.

And as long as you can't, it has to be the woman's decision.

If there was a way to abort so that the foetus could survive, I imagine most pro-choicers would prefer it: but many abortions are performed before viability, anyway.

5. It can, but that doesn't change its key purpose.

5. While it may have been originally utilitarian, it has since developed as an important recreational and bonding thing, and it's really cheapening it to strip it back to a purely evolutionary function, devoid of meaning.

6. The desire for sex is your body telling you to make babies, just because you don't want one, that doesn't change what it is.

... That does not explain why people with a categorical lack of a wish for children - and you've conceded there are some - desire to have sex.

[Katganistan]

The choice that has to do with reducing abortion through comprehensive sex-ed, access to contraception, and state support of families whose circumstances make it difficult to impossible to have another child otherwise (housing, food stamps, et cetera) would be the best bet, Contina.

[Contina]

The choice that has to do with reducing abortion through comprehensive sex-ed, access to contraception, and state support of families whose circumstances make it difficult to impossible to have another child otherwise (housing, food stamps, et cetera) would be the best bet, Contina.

I chose the option I think fit best. Thanks for the help!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm honestly not fond of the fact that "family" seems to mean "only the woman and child" when it comes to the argument of child support, which the link shows is the position Kat has, as it relates to abortion.

If it is going to be state support, let it be state support, but don't put the weight of it on men just because we're the ones with the long rod banging a woman. The public good of support for a child should be paid into by everyone, because just because men have sex and women open their legs doesn't mean the onus is on the man to pay for child support exclusively either, and for us to be told to close our legs and tuck in our dicks when we don't want to deal with children, but also tell us we can't tell a woman who they can or can't fuck.

The nature of the duplicitous argument harms the abortion argument more than it helps it. Since if we're the ones who have to close our legs and not stick our dicks in a woman even though y'all want the liberty to fuck freely, why should we pay for a child instead of making a woman have an abortion because our balls say so, which happens to be one of the primary causes why women get an abortion in the first place?

To be fair, Gallo's point is a good one, and a very relevant one to this thread to pay attention to and bear in mind in this discussion. If you want to make it so that women don't have to go through abortions so much thru social welfare programs, then the solution is not to give men the power of the purse either, because that is essentially what you're doing, and once you do that you've lost your own battle before it even started.

[Katganistan]

I never said a family is only a woman and child. Kindly stop building strawmen.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I never said a family is only a woman and child. Kindly stop building strawmen.

You don't have to say something in order to imply it. And if we're the ones who have to close our legs and stop having sex if we don't want to pay up, so do we have the power to tell a woman to either get an abortion, or not, or not put out the wallet, which is again one of the main reasons women get an abortion in the first place, economic reasons.

If you don't want me to point out inconvenient truths, then maybe you should explain your point instead of making me explain what you said means to someone else who would rather not see women dying because they stuck a cloth hanger up hers while at the same time not see men being forced into going out of their way just because they fucked someone.

[Contina]

I'm honestly not fond of the fact that "family" seems to mean "only the woman and child" when it comes to the argument of child support, which the link shows is the position Kat has, as it relates to abortion.

If it is going to be state support, let it be state support, but don't put the weight of it on men just because we're the ones with the long rod banging a woman. The public good of support for a child should be paid into by everyone, because just because men have sex and women open their legs doesn't mean the onus is on the man to pay for child support exclusively either, and for us to be told to close our legs and tuck in our dicks when we don't want to deal with children, but also tell us we can't tell a woman who they can or can't fuck.

The nature of the duplicitous argument harms the abortion argument more than it helps it. Since if we're the ones who have to close our legs and not stick our dicks in a woman even though y'all want the liberty to fuck freely, why should we pay for a child instead of making a woman have an abortion because our balls say so, which happens to be one of the primary causes why women get an abortion in the first place?

To be fair, Gallo's point is a good one, and a very relevant one to this thread to pay attention to and bear in mind in this discussion. If you want to make it so that women don't have to go through abortions so much thru social welfare programs, then the solution is not to give men the power of the purse either, because that is essentially what you're doing, and once you do that you've lost your own battle before it even started.

I haven't thought too much into the whole thing of child support in relation to abortion personally. I think this thread will be a good place for me to spout my initial opinions, and hear other people's sides of the argument.

I believe a parent, in this case a father, should have to pay child support if they want to see their child. However, if they don't, then the mother in this case should receive government funding to the amount she would've received in child support. Vice-versa if the father wishes to be the custody holder and the mother doesn't.

[Luminesa]

Again, not the topic of this thread.

It is related to the topic. Furthermore you specifically mentioned rape. Therefore you can’t stop others from bringing-up rape, which is a reason why some people get abortions. They are on topic.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm honestly not fond of the fact that "family" seems to mean "only the woman and child" when it comes to the argument of child support, which the link shows is the position Kat has, as it relates to abortion.

If it is going to be state support, let it be state support, but don't put the weight of it on men just because we're the ones with the long rod banging a woman. The public good of support for a child should be paid into by everyone, because just because men have sex and women open their legs doesn't mean the onus is on the man to pay for child support exclusively either, and for us to be told to close our legs and tuck in our dicks when we don't want to deal with children, but also tell us we can't tell a woman who they can or can't fuck.

The nature of the duplicitous argument harms the abortion argument more than it helps it. Since if we're the ones who have to close our legs and not stick our dicks in a woman even though y'all want the liberty to fuck freely, why should we pay for a child instead of making a woman have an abortion because our balls say so, which happens to be one of the primary causes why women get an abortion in the first place?

To be fair, Gallo's point is a good one, and a very relevant one to this thread to pay attention to and bear in mind in this discussion. If you want to make it so that women don't have to go through abortions so much thru social welfare programs, then the solution is not to give men the power of the purse either, because that is essentially what you're doing, and once you do that you've lost your own battle before it even started.

I haven't thought too much into the whole thing of child support in relation to abortion personally. I think this thread will be a good place for me to spout my initial opinions, and hear other people's sides of the argument.

I believe a parent, in this case a father, should have to pay child support if they want to see their child. However, if they don't, then the mother in this case should receive government funding to the amount she would've received in child support. Vice-versa if the father wishes to be the custody holder and the mother doesn't.

I mean, sure, but if a parent does not want to pay for child support in order to see their child, that's fine too. While I disagree with it, considering my background and the way I was raised, I also think that if a parent can have an abortion, so can a parent not be part of the child either economically, or personally.

Overall I do agree with you that if you want to have an investment on a child who may or may not be born, or have a "say" in the matter of their child's development, then they should pay up. They shouldn't be forced to, though, in the exchange of nothing. We don't want to force women into not aborting, so the notion of forcing people to pay for a child's economic means which is unwanted is the other side of the coin. After all, people don't just live on dreams and hopes.

[Katganistan]

I believe a parent, in this case a father, should have to pay child support if they want to see their child. However, if they don't, then the mother in this case should receive government funding to the amount she would've received in child support. Vice-versa if the father wishes to be the custody holder and the mother doesn't.

Parents, plural, should pay to support their children. Whether male or female, and whether or not they see them.

Thus if the father is the custodial parent, the mother should pay support, and vice versa, whether they see the child or not. The point of support is the welfare of the child, and nothing more.

But that, as they say, is a topic for another thread.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I believe a parent, in this case a father, should have to pay child support if they want to see their child. However, if they don't, then the mother in this case should receive government funding to the amount she would've received in child support. Vice-versa if the father wishes to be the custody holder and the mother doesn't.

Parents, plural, should pay to support their children. Whether male or female, and whether or not they see them.

Thus if the father is the custodial parent, the mother should pay support, and vice versa, whether they see the child or not. The point of support is the welfare of the child, and nothing more.

But that, as they say, is a topic for another thread.

If the welfare of the child is an important public good, then it should be taken care of by taxing everyone, not just forcing individuals into it just because.

If the mother is not the custodial parent, they should also not pay for support if they don't want to, but they also shouldn't be able to have a say in the child's development. That said, if the woman doesn't want any financial input, they should be able to abort, too. It's a better choice than putting one parent, in this case the father, through the whole 18 years of dealing with a child they can't nor asked for but they have to do it anyways because of whatever reason it might be convenient to dump them with the care of a child.

Anything less is a convenient disparity of treatment. I know how my argument sounds, but you can't just think that one side of the equation is fair to be forced to while saying the other side should be a free-for-all. Either both are, or they're not, because they're both important. And while yes, the purpose of child support is the welfare of the child, but it is also used as a weapon to make women abort. This is the crucial detail that kills your entire house of cards.

[Contina]

I believe a parent, in this case a father, should have to pay child support if they want to see their child. However, if they don't, then the mother in this case should receive government funding to the amount she would've received in child support. Vice-versa if the father wishes to be the custody holder and the mother doesn't.

Parents, plural, should pay to support their children. Whether male or female, and whether or not they see them.

Thus if the father is the custodial parent, the mother should pay support, and vice versa, whether they see the child or not. The point of support is the welfare of the child, and nothing more.

But that, as they say, is a topic for another thread.

Yeah, I believe it's an entirely different issue when it's a child and not a fetus. However, I just butted in because I've been needing to look into that issue more myself.

[Katganistan]

Yeah, I believe it's an entirely different issue when it's a child and not a fetus. However, I just butted in because I've been needing to look into that issue more myself.

Quite so.

[Reploid Productions]

If you want to respond to Kat's arguments from the other thread, do so in the other thread.

Yes, there is room to argue that child support and a father's rights (or right to abdicate those rights) are relevant to the subject of abortion. However, the derail is getting away from the abortion part of the discussion in favor of focusing almost exclusively on the tangential side-topics. Kindly steer it back toward the actual topic and not just the side-topics please.

Ten minute coffee break to make sure everybody gets the message.

EDIT: Aaaand we're back.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Godular]

Essentially reducing state involvement in clinics. So no subsidization.

I support abortion in all cases as well as state funding for abortion. Which option should I chose?

Ah heck... looks like we’ve got an option 9 for the next thread.

[Datlofff]

1. So are several Middle eastern countries, yet women there still have to wear burkas and gays get killed daily

I fail to see how every country jumping in to break the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights in various ways will improve the situation...

2. The definition of sentience is the ability to feel, if a fetus can react to stimuli, it can feel.

Awareness and perception are considered important parts of sentience. The early-stage foetus does not have those.

A definition of sentience: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ne ... /sentience

3. The fetus has no faculties that is correct, but it has the potential to gain them, unlike a vegetable, which in most cases does not.

People have been known to come out of persistent vegetative states...

And women have also been known to give birth to a child that has no possibility of a normal life.

New hypothetical: a woman is pregnant. She knows - the doctors know - that the child has no chance of a normal life. It has a life-limiting medical condition and will live a very short life, filled with only pain (constant, daily physical pain). It will never be able to walk or talk. It probably won't live long enough to go to school. As you support turning off life support, would you support abortion for that foetus?

4. Im sorry the woman has to endure that, but sadly I don't think the death of a baby is okay so that the woman doesn't have to carry the child to term. If I had the option I'd carry a woman rape baby to term for her so it wouldn't be aborted.

But you can't.

And as long as you can't, it has to be the woman's decision.

If there was a way to abort so that the foetus could survive, I imagine most pro-choicers would prefer it: but many abortions are performed before viability, anyway.

5. It can, but that doesn't change its key purpose.

5. While it may have been originally utilitarian, it has since developed as an important recreational and bonding thing, and it's really cheapening it to strip it back to a purely evolutionary function, devoid of meaning.

6. The desire for sex is your body telling you to make babies, just because you don't want one, that doesn't change what it is.

... That does not explain why people with a categorical lack of a wish for children - and you've conceded there are some - desire to have sex.

I would support abortion then in that case, just like I support pulling the plug? why? because its a mercy killing, the same reason you stab the deer in the brainstem after you shoot it to make sure its dead so it doesn't have to slowly bleed to death. But even then, Mercy killings are not reason enough to keep abortions free for EVERYONE. In my option they generally should be banned unless they are deemed a medical necessity by a doctor

[The New California Republic]

Perhaps we should use your definition that you used earlier, where you said that the definition of an organism is if it has a heart? No?

Ahhhhh no. I clearly stated that you can't dispute the fact that its a living thing because it has a heart. I am very much aware that because it is a bundle of cells, just like you and I, it is alive. Also, your point doesn't do anything to discredit my argument, next pointless statement please.

Yes, it does. My statement completely discredits your argument by pointing out the ridiculous and crippling flaws in your reasoning that you choose to conveniently ignore. It was just inconvenient for you that I happened to point it out at an inopportune time.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I fail to see how every country jumping in to break the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights in various ways will improve the situation...


Awareness and perception are considered important parts of sentience. The early-stage foetus does not have those.

A definition of sentience: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ne ... /sentience


People have been known to come out of persistent vegetative states...

And women have also been known to give birth to a child that has no possibility of a normal life.

New hypothetical: a woman is pregnant. She knows - the doctors know - that the child has no chance of a normal life. It has a life-limiting medical condition and will live a very short life, filled with only pain (constant, daily physical pain). It will never be able to walk or talk. It probably won't live long enough to go to school. As you support turning off life support, would you support abortion for that foetus?



But you can't.

And as long as you can't, it has to be the woman's decision.

If there was a way to abort so that the foetus could survive, I imagine most pro-choicers would prefer it: but many abortions are performed before viability, anyway.


5. While it may have been originally utilitarian, it has since developed as an important recreational and bonding thing, and it's really cheapening it to strip it back to a purely evolutionary function, devoid of meaning.



... That does not explain why people with a categorical lack of a wish for children - and you've conceded there are some - desire to have sex.

I would support abortion then in that case, just like I support pulling the plug? why? because its a mercy killing, the same reason you stab the deer in the brainstem after you shoot it to make sure its dead so it doesn't have to slowly bleed to death. But even then, Mercy killings are not reason enough to keep abortions free for EVERYONE. In my option they generally should be banned unless they are deemed a medical necessity by a doctor

What if the child's going to be born into poverty? What if the pregnancy was a result of rape? What if the pregnancy was a result of contraception failure?

[Salandriagado]

Check.



Check.



Check, though it does most of its growing inside the testes (much as how humans do most of their growing at the start of their lives).



Check: it undergoes a significant change before doing so, but that doesn't stop it being a living thing: caterpillars are living things.



Check.



Check.



Yes, it does. Specifically, it meets one more of them than I do, and several more than your average 20-week foetus.

A sperms cell doesn't obtain energy

A sperms cell doesn't grow or develop

A sperms cell doesn't reproduce

A sperms cell doesn't adapt to its environment.

None of those statements are true.

[Salandriagado]

Check.



Check.



Check, though it does most of its growing inside the testes (much as how humans do most of their growing at the start of their lives).



Check: it undergoes a significant change before doing so, but that doesn't stop it being a living thing: caterpillars are living things.



Check.



Check.



Yes, it does. Specifically, it meets one more of them than I do, and several more than your average 20-week foetus.

Now, hang on here, if a sperm cell can meet all those requirements, then how can a fetus not?

The foetus is a part of another organism's body: it's not indepently mobile, nor does it react and adapt to its environment to the same degree. It's roughly the same bits that a caterpillar stops ticking off when it goes into a cocoon.

[Salandriagado]

Have brains? No. But most single-cell organisms will respond to stimulus even absent a nervous system. Multi-cellular organisms generally can't without a rudimentary nervous system.

and a sperm cell isn't a single celled organism.

Yes it is.