- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenI brought up an example that actually happened to me. It's the only example I have. Sorry you don't like it and it's not convenience to your shallow point of view.
why do pro-choice people always bring up exteme/rare examples. I was specifically talking about accidental pregnancies in which one decides (for no other reason than convienance) to have an abortion. That example happens every single day.
To your example, are you saying that every person ALIVE today that has a deformity is worthless and should have been aborted?
I made MY choice for MY circumstance. Real life choice, Chumly. I don't care that you like it or not - it's not your business and you don't live my life. But what I don't want is a bunch of absolutionists dictating to me what should or should not happen in a rare circumstance that actually happened.
Now, as I said before - go back to your what-ifs and your convenient hypotheticals that give you warm and fuzzy thoughts about your opinion.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76so you think innocent life should be wasted just like that simply because you need some sleep, or because some girl was stupid and didn't use her head?
I had an epiphany the other night while trying to fall asleep.
First, some background. For almost 2 months now, I've been fighting a mild but annoying upper respiratory infection. It's nothing too severe and it comes and goes, but I've been bothered by some post-nasal drip here, a little bronchitis there, etc. I haven't missed much work time and basically I' ...[text shortened]... making the case that states should be allowed to simply outlaw abortions.
While I do understand the difficulties that could make one's life very hard, and unsuitable for a baby, lets not forget the magnitude of the issue.
On the other hand, there are some fears over the rise in world population, so I guess it wouldn't be so illogical (although it would be immoral) to allow unwanted pregnancies to be terminated, especially if the mother is not in a position to provide the baby with a good life.
but surely there are solutions to this problem (of unwanted pregnancies) which don't require an abortion.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by BadwaterIt's the only example you have?? So unless something happens to YOU you don't recognize it as a valid example?
I brought up an example that actually happened to me. It's the only example I have. Sorry you don't like it and it's not convenience to your shallow point of view.
I made MY choice for MY circumstance. Real life choice, Chumly. I don't care that you like it or not - it's not your business and you don't live my life. But what I don't want is a bunch of ab ...[text shortened]... d your convenient hypotheticals that give you warm and fuzzy thoughts about your opinion.
I'm sorry you think people with deformities are worthless and should be aborted.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by generalissimoor because some girl was stupid and didn't use her head?
so you think innocent life should be wasted just like that simply because you need some sleep, or because some girl was stupid and didn't use her head?
While I do understand the difficulties that could make one's life very hard, and unsuitable for a baby, lets not forget the magnitude of the issue.
On the other hand, there are some fears over the ...[text shortened]... ere are solutions to this problem (of unwanted pregnancies) which don't require an abortion.
No form of contraception is 100% full proof. Both of my nieces were concieved whilst my sister-in-law was having contraceptive injections.
A friend of mine also concievced whilst using the pill.
They weren't stupid and were using their heads.
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWhat follows is a bit of an aside and is not intended in any way to be a refutation of your position.
her right to choose stopped when she decided to CHOOSE to have unprotected sex...or sex period. That was her choice. (please don't start the "well what if she is raped" arguement...I am obviously not talking about that)
I wonder if one accepts that a woman should rightfully lose a significant degree of agency over her body when it has been impregnated since such a condition was a potential consequence of her action and she accepted this risk, is there an argument to be made that the male involved should not only be subject to pay equal share for the child's rearing cost but in addition a premium to compensate the woman for the costs of carrying the child to term (e.g., neo-natal and delivery costs, lost future earnings due to reductions or disruptions in education, stigma costs, general pain and suffering)? Note that married fathers pay a portion of all of these costs when their wives become pregnant. On average an unwed mother suffers considerable pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages from getting pregnant. Why should the father get off twice 🙂 ?
For the moralists: if you worry that abortion reduces the costs of irresponsible sexual action and thereby encourages promiscuity, wouldn't this policy of going after the male more just help your cause? Maybe the man wouldn't be so eager to go "hatless" if he knew that pregnancy would derail his life plan too (which it currently only does if he chooses to get involved). Isn't it particularly imperative that you support my proposition if you also hold the belief that the male should have legal right to force the woman to carry to term?
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by telerionI agree -- every pregnancy (except for artificial insemination) is the result of TWO people making a choice. BOTH of those people should have to bear the consequences of that choice.
What follows is a bit of an aside and is not intended in any way to be a refutation of your position.
I wonder if one accepts that a woman should rightfully lose a significant degree of agency over her body when it has been impregnated since such a condition was a potential consequence of her action and she accepted this risk, is there an argument to be ...[text shortened]... hold the belief that the male should have legal right to force the woman to carry to term?
And yes, since that fetus belongs just as much to the father as it does to the mother, the "choices" shouldn't just belong to the mother.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesWell that seems consistent to me at least. Personally, I don't have a problem with abortion, and I do not think that the father should be given any authority in the decision, but I just wanted to see what others thought.
I agree -- every pregnancy (except for artificial insemination) is the result of TWO people making a choice. BOTH of those people should have to bear the consequences of that choice.
And yes, since that fetus belongs just as much to the father as it does to the mother, the "choices" shouldn't just belong to the mother.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by telerionIt does seem quite hypocritical to say:
Well that seems consistent to me at least. Personally, I don't have a problem with abortion, and I do not think that the father should be given any authority in the decision, but I just wanted to see what others thought.
1) The father gets no say in whether the child is aborted; but
2) If the baby is born, the father must pay child support.
However, that is the law as it is now, at least in the US.
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I agree.
It does seem quite hypocritical to say:
1) The father gets no say in whether the child is aborted; but
2) If the baby is born, the father must pay child support.
However, that is the law as it is now, at least in the US.
a woman becomes pregnant and the father knows that having the baby will "ruin his life" - and there's absolutely nothing he can do about it.
BUT - a woman becomes pregnant and the woman knows that having the baby will "ruin her life" - so she decides to abort it. Problem solved!!
Definitely not fair.
Maybe there should be a rule where the woman, if she chooses an abortion without the father's consent, would have to pay a certain amount of compensation to the father to pay for the "pain and suffering" he would feel over the loss of his child.
That way, since the father is going to be on the hook if the child is born, the mother would be on the hook if the child is aborted. The law would now be fair to both sides.
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I don't think it's hypocritical for two reasons:
It does seem quite hypocritical to say:
1) The father gets no say in whether the child is aborted; but
2) If the baby is born, the father must pay child support.
However, that is the law as it is now, at least in the US.
1) If you believe that this is an issue of a woman's body being her own, then the say is ultimately hers. The male cannot force her to endure a pregnancy and delivery.
2) Even if one rejects the first reason, one can make the case that the female pays many other costs that are not covered by child support payments, and since the father does not pay these costs he does not get a say.
Personally, i think that the father should only be legally responsible for half the cost of an abortion if he decides that he does not want to be a part of the kids life (if this is not credible then maybe a somewhat larger payment is warranted). He should not be held hostage by a woman who chooses to carry to term. In the same way, if we had a law that forced a woman to carry to term at the father's request then she should liable only for half the cost of an abortion minus a fee paid by the father (or some vested third party) to compensate for costs of bearing the child. Again if there are credibility issues the fees could be altered a bit.
17 Oct 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenYou believe that the woman's right to choose ends with the fertilization of the egg. I disagree. I am "for" personal responsibility, yes. I don't think anything is "fine". Having a pregnancy terminated may indeed be the 'taking personal responsibility' you are talking about. But like sh76, I can't imagine myself doing that. In my personal experience, I have talked a friend out of it and I have failed to talk a friend out of it. Both situations involved very difficult struggles, defining and weighing responsibility and reality. I cannot imagine facing that struggle because to me the choice would be clear. But I don't believe in superimposing my opinions about this onto others by way of legislation. And so I support the woman's right to choose, without hesitation. I think that personal responsibility should be just that: personal responsibility.
common sense and morality would argue for pro-life. But, you never answered my questions. Are you not for personal responsibility? or do you think it is fine for one to abort their own accident? [...] Someone makes the choice to perform an act that can easily end up in a pregancy should take some responsibility for said action. Correct? Or are you not for people taking any personal responsibility?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
17 Oct 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenSo I should have more examples? A trail of abortions, to select whichever one you wish to hold up as a bad or immoral example? No thanks.
It's the only example you have?? So unless something happens to YOU you don't recognize it as a valid example?
I'm sorry you think people with deformities are worthless and should be aborted.
The fetus that was aborted should have been. There's no sense in knowingly bringing a a fetus to term that was like that. It's not like there isn't nearly 7 billion other living people already here. I know that many would like to think of themselves as very significant, but you and me against the other 7 billion aren't significant.
You do not know what I think. Saying that I think people with deformaties are worthless is repugnant to me and a reflection of gross ignorance on your part. I am glad that I do not have persons as ignorant as you standing in the way of me making choices that concern me and not you. The choice I made still doesn't concern you - I shared a real event but it's none of your business and you have no place in the utterance of any kind of opinion. It's done, it happened many years ago, and I still think I made the right choice regardless of your shallow, decades after the fact high-and-mighty attempts at moralizing. Screw you and your judgements; you are nothing.
17 Oct 09
The starting point of "life" is both arbitrary and irrelevant in this discussion. Once you realize this, it's not so hard to become pro-choice.
With good sex education and easy access to contraceptives, many abortions can already be prevented.
Banning abortions does not appear to reduce their prevalence. (though the source of this invesigation may be untrustworthy)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8305217.stm
17 Oct 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow can it be arbitrary and irrelevant? Are you saying that it matters little when a life is snuffed out? How do you feel about infants just born being killed?
[b]The starting point of "life" is both arbitrary and irrelevant in this discussion.