Why I'm becoming more pro-choice

Originally posted by whodey
How 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?

I think it's bad to kill infants. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they are "alive" - I think it's bad because they are conscious human beings capable of suffering, and on a more fundamental level I am a utilitarian who believes suffering of humans should be avoided.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think it's bad to kill infants. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they are "alive" - I think it's bad because they are conscious human beings capable of suffering, and on a more fundamental level I am a utilitarian who believes suffering of humans should be avoided.

WHat if you able to snuff them out without them suffering? Is this acceptable? As Pink Floyd might say, what if we make them, "comfortably numb"?

Originally posted by telerion
I don't think it's hypocritical for two reasons:
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.

Those reasons do not even begin to answer the question. If the potential birth of a child is going to cost me lots of money and potentially 'ruin my life' then surely I should have as much chance to 'opt out' as the mother does. 9 months is truly insignificant when it comes to the full cost of raising a child.
I fully agree that it may be wrong for a man to force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term, but it is equally wrong for the woman to force the man to become a parent and thus be responsible for the rest of his life.
Even if your 2. is correct in that the woman is usually saddled with higher costs over all, it does not warrant her being the sole decider.
One possible solution would be if the woman wishes to have the child and the man does not, then he should be absolved of all responsibility beyond that point. Should he wish to have any parental rights however he should then be forced to pay the child support etc.

Originally posted by kmax87
My wife is a registered nurse. She assures me that the pills that cause no ovulation to take place are also the same that allow women to stop menstruating altogether.......................But I could be wrong.

Not could be, definitely am afraid. When I talked to the good woman about what I had been arguing, she quietly handed me her physiology textbooks and graciously directed me to the chapters on the female menstrual/reproductive cycle. As I say she is not only a good woman but also wise in the ways of not trying to argue against my conspiracy fuelled misconceptions on any given topic, preferring to let me quietly arrive at the truth by letting the scientific evidence speak for itself. The deafening roar of thunder Whodey, must have been the sound rushing between my ears, though heaven knows how that is possible in the presence of a vacuum. I do apologise.


Oral contraception mimics the relative release of oestrogen(OE) and progesterone(P) that occurs naturally in the body during the menstrual cycle. Researchers found that during pregnancy, levels of the two hormones were relatively higher than normal. More so, its really the observation that during pregnancy ovulation ceases and that certain levels of OE and P coincided with that fact. Those same levels of OE and P lowered the release of FSH(follicle stimulating hormone) and LH (luteinising hormone), the hormones responsible for getting the follicles to develop ova which after ovulation provide the potential for a fertilisation event to occur(should some swimmers be active in the nearby vacinity).

Its obviously a lot more involved than that with many positive and negative feedback loops in operation, but essentially by raising the threshold of OE and P early in the cycle there is no possibility for ova to be 'hatched'. The last 7 pills are placebos which allow the levels of OE+P to drop so that the endometrium collapses to be sloughed off so that menstruation occurs.

While OE does contribute to a thickening of mucous in the uterus which does tend to plug up the uterine tubes which inhibit the travel of sperm, this is not the primary mechanism by which pregnancy is avoided. The non stimulation of follicles with the cessation of ovulation is the primary mechanism of the pills effectiveness as a contraceptive.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Those reasons do not even begin to answer the question. If the potential birth of a child is going to cost me lots of money and potentially 'ruin my life' then surely I should have as much chance to 'opt out' as the mother does. 9 months is truly insignificant when it comes to the full cost of raising a child.
I fully agree that it may be wrong for a man ...[text shortened]... h to have any parental rights however he should then be forced to pay the child support etc.

I think you have become confused between the positions that I argued were consistent and my own personal position.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Those reasons do not even begin to answer the question. If the potential birth of a child is going to cost me lots of money and potentially 'ruin my life' then surely I should have as much chance to 'opt out' as the mother does. 9 months is truly insignificant when it comes to the full cost of raising a child.
I fully agree that it may be wrong for a man ...[text shortened]... h to have any parental rights however he should then be forced to pay the child support etc.

I'm having a hard time seeing how your objections address what I wrote. I gave both parties a chance to 'opt out.' If you don't at least make the father responsible for half the cost of an abortion, then you are back to saddling the problem on the woman.

I think that you are in severe denial if you do not think that carrying an unplanned pregnancy does not impose costs to the woman. I won't repeat the examples I gave, but I think that they are all very reasonable.

Originally posted by whodey
WHat if you able to snuff them out without them suffering? Is this acceptable? As Pink Floyd might say, what if we make them, "comfortably numb"?

You're taking "suffering" too literally here. Take some time and read a bit about utilitarianism.

Originally posted by telerion
I'm having a hard time seeing how your objections address what I wrote. I gave both parties a chance to 'opt out.' If you don't at least make the father responsible for half the cost of an abortion, then you are back to saddling the problem on the woman.

I think that you are in severe denial if you do not think that carrying an unplanned pregnancy do ...[text shortened]... woman. I won't repeat the examples I gave, but I think that they are all very reasonable.

The state should fund all abortions. This is not a decision money should decide.

Originally posted by telerion
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).

If a financial penalty existed for males to be responsible for some of the financial burden in either the bringing to term of a preganancy or the costs of termination, it may not decrease promiscuity at all. If it compels them to think twice and wear a hat it may in fact have the opposite effect and cause them to be more promiscuous. I think is the great conundrum facing the moralists in America. Which is worse. High rates of teenage/unwanted pregnancy or high rates of promiscuity. Will access to clear unambiguous sex ed and accessibility to condoms and the pill, lower pregnancy and increase promiscuity, or will it by encouraging the young to experiment 'safely' actually increase the rates of sexual activity, and then just through laziness or forgetfulness do the opposite and not only increase promiscuity but pregnancy rates also?

Originally posted by kmax87
If a financial penalty existed for males to be responsible for some of the financial burden in either the bringing to term of a preganancy or the costs of termination, it may not decrease promiscuity at all. If it compels them to think twice and wear a hat it may in fact have the opposite effect and cause them to be more promiscuous. I think is the great conu s or forgetfulness do the opposite and not only increase promiscuity but pregnancy rates also?

I think I am juggling too many arguments at once.

There are several views which I've tried to make consistent though I subscribe to neither.

Then there is my personal view. I'm just very confused as to which hat I'm wearing in response to individual posts.

So I'm going to remove all hats except the one that it is my own. That is, I'm only going to defend my personal position. I'll let people beat on the others even if I think they are misguided in doing so.

Originally posted by telerion
So I'm going to remove all hats except the one that it is my own. That is, I'm only going to defend my personal position. ....................

Now I'm confused. Have you already canvassed an opinion to the conundrum I posed?

Originally posted by kmax87
Now I'm confused. Have you already canvassed an opinion to the conundrum I posed?

I'm so confused that I'm not sure if I was supposed to.

Even if I tried, it's not clear to me which position I am defending or if it is some combination of opinions (which I would not defend anyway).

Originally posted by telerion
I'm so confused that I'm not sure if I was supposed to.

Even if I tried, it's not clear to me which position I am defending or if it is some combination of opinions (which I would not defend anyway).

🙂😀😉😉🙂😀😉😉😉😉😀😀🙂😉😛😀🙂

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]or because some girl was stupid and didn't use her head?

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.[/b]

ok fair enough, but still, is abortion the only solution?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The state should fund all abortions. This is not a decision money should decide.

the state shouldn't fund abortions, it should provide people with education and contraception.

why should the state fund abortions? it is not their fault that there are stupid and/or unlucky people out there, this would be a waste of public money.