*Ahem*

What do you think about this? Accept the fact that if you have sex you can get pregnant or follow the method I like to called "Stop-having-sex-if-you-can't-deal-with-the-consequences".

...
...
...
...
...

Oh... What the hell am I saying? Obviously the aforementioned is a such a new-age and profound concept that it far exceeds the scope of the normal person (At least in the US). I'm still awaiting the day I can get absolve all parental rights with the phrase "But I'm not mentally ready to have a child!". You make it, you take care of it. Males are held to this standard and so should women (Buuut... This'll probably be ignored just like pretty much everything else I bother typing out).

I'd also like to quote myself from post #314:

So regardless of the Morality you seem to be projecting, It really comes down to Money, and control?

I wonder if people would be satisfied if they did indeed outlaw abortions again and girls/women started falling over dead because of incidents with coat hangers.

Chances are (in my opinion) those calling themselves Pro-Life would go back to ignoring the inevitable results of banning abortion, and dwell smugly in the victory they have won. Its far easier to be happy about all the baby jesus' you saved, than to watch the suffering inflicted by the process.

No. No, that's not it at all. It's hard to advocate a 'choice' in which one party doesn't have it. Still, I must ask, isn't forcing a man to pay for a child he doesn't want a manner of 'control based on money'? Why, yes. I think it is. Who knew...? Isn't that the same thing you're vehemently arguing against. Really. Just how hypocritical can one person be?

In a perfect world there'd be no such incidents. Of course, the world isn't perfect and any action is going to have it's negatives. The question is whether or not the positives will outweight the negatives. Unless you believe that everyone who gets an abortion would still seek them out and not pursue other, more fetus-friendly measures then you've no logical basis to say how 'horrible' it would be. What did people do before abortion existed?

But, you know, this thread is starting to peeve me a bit. Why does the following concept seem so hard to understand (Even though we men have been told it time and time again)?

If you don't want a kid, keep your legs closed. Duh!

>_>
<_<

There. Just had to get that out one more time.

Amen to that, IL. Amen.

If a man doesn't want to pay for a child, he should realize the consequences of unprotected vaginal sex before he engages in it. I know there are other circumstances of which a child might come about by mistake, but it still stands: A man should realize the risks and consequences of his actions, especially when there are children involved. Sex is how most children come about; men shouldn't be sexually irresponsible.

More of the stock of the choice over abortion lies with the mother because she has much more invested biologically and emotionally. The man can take off at any time, which is why there are laws that force the child-support issue. This is not to say that men have nothing invested, because they do. But to give men the power to opt out of child payments if he wanted an abortion opens up many other problems. Could a mother who doesn't want a baby opt out of the responsibility, passing it off to the father because it was he who instigated the sexual relation?

It amazes me that the battle rages on with basically the same few viewpoints, just being restated over and over.

Man says it's not equal for a woman to be able to choose, but not a man.
Woman says it's her body, her choice.
Man says fine, but if you can choose to opt out without my consent, then I should be able to opt out without your consent.
Man gets called irresponsible, deadbeat bastard for wanting to level the playing field.

Gotta love it.

It takes two people to make a baby, but the woman has all the cards- and the man by the balls. I'm not saying that it's right for a man to walk away from his child just because it makes it equal, but there's nothing whatsoever "right" about a woman's right to choose while the man gets stuck with whatever that choice may be.

So let's assume we can give men the right to opt out of child support. Can we also assume that the man is solely responsible for the child if the mother doesn't want it and the father doesn't want an abortion? If a man has a right to opt out of child support, the woman should be offered such rights as well.

And the opting out is not on equal grounds. A woman's decision to carry a baby to full term is not the same as a man's decision to not support the child.

I'm glad no one here on TFP was aborted. That's the type of framework I give abortion.

To bad hitler wasn't aborted, though, huh?

Squandered potential. That happened after he was born.

Abortion is something that I expect will occur whether it's legal or not.

So from a practical point of view, I'd argue that it should be legal.

I don't give abortion that type of framework. I wish that no one would become unpregnated with a child they don't want because they have been instilled with the notion of birth prevention as part of female empowerment. This is where we are going wrong. We are not instilling the notion of female empowerment over their reproductive system.

I guess I've always wondered why people believe what they believe. I can understand this perspective.

The perspective I've always worked under was: abortions are going to happen whether they're legal or not. Keeping them legal keeps them safe. I'd rather have safe, legal abortions than unsafe, illegal abortions.

Also, the only pregnancy I should have any say over is the one I caused. I shouldn't have any say over any other woman's pregnancy, ever.

When I think about it seriously, creating a prohibition on abortion isn't the answer. As has been said by many pro choice people for a long time, it would result in people having dangerous procedures and would create an unsafe societal situation for women seeking abortion.

What should be done, though, is a much more responsible and scientific education program for all early teenage people. I'm not against responsible sexuality.

Oh goodie, then we can throw away all the laws for drugs, driving, rape, murder, child abuse and molestation...

...because after all, people are going to do it anyway, so it's just practical to legalize it.

:no: :shakehead: :rolleyes:

...except that illicit drugs, rape, murder, child abuse, and molestation aren't currently legal, nor are they up for such consideration.

that's crap analog: drugs, yes - get rid of those. driving? what the junk? rape, murder, child abuse and molestation clearly have violent victims; which is of course the real question. is a fetus a human being prior to birth. and that question we get to go round and round and round about. ad infinitum.

MJ is up for consideration. And frankly, I think most non-heavy drugs should be considered. With proper education, they wouldn't be anywhere near as harmful. As for rape, non-consensual sex play can play an important role in the sex lives of people.

I think the point does stand, though.

Anyone who equates abortion with rape or any other violent crime has crap credibility when it comes to dealing with the hard facts of a normal life.

The "logic" applied was that something should be legal because "people are going to do it anyway".

That's asinine. Asinine. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's already legal or not. It has to do with that line of "logic" being mind-numbingly ludicrous.

Yes, there are laws that regulate the use of a motor vehicle. Lots of them, in fact. I guess you don't drive.

And if a person was pro-life, I'm sure they'd argue that it would be a victim of a violent act.

I didn't. See my comment to baraka.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it would be, what if Roe vs. Wade was about killing a child, and now killing anyone under 3-4 years old, not old enough to communicate, was the cutoff? In the reality and society we live in now, that would be tantamount to infanticide; murder. But in this other reality, which is entirely possible, it would be a simple, legal, and mostly acceptable practice.

Now look at this from the perspective of one who views abortion as murder. It's really no different than the above.

will, now imagine that roe vs. wade was about making a child of 3 or 4 kill another child of 3 or 4 to control the population. now imagine it was about feeding old people to hungry lions. now imagine that it was about me fucking every single female member of the tfp.

its not - it's about whether abortion, prior to birth, is illegal by way of being murder or improper termination, or whether it is a surgical procedure that a woman can choose to have. it's not about killing 3 year olds.

analog: i pointed out driving because in the list you gave, it would seem to be saying that driving itself was illegal, not only that driving is governed by laws. your second point was precisely my point: this all boils down to whether or not you consider the fetus a living human being and thus capable of having violence perpetrated on it; or if it is a part of the mother's body and thus at her discretion whether to keep it. no one gets pissed off when i trim my toenails.

Then I would suggest commenting on this rather than coming up with your own asinine response. The issue is abortion, not that laundry list of items you came back with.

You missed my point in that to me (and a multitude of others), it's the same thing as killing a 3 year old. If you can't understand the other side of an argument or discussion, then you don't have your own side.

will: i do understand that. my point was that your list seemed a little bit hyperbolic...understandably for the sake of argument, but still. i think reasonable minds can disagree over whether there is sufficient proof that a fetus represents an independent human life prior to birth. i don't think there is much dissension about a 3 or 4 year old.

i don't think we will ever gain scientific 'certainty' about that point: you can show little hands and feet and all kinds of junk, and without having a 'soulometer' (and agreeing what a soul means, and blah blah blah) there's no way to show independent human life versus the development of a vessel to receive a soul at birth...this argument largely takes on a non-scientific aspect.

i think it becomes a question of whether you are more afraid of the possibility of murdering a fetus/potential person, or altering / potentially ruining the life of a definitely alive person.

the rest of the science here is just mumbo-jumbo, because it's not definitive. we don't even have standards by which to judge definitive in the case, so its more like a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at each other at the zoo.

The point that I've been trying to make is that the responsibility of the 'life ruining' would lie solely with the man and woman who were irresponsible. Just like it's not the jury who ruins the life of a murdered who is convicted, the society that fights against abortion isn't ruining the life of the unexpected mother.

And btw, I don't think a man should be let off the hook either. It takes two to tango, and any man who leaves his responsibility should be treated the same as a father who abandons his kid.

I think it should be legal for parents to 'abort' there 'biological by-product' at anytime up to the age of reason (i.e. 18). That would certainly give the family unit much more control over itself and eliminate the government intrusion.

Kryptoni, what about accountability? What about the responsibility that comes with reproduction? Obviously some people (my own people: liberals) need intrusion so they won't murder fetuses. No one complains when police bring in someone who's murdered people who've been born.

No one has ever answered my question posed to pro-choicers: Why do you believe the time of birth separates life from not life? And please don't answer the question with "well why do you think it starts at conception?!", because it's rude to answer a question with a question.

willravel - I actually agree with your stand. I was pointing out the absurdity of abortion. That it is acceptable to murder your children because they are not able to live outside a womans uterus yet.

Therefore, if it is acceptable to murder unborn children, why not born? What's the difference. They are still reliant on me as a parent for life (i.e. food, shelter, etc). They are still just a lump of screaming flesh for the first year at least anyway. Then they never make rational decisions until well after 18. Sounds like me as a parent should be able to have the 'freedom' to decide if this 'biological by-product' is not living up to the standards I set and thus wish to 'abort' them.

And for all those "What about incest, rape, deformations, etc". Think on this. Rape and incest are physical attacks that leave emotional scars. Why add murder on top of that? How is that fetus responsible for how their 'father's' genetic material was obtained? If the emotional scar is too much to bear, adoption has alway been an option. There is also about 50+ kinds of birth control methods available.

Responsibility and Morality does matter. Freedom of choice is not the trump card unless you believe in anarchy.

I guess that just shows how bad things are that I took your satire seriously.

i generally do not bother with debates about this topic. my general attitude is that if you oppose abortion dont have one, but that your opposition onoy has power insofar as it affects yourself--so opposition to abortion and arguments concerning its legality have nothing to do with each other--because you can oppose is and exercise your opposition by not having one and that says nothingabout whether the procedure should be legal and safe.

that because there are NO grounds for opposition that are universal.

so nothing about anyone's opposition on ethical or religious grounds can go beyond the limits of the belief community that gives that opposition its orientation--

and because it makes no sense to assume that the fact that abortion is legal means that the overwhelming majority of people who avail themselves of it do not consider what they are doing and why quite seriously--

there is no argument that follows from religious or "moral" opposition to the procedure that translates into an argument for it being illegal.

so if you oppose abortion, dont have one seems the only reasonable position on this.


the reason why so many christian belief communities get their collective panties in a twist about this issue is because their conception of life involves this curious abstraction called "the soul" which is like an essence of a table except unlike the set of predicates that differentiate a table from non-tables, the "soul" is ineffable. you cant define it. you either find the term compelling or you dont. it is arbitrary outside the confines of the belief communities that animate it. this "soul" thing is apparently transferred across the medium of a divine blowgun at the moment of conception--but maybe it always existed, conception always happened and maybe most christians are secretly platonists that way, such that actual choices made by human beings arent choices at all--this position makes some sense of the catholic church's linkage of opposition to abortion to opposition to birth control--well that and two ultra-reactionary popes in succession.

taking this "soul" construct as the point of departure, it follows that there would be no meaningful distinctions across the various phases of fetal development, merely an unfolding of attributes of the soul-container, the jar containing the peanut butter, etc.

it's funny to read debates about problems of determining the point at which viability begins outside the uterus carried on by folk whose politics presupposes a notion of the soul. so the critique would be of a lack of precision based on a category that admits of no precision, not even a coherent definition that does not--in a perfectly circular manner--presuppose prior belief in it. at this point, the argument repeats that of the first paragraph.

but from this imputing of a notion of the soul follows the entire discourse of abortion as "murder"--but it makes no sense outside that framework and it is pretty apparent that this is the case, so it seems to me that repeatedly referring to abortion as murder as if the case was decided on the basis of an entirely arbitrary "essence" which a religious tradition articulated 2000 years ago used to explain how animation is possible, what it is etc. is little more than trolling.
its not like you can possibly win a debate with others who do not share your belief system using it.
you wont influence them.
you'll just piss them off.

In my opinion the difference between a baby and developing fetus is the ability to function in even a mimimal way as what I define as human. I am of the opinion that the human brain is the one defining aspect of our biology that truly makes us what we are. Thus until the minimum connectivity and development of the internal structure of this organ is in place, it is indeed a grouping of cellular material as of yet incapable of the thought needed to be a human entity. The eventual creation of this ability does not come into play until it is not longer....eventual.
Once these connections are made, this "screaming flesh" as you so eloquently put it, has the hardware in place to be a sentient being, and in my opinion changes status dramatically. Fortunately, it is well understood that the vast majority of abortions take place long before there is even the slightest chance thought could take place. So...I personally have no major issues with the proceedure.

Well, for some women, one of those consequences includes the choice of an abortion.

It's a choice I don't want to have to make for myself, and so I protect myself appropriately.

RB has it: If you don't like abortions, don't have one. If you're male, wear a damn condom. Or better yet, get a vasectomy and quit putting the burden of protection on the female.

I fully support a woman's right to choose, and it saddens me to see our reproductive freedoms in this country being chipped away right and left. The average American has no idea what a hard-fought battle it was to get emergency contraception over the counter, given the current political climate and those in charge of the FDA. We're fighting back, despite our losses, and we're trying to make gains. Congress recently voted to undo the Global Gag Rule--their vote probably won't succeed, given that Bush is likely to veto the bill it's included in, but they're trying.

Do we really want to go back to a time of coathanger and back alley abortions? I think not. Women will always have abortions--they have been having abortions since the beginning of time. It's better that we guarantee their ability to safely have an abortion without risk of infection or death than force them to seek out illegal abortions. The best option, of course, is to educate people about family planning and freely distribute family planning methods in order to prevent women from being forced to make a choice--but that is becoming harder and harder to do in a country that promotes abstinence-only education and where people think that emergency contraception is equivalent to RU-486.

Thank you for validating the point I've been making all along. If a woman gets pregnant then it's the man's fault for being irresponsible. If a woman doesn't want to be a parent she can have an abortion that's her 'right'. If a man doesn't want to be a parent then he's a deadbeat who should have used protection.

Errr... What? How does that work? This is why I completely hate pro-abortion arguments. They're just so damn hypocritical and don't even try to hide it. When it comes to (Potential) parenthood, men are held at MUCH higher standards then women are, and it's no where near that 'gender equality' nonsense that pro-abortionists love to spew.

For once-- If only once-- I'd love to see a court deny a woman an abortion using the statement "If you didn't want a child you should have gotten your tubes tied!". But, oh, that wouldn't fly well with you pro-abortionists, would it?

*Snip*

I REALLY hate such comments as this. Reproductive freedom...? What's that...? You mean that thing which 'apparently' exists but men have none of? Yeah... Well, you can talk about 'reproductive freedoms' the day "My semen, my choice!" gets me absolved from any parental duties :)

Reproductive freedom is perhaps the only freedom that we haven't regulated the hell out of... and god, that seems so backwards.

I don't believe in the soul, but I do understand that not only does human life have worth, but to take that life is murder. So I suppose I fit into the moral/ethical side of the equation, but not the religious/spiritual side. I wonder if that makes me unique in the "pro-life" crowd.

Anyway, when I ask myself if abortion should be allowed I have to consider what it means to be alive. I consulted philosophers and found them all to be windbags, so I decided it should be simple: a human being is alive if they are in a state where they can metabolize, reproduce, grow, and respond to stimuli. Since babies can't reproduce, that suggests that if at any point in the life cycle of an organism it can reproduce, it's alive. A fetus can metabolize, grow, and respond to stimuli, therefore it's alive in a broad scientific sense. It has exactly nothing to do with biblical notions or political whatever, it's simple reason based on established definitions.

"...and they taste like chicken." Science is not necessarily at the heart of this debate.

The human life, however, is a currency in which innate value fluctuates wildly... in each mind, in each society, and in actual practice.

Survey question read: "Is it illogical to be pro-life and support the death penalty at the same time?"