The Abortion (that is this) Thread

[no country for old wainds]

I wish someone would reply to my post.

i read it

 

[RedStorm]

wrong, you fools

 

[Einherjar86]

I wish someone would reply to my post.

I'm not really feeling intellectually energetic enough to argue properly right now, but here is a summary of my views:

Liberals espouse intellectually dishonest arguments for measured benevolent reasons, they want to make it an easier decision for troubled women to make.

Would you prefer honest arguments for measured malevolent reasons?

It's very telling that said liberals have recently resorted to saying that even babies outside of the womb are not full persons and a less important life than older humans. I think the reason for this is actually a kind of pre-emptive. It's pretty clear that late term abortions and viable premature births coincide. The point is, without this new change in liberal thinking, they would have been left with a totally arbitrary point of birth definition of a babies personhood.

As far as I'm concerned, it isn't arbitrary; it correlates to the parasitic relationship between a fetus and a woman.

The whole debate is full of very scientific thinking people who are somewhat annoyed and offended by the idea of their being such a thing as a potential person and of that potential person having some kind of rights, but I would say that despite the obvious hole in the potential person idea, that being masturbation and condoms slaughtering potential people by the billion, it is in fitting with other accepted ideas. Few, I imagine who think purely in terms of the immediate loss of life if they were considering the destruction of Earth. Thinking about our progeny is totally rational. It's a bit of a mindfuck but that's how it is.

Why is the loss of sperm or eggs fundamentally different from the loss of fetuses? well, I suppose you could say, because there is zero chance of a sperm cell on its own becoming a human being. It's difficult.

I don't follow this. The argument doesn't have to do with the value of life in a fetus - that's what some conservatives turn it into. It's about the agency of a woman's body.

Anyway, even though I don't like the pro-abortion arguments I agree with abortion because I think it's inevitable and if it were outlawed it would just put women at risk in the hands of back street "doctors". It is interesting how the whole pro abortion argument has developed though. It began with white supremacists and seems to have culminated in liberal intellectuals returning to accepting a kind of graduated level of importance of human life depending on the capabilities of the human.

Again, I do not follow this. This whole "value of human life" thing needs to be reevaluated; while I don't think it plays no role, it isn't the linchpin of the abortion argument (on the liberal side, at least).

Also, the way that it seems to be totally universally accepted that the father has no say in the matter is pretty shitty imo. It would perhaps produce a better society if they did, because it would mean every child had a father who truly wanted them.

The father should have a say. But I don't think the man's say outweighs the woman's.

And here I'll defy the myth of anti-scientific liberals and say that biology comes to the woman's defense. She's the one bearing the child, so she has the most sway in the decision. I'll reaffirm my comment here that no truly intellectual feminist rejects biology or scientific knowledge in favor of progressive empowerment.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

How is a red blood cell not alive?

I don't care enough about this issue to debate it, but many respected biologists and biological textbooks would not define a red blood cell as life. I don't have a firm position on the issue either way.

You earlier made a comparison between the killing of a "parasitic" (not your word) fetus to murder of a parasitic adult human. To justify the comparison, you used the argument that both things are living beings. I don't dispute the living part. What, in your definition of the word, would make a human a being and not a bacterial cell? Or are you now arguing that using Lysol is "murder"?

Technically, yes it's murder. The obvious conclusion is that all murder is not equal.

 

[Draehl]

From the male perspective I'm just going to say there can't be BOTH no say on the matter AND forced financial responsibility. Either/or is perfectly acceptable and logical. With the current setup its effectively saying "your opinion doesn't matter, but you have to financially back it" Whether the woman skipped bc on purpose to get pregnant, gets an abortion to spite the man, wants the baby but doesn't want the man/marriage, or anything in between. The man is fucked and is told by society to eat shit, his opinions and views mean nothing, yet he still is financially liable.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Technically, yes it's murder. The obvious conclusion is that all murder is not equal.

OK, so make up for your lack of a worthwhile argument by defining murder as something meaningless. Unless you can explain the societal dependence on what constitutes valid vs invalid murder you implied in your first post.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

OK, so make up for your lack of a worthwhile argument by defining murder as something meaningless. Unless you can explain the societal dependence on what constitutes valid vs invalid murder you implied in your first post.

A murder is wrong if it causes pain and suffering and/or terminates the self-conscious existence of another being for any reason other than the self-preservation of the murderer. Fetuses cannot experience pain (their nervous system is not sufficiently developed) and do not have self-consciousness. Therefore, there is nothing immoral about killing a fetus.

P.S. How do you define murder? Considering that you are so critical of mine, I'm sure you have an bulletproof definition of the word.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

From the male perspective I'm just going to say there can't be BOTH no say on the matter AND forced financial responsibility. Either/or is perfectly acceptable and logical. With the current setup its effectively saying "your opinion doesn't matter, but you have to financially back it" Whether the woman skipped bc on purpose to get pregnant, gets an abortion to spite the man, wants the baby but doesn't want the man/marriage, or anything in between. The man is fucked and is told by society to eat shit, his opinions and views mean nothing, yet he still is financially liable.

Its simple. Both the man and the woman are equally responsible for their actions. Only the woman is responsible for what happens to her body.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

A murder is wrong if it causes pain and suffering and/or terminates the self-conscious existence of another being for any reason other than the self-preservation of the murderer. Fetuses cannot experience pain (their nervous system is not sufficiently developed) and do not have self-consciousness. Therefore, there is nothing immoral about killing a fetus.

P.S. How do you define murder? Considering that you are so critical of mine, I'm sure you have an bulletproof definition of the word.

I would define murder as intentional criminal homicide, but whatevs, if you like to use it synonymously with "kill", go for it sport. I'm almost certain that a fetus can feel pain; not in early development, but surely by the third trimester. Of course, that's only 1% or so of abortions, but considering the total number of abortions per year, that's still a lot of wrong murder. Your definition also seems to declare all hunting of mammals to be wrong.

Its simple. Both the man and the woman are equally responsible for their actions. Only the woman is responsible for what happens to her body.

But a fetus developing into an autonomous human being is something that happens entirely within her body. The man's only action was to impregnate her. Her action was to give childbirth.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I would define murder as intentional criminal homicide, but whatevs, if you like to use it synonymously with "kill", go for it sport. I'm almost certain that a fetus can feel pain; not in early development, but surely by the third trimester. Of course, that's only 1% or so of abortions, but considering the total number of abortions per year, that's still a lot of wrong murder. Your definition also seems to declare all hunting of mammals to be wrong.

Fetuses aren't capable of feeling pain until the third trimester and I do consider 3rd trimester abortions to be far more complex issues than first and second trimester abortions.

And yes, I do consider killing of nonhuman animals to be immoral.

But a fetus developing into an autonomous human being is something that happens entirely within her body. The man's only action was to impregnate her. Her action was to give childbirth.

That doesn't make the man any less responsible. That said, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. That it's the woman's choice (I agree) or both partner's choice?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So you're a vegan then? I think our overall view on abortion isn't too different actually tbh.

How can a man be responsible for something he has no control over (a woman's decision to carry to term)? She alone has the choice to have an abortion or not. He should have shared responsibility if she chooses to terminate the fetus (e.g. abortions aren't always free), and if he agrees with her decision not to abort he should be on the hook for raising/paying for the child. Otherwise, it's entirely the woman's responsibility.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

So you're a vegan then? I think our overall view on abortion isn't too different actually tbh.

Vegetarian.

How can a man be responsible for something he has no control over (a woman's decision to carry to term)? She alone has the choice to have an abortion or not. He should have shared responsibility if she chooses to terminate the fetus (e.g. abortions aren't always free), and if he agrees with her decision not to abort he should be on the hook for raising/paying for the child. Otherwise, it's entirely the woman's responsibility.

You're acting like it's unusual in life for responsibilities to be contingent on the decisions of others. That happens all the time and a man's responsibility towards the fetus (aborted or brought to term) is just one example.

If you choose to speed, a cop may or may not catch you. If they do catch you, they might give you a warning or they might give you a ticket. Either way, you are responsible.

If you get in a fight and punch your neighbor, you may get sued. It's up to the neighbor. Either way, you are responsible.

If you have sex with a woman, she might get pregnant. If she gets pregnant, she may choose to get an abortion. She may also choose keep the baby. Either way, you are responsible.

 

[0Marty]

If you have sex with a woman, she might get pregnant. If she gets pregnant, she may choose to get an abortion. She may also choose keep the baby. Either way, you are responsible.

Woman may lie to you about taking a pill. Happened to a friend. Is he responsible when he was lied to?

 

[rms]

It's amazing that two people can consent to having sex but it's insane for two people to consent to either abortion or having a child.

 

[Dak]

Those sex robots are looking less expensive by the day eh? Once you price in "contingencies" and they overcome uncanny valley they are going to be a steal.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Woman may lie to you about taking a pill. Happened to a friend. Is he responsible when he was lied to?

If she purposely lied to you? Then I would say the man has the right to take leave of responsibility. However, from a legal perspective, it's his word against hers, and considering that she's already lied once, he's probably screwed.

On the other hand, if she forgot to take the pill or there was some other element of human error involved, both partners are responsible. We all know birth control isn't fool proof.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You're acting like it's unusual in life for responsibilities to be contingent on the decisions of others. That happens all the time and a man's responsibility towards the fetus (aborted or brought to term) is just one example.

If you choose to speed, a cop may or may not catch you. If they do catch you, they might give you a warning or they might give you a ticket. Either way, you are responsible.

If you get in a fight and punch your neighbor, you may get sued. It's up to the neighbor. Either way, you are responsible.

If you have sex with a woman, she might get pregnant. If she gets pregnant, she may choose to get an abortion. She may also choose keep the baby. Either way, you are responsible.

Those aren't good analogies. A person driving a properly-working car is in full control of whether or not they're exceeding the speed limit. They own that car. A non-inebriated person assaulting their neighbor is under full control of their fist. They own their fist. A guy that consensually impregnates a woman had only half-control in the impregnation step, and has no control over the future of her zygote->fetus->baby. He does not own her womb.

 

[Omni]

The guy should have worn a condom. Deciding not to do that doesn't give him the right to force the woman to surrender her bodily autonomy to the whims of someone else.

Even if you believe that a man should be less accountable, he should clearly have less say in whether or not a woman should have to carry the child as he will be less impacted by her doing so.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Those aren't good analogies. A person driving a properly-working car is in full control of whether or not they're exceeding the speed limit. They own that car. A non-inebriated person assaulting their neighbor is under full control of their fist. They own their fist. A guy that consensually impregnates a woman had only half-control in the impregnation step, and has no control over the future of her zygote->fetus->baby. He does not own her womb.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I'm saying he has a responsiblity to pay for 1/2 of the abortion or the baby's expenses (if she chooses to have the baby). He has no say over the woman's womb and what she chooses to do with it.

 

[CF87]

If she purposely lied to you? Then I would say the man has the right to take leave of responsibility. However, from a legal perspective, it's his word against hers, and considering that she's already lied once, he's probably screwed.

On the other hand, if she forgot to take the pill or there was some other element of human error involved, both partners are responsible. We all know birth control isn't fool proof.

Regardless if the chick was on a pill, dude should have worn a condom if he does not want to have kids. A chick on the pill can still get pregnant and have diseases.