Is elective abortion a woman taking or avoiding responsibility?

[sandorski]

Fetus != person, we've been over this.

As Cerpin likes to say, children are born. Birth is the standard, the point at which everything changes and one person divides into two separate, autonomous people. Why is this a hard concept to accept? Did you and your wife announce and name your kids when she was in the 1st trimester? What comes before a birth certificate? I imagine you'd want these fetuses to have social security numbers right? How exactly would the state confirm and accommodate this kind of view, where "the citizen hatches before the citizen egg?"

Doesn't fit in with their Dogmatic Misinterpretation of Ancient writings.

 

[abj13]

In the parameters you have set, there is no good reason to kill a healthy unborn child.

Everyone is still waiting for you to be protesting the definitive treatment for ectopic pregnancies.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes there is. This is one right here:

If this child were born right now he or she'd look something like this:

This doesn't refute anything I've said. Your educators failed you gravely.

 

[Cozarkian]

If you cannot afford (either time or money) to care for a child, it would be an immoral act to have the child.

What about the other end of the scale? A married billionaire woman with plenty of free time who believes her and her spouse would make excellent parents has daily sec with her husband. Her only form of birth control is to ask her husband to pull out on 3-5 days in each menstrual cycle when she thinks she is ovulating. Upon discovering she is pregnant, she decides to have an abortion for the sole reason that she doesn't want stretch marks.

Is the above legal decision to abort immoral? Does the answer change if they were trying to get pregnant but the woman changes her mind after?

What if the reason for abortion is she feels like the child is a girl and wanted a boy, but doesn't want to bother with an ultrasound to find out?

 

[Paratus]

You would like to see women surrender their rights against their will? Then fuck you too.


Then he should take care to impregnate a woman that will take his feelings into consideration when exercising her rights.


Is the child in his body?


We can say anything we want. Her right to bodily integrity and bodily sovereignty is equal to yours and mine. I don't speak for you, but I am not ok with anyone being forced to relinquish those rights against their will.

It's amazing how many folks here don't understand that.

 

[Darwin333]

It's not about whether it's lawful as that's well established. This is simply a poll about people's opinions. I venture to say even those saying 'it's none of my business' still have a personal opinion about it even if they don't think it should influence a woman's decision one way or another; I find it implausible that someone could look at someone else making a possibly very difficult decision and being 100% ambivalent about it.

And that very difficult decision has thousands upon thousands of potential factors that may or may not weigh in on a case by case basis. You can't ask people to make some blanket statement such as "this very difficult decision is responsible or not" when there are so many potential variables in the individual cases.

 

[Darwin333]

We can say anything we want. Her right to bodily integrity and bodily sovereignty is equal to yours and mine. I don't speak for you, but I am not ok with anyone being forced to relinquish those rights against their will.

I wouldn't go that far. If she, who has the sole decision, decides to keep your child the court will force you to use your body to perform some type of labor in order to pay child support. If you do not give up a part of your "bodily integrity and bodily sovereignty" the state will take away your rights and put you in jail.

Granted I don't know the answer for the above as fathers should obviously support their children but to say the above isn't true is disingenuous.

 

[Paratus]

I wouldn't go that far. If she, who has the sole decision, decides to keep your child the court will force you to use your body to perform some type of labor in order to pay child support. If you do not give up a part of your "bodily integrity and bodily sovereignty" the state will take away your rights and put you in jail.

Granted I don't know the answer for the above as fathers should obviously support their children but to say the above isn't true is disingenuous.

If she doesn't provide some sort of labor or child support she to will lose her rights. Everyone has the same rights under the law.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I wouldn't go that far. If she, who has the sole decision, decides to keep your child the court will force you to use your body to perform some type of labor in order to pay child support. If you do not give up a part of your "bodily integrity and bodily sovereignty" the state will take away your rights and put you in jail.

Granted I don't know the answer for the above as fathers should obviously support their children but to say the above isn't true is disingenuous.

That's just it, there are rational people who understand that the father should DEFINITELY have some type of say in the outcome. Is he emporer to rule over the land and dictate she must possess the child? Of course not, it simply means that you cannot (and should not) EVER dismiss the father's side of the argument.

And then there are irrational people that think simply because the kid is in Box A instead of Box B, that whatever box the baby is in dictates the life of another human, with no reasoning or say from the person that initiated the pregnancy, and whose genetics will be 50% reflected in the resulting child.

And to say that you should have picked a different woman -- Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic and disgusting. Shit happens in life (believe it or not). Not every child is intended. So the concept of "Well, you shouldn't have impregnated her" is downright stupid.

Under the stupid people logic that a certain person in here has been advocating:
-Only men can get a women pregnant. A woman cannot get herself pregnant from a man. It's NEVER her fault if she accidentally gets pregnant, but it's ALWAYS her decision on what to do. Double standards 101. I guess that's equal rights for ya.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I wouldn't go that far. If she, who has the sole decision, decides to keep your child the court will force you to use your body to perform some type of labor in order to pay child support. If you do not give up a part of your "bodily integrity and bodily sovereignty" the state will take away your rights and put you in jail.

Garnished wages are not the same thing as forced labor nor corporeal punishment. The latter two represent violations of bodily integrity and sovereignty. The first does not.

Granted I don't know the answer for the above as fathers should obviously support their children but to say the above isn't true is disingenuous.

It isn't disingenuous. It's just informed and nuanced.

 

[jackstar7]

To think that men have to care where they shove their penises... clearly the world is upside-down.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's just it, there are rational people who understand that the father should DEFINITELY have some type of say in the outcome. Is he emporer to rule over the land and dictate she must possess the child? Of course not, it simply means that you cannot (and should not) EVER dismiss the father's side of the argument.

We can, we should, and we will dismiss "his side of the argument" until he can replace her body with his in the gestation of the fetus.

And then there are irrational people that think simply because the kid is in Box A instead of Box B, that whatever box the baby is in dictates the life of another human, with no reasoning or say from the person that initiated the pregnancy, and whose genetics will be 50% reflected in the resulting child.

But it isn't a box. It's a person, you miserable fuck. The crux of your misunderstanding is that you clearly do not view a woman as a human being. No woman gets to tell you must or must not amputate the tiny little raisins you call your testicles. Why would you think you can make a woman into an involuntary incubator?

And to say that you should have picked a different woman -- Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic and disgusting.

And fuck you too, shit heap.

Shit happens in life (believe it or not). Not every child is intended. So the concept of "Well, you shouldn't have impregnated her" is downright stupid.

That isn't what I said, so perhaps you need some remedial training in reading comprehension, shit for brains.

Under the stupid people logic that a certain person in here has been advocating:
-Only men can get a women pregnant.

Not true. See: artificial insemination.

A woman cannot get herself pregnant from a man.

See above.

It's NEVER her fault if she accidentally gets pregnant, but it's ALWAYS her decision on what to do. Double standards 101.

That isn't a double standard, you moron. If I accidentally cut my finger off I don't need my wife's permission to sew it back on, because it's my finger and I'm a real person.

When you understand the reasons why you cannot force a woman to get pregnant, you will understand the reasons you cannot force her to remain pregnant, so just shut the fuck up already.

 

[kage69]

Doesn't fit in with their Dogmatic Misinterpretation of Ancient writings.

...or their love of the political capital derived from maintaining a wedge issue.


They're so bizarre. Lost their collective shit when a company like Hobby Lobby plays victim when having to get with the times over something as mundane as birth control. Providing modern health care for female employees? WTF! Hell no!

Yeah they'll invest in companies that produce The Pill, but their outraged sensitivities only engage when someone else connected to their business would like to actually utilize them.

These people are just fine with legislation that effectively strips women of reproductive autonomy and choice, and somehow don't think that hurdles like the mother being required to have a transvag ultrasound amount to any kind of serious imposition on the part of the authorities.

They want people to think it's about saving children, when it's really their own warped worldview their struggling for. If it was about life we wouldn't see such approval of military action and the collateral it will always produce. We wouldn't see such political apathy regarding post natal support for children and mothers, or outright hostility towards sex ed and birth control which is shown to reduce unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.

Self-centered pussies, the lot of them.

 

[Cozarkian]

There is no such thing as an "unborn child" just like there is no such thing as an "undead corpse."

You're a liar, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Is it your position that a woman should be allowed to get an abortion on the day before her due date?

What about after labor has started but before delivery is complete?

 

[ivwshane]

Is it your position that a woman should be allowed to get an abortion on the day before her due date?

What about after labor has started but before delivery is complete?

If her life is in danger, absolutely. Of course it wouldn't be called an abortion because at that point the child would be viable and fully formed, it would be called induced labor or a c-section.

But I'm sure you knew that, you really seem to have a real grasp on this subject. /eyeroll+sarcasm

 

[shortylickens]

its damage control.

You made a mistake, rather than having it ruin your life, you decide to deal with it early.
Its ugly, but the world is an ugly place. People who dont know that need to get out and see the world.

I suspect if anti-abortion crowd saw mass-murder and starvation outside the U.S., they might not be so quick to attack a scared woman here at home.

 

[Subyman]

I think it is a very complicated issue and there is no one "motive." Having the choice to do what you want with your body is important for women to have.

 

[DrDoug]

If a man can be forced to pay support for a child that is not his, he absolutely should have a say under the circumstances you described.

How about if a man didn't want to have a child then maybe he could elect to not have sex with the woman in the first place? If you don't want her to be able to choose to have an abortion then don't have sex with her! Once you have had sex with her and leave your 'gift' with her, it's hers. You don't get to have stakeholder claims on her uterus if she gets pregnant. If you both are in love with each other and decide to keep the child, great! If not then you have problems bigger than that pregnancy. If it was just a quick affair with no strings then there are no strings for you to hang on to. In the end, it's her decision to make. If you want a say in the matter then make a commitment to her, preferably before getting her pregnant. If she declines though, tough luck. I've known a couple of guys who sought to deliberately impregnate the girl of their dreams to get her to marry them. Your argument is the very same one they like to use.

It's her body and if it's legal then it's her decision to make.

 

[Moonbeam]

CBDs are crazy to oppose abortion because abortion will insure that the abortion gene is weeded out.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How about if a man didn't want to have a child then maybe he could elect to not have sex with the woman in the first place? If you don't want her to be able to choose to have an abortion then don't have sex with her! Once you have had sex with her and leave your 'gift' with her, it's hers. You don't get to have stakeholder claims on her uterus if she gets pregnant. If you both are in love with each other and decide to keep the child, great! If not then you have problems bigger than that pregnancy. If it was just a quick affair with no strings then there are no strings for you to hang on to. In the end, it's her decision to make. If you want a say in the matter then make a commitment to her, preferably before getting her pregnant. If she declines though, tough luck. I've known a couple of guys who sought to deliberately impregnate the girl of their dreams to get her to marry them. Your argument is the very same one they like to use.

It's her body and if it's legal then it's her decision to make.

Cool, it's all hers so she should take full financial responsibility if she makes the irresponsible and selfish choice to have a child as a single mother.

 

[DrDoug]

Cool, it's all hers so she should take full financial responsibility if she makes the irresponsible and selfish choice to have a child as a single mother.

Nope. If he's the father and she decides to have the kid and not marry him then that's his problem. There was no trap, he put himself in that position. He freely gave of himself just to have some sex while not thinking of the consequences. If he was really concerned about being stuck with a child and support then he could have abstained from sex or went and had a vasectomy first.

It's not the job of the woman to protect a man from thinking with the wrong head.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nope. If she's the mother and she decides to have the kid and not marry him then that's her problem. There was no trap, she put herself in that position. She freely gave of herself just to have some sex while not thinking of the consequences. If she was really concerned about being stuck with a child and not having support then she could have abstained from sex or went and had her tubes tied first.

It's not the job of the man to protect a woman from talking with the wrong lips.

 

[Cozarkian]

If her life is in danger, absolutely. Of course it wouldn't be called an abortion because at that point the child would be viable and fully formed, it would be called induced labor or a c-section.

But I'm sure you knew that, you really seem to have a real grasp on this subject. /eyeroll+sarcasm

The question was not whether a woman has a right to have induced labor or a c-section if her life is in danger near the end of her pregnancy. The question is whether a woman, for any reason or none at all, should have the legal right to end the life of a fetus at any time prior to birth? By stating there is no such thing as an unborn child, Cerpin Taxt implied that he/she believes the answer to that question is yes. I am simply trying to verifying whether that is truly Cerpin Taxt's belief.

Your very use of the word child in your response, according to Cerpin Taxt's post, is a misnomer, because the fetus cannot be a child pre-birth.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Nope. If she's the mother and she decides to have the kid and not marry him then that's her problem. There was no trap, she put herself in that position. She freely gave of herself just to have some sex while not thinking of the consequences. If she was really concerned about being stuck with a child and not having support then she could have abstained from sex or went and had her tubes tied first.

It's not the job of the man to protect a woman from talking with the wrong lips.

They don't understand the concept of double standards. It's pretty fucking cute, yet sad and pathetic at the same time. It's exactly what the feminists are preaching and they have these cuckolds right where they want them.

"You're responsible for my body, NOT ME!" (In regards to getting her pregnant)
"I'm responsible for MY BODY, NOT YOU!" (In regards to having/aborting the baby).

 

[DrDoug]

Nope. If she's the mother and she decides to have the kid and not marry him then that's her problem. There was no trap, she put herself in that position. She freely gave of herself just to have some sex while not thinking of the consequences. If she was really concerned about being stuck with a child and not having support then she could have abstained from sex or went and had her tubes tied first.

It's not the job of the man to protect a woman from talking with the wrong lips.

Sorry, no sale. She knows of the consequences and has made her initial decision (to have sex). If she does get pregnant from that then she has another decision to make and she already knows that. The man only has one decision to make and it's his problem if it's a bad decision.

Just like it's her two decisions to make, even if they are both bad decisions.