please can we all talk about abortions? that would be nice.

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
veridical
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:27 pm UTC
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Postby veridical » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:44 pm UTC

German Sausage wrote:is anyone truly FOR those? one might argue justification for them, but does anyone believe that war is inherently positive? or the death penalty?


War is good for the economy!
...like cannibalism is nutritious.

<3.14159 TheFunniest.info
All hail the atheist.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

is anyone truly FOR those? one might argue justification for them, but does anyone believe that war is inherently positive? or the death penalty?


Is anyone truly *for* abortion? It seems to me something you do when something goes *wrong*. Most people would prefer that there just never be an unwanted pregnancy.

So how do you define someone who is "against" abortion? Easy. Someone who refuses to have any part in it, disapproves of it occuring, and in extreme instances, wishes to outlaw its occurence.

Being against war and the death penalty would tend to follow the same principles.

So I was asking, if being a former zygote justifies the first stance, does being a current human justify the second stance, and to the same extent in both cases?

Bonus points for answers in the form of metered asian poetry.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:45 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
is anyone truly FOR those? one might argue justification for them, but does anyone believe that war is inherently positive? or the death penalty?


Is anyone truly *for* abortion? It seems to me something you do when something goes *wrong*. Most people would prefer that there just never be an unwanted pregnancy.

So how do you define someone who is "against" abortion? Easy. Someone who refuses to have any part in it, disapproves of it occuring, and in extreme instances, wishes to outlaw its occurence.

Being against war and the death penalty would tend to follow the same principles.

So I was asking, if being a former zygote justifies the first stance, does being a current human justify the second stance, and to the same extent in both cases?

Bonus points for answers in the form of metered asian poetry.


In Haiku:

I support all things
Properly justified which
kill more idiots

In order to do the explanation, I will refrain from poetry, as I am not good at it, and I should do SOME work today.

In short, it means I am definatley for the death penalty, as those idiots deserve whatever comes to them. If you do something bad enough that you can get a jury to sentance you to death, you probably deserve it and are not a productive member of society.

As for war...this is where the 'properly justified' comes in more than anything. War to protect the country, yes. War to protect allies, if required. 'Pre-emptive strikes' to eliminate random dictators which leave us in the Middle East for far longer than we should be, opposed.

Abortion is trickier. Once again, justification plays a key role. Aborting a fetus that was the product of rape, most likely justifiable. Abortion in a happy marriage just because they don't want another kid, not so much. The problem is that there is too much grey area in between. I do not believe there can be a hard law drawn line as to what is good an what isn't. I think it is a personal decision based solely on the circumstances at hand. It should be an option available for the extremem circumstances which require it at any rate, not outright denied. On the other hand, if you're a couple who just can't stop screwing and are using abortion as birth control, they should be killed (see aforementioned killing of idiots).
9 x 6 = 42

Note: Randall kicks ass.

Grincement
Should have Boobs (In theory)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:23 pm UTC

Postby Grincement » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:50 pm UTC

Vandole wrote:To me, ending a life before it has truly begun is much more socially justifiable than to knowingly destroy two lives.


I also agree here, I am pro abortion because I feel that accidents do happen. No matter how well educated you are on the use of condoms and other contraceptives things still go wrong. If a condom breaks you can take the morning after pill but this only actually has an 85% chance if it's taken within 12hours of the it happening. Though that's quite a high percentage, it drops quite quickly over the next 3days. After that abortion is the next option. If the girl is only 16, she is still partly a child herself, should she be forced to bring another child into the world though she is not ready emotionally or in terms of money and position. Why should she have to give up her life because of an accident.
I cannot see how banning abortion can help, fine if people want to be against it, then don't have an abortion but don't stop other people having choices about their lives.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes - Douglas Adams

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:51 pm UTC

On the other hand, if you're a couple who just can't stop screwing and are using abortion as birth control, they should be killed (see aforementioned killing of idiots).


So given the irresponsible folks you're talking about....would you *want* them raising kids? In what universe is that a good idea?

And bonus points for the Haiku. Give yourself a gold star.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
thefiddler
The Fora's Prophetess
Posts: 4041
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:07 am UTC
Location: The-middle-of-bumfuck-nowhere

Postby thefiddler » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:54 pm UTC

Well, they could always put the kid up for adoption.

(I'm pro-adoption, having been adopted myself.)

But that doesn't mean I don't think people should have a choice.

Pretty much, it's your body, do what you please. But you're the one who has to live with yourself and whatever regret you may have later, not me.

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:55 pm UTC

Tractor wrote:Abortion in a happy marriage just because they don't want another kid, not so much.


First of all, yay for having this discussion intelligently and without flame wars. I hope this continues. :)

Now, about that statement, the way you phrase it makes it sound like it's an easy decision and simply revolves around convenience. If a happy couple decides to get an abortion, there's a pretty damn big reason for them not wanting a kid. I know a number of women who have gotten abortions, and for all of them, it was a torturous decision that left them grieving for years. No woman could possibly view abortion as a mere convenience. If she makes that decision, there's a reason for it.
- Lani

"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

Grincement
Should have Boobs (In theory)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:23 pm UTC

Postby Grincement » Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:06 pm UTC

thefiddler wrote:Well, they could always put the kid up for adoption.


Glad to hear that adoption worked for you, however, it doesn't always work out...also if it's a teenage girl, she still has to go through the pregnancy and face her peers while she's pregnant...respect for her (well in the social circles i inhabit) would fall dramatically.

lani wrote:No woman could possibly view abortion as a mere convenience. If she makes that decision, there's a reason for it.


So true! Abortion is not to be taken lightly, however most women who have reached the decision to have an abortion are in the situations that they can see as their only way out. However, I did find this article quite interesting, seems to suggest that abortions does not increase depression risk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/stor ... 82,00.html

from article wrote:Indeed, women who do not have an abortion are more likely to have had less education and income and come from larger families, all risk factors for depression.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes - Douglas Adams

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:15 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
On the other hand, if you're a couple who just can't stop screwing and are using abortion as birth control, they should be killed (see aforementioned killing of idiots).


So given the irresponsible folks you're talking about....would you *want* them raising kids? In what universe is that a good idea?

And bonus points for the Haiku. Give yourself a gold star.


You wouldn't. Hence why we're killing them. And Yay! Gold Star!

lani wrote:
Tractor wrote:Abortion in a happy marriage just because they don't want another kid, not so much.


Now, about that statement, the way you phrase it makes it sound like it's an easy decision and simply revolves around convenience. If a happy couple decides to get an abortion, there's a pretty damn big reason for them not wanting a kid. I know a number of women who have gotten abortions, and for all of them, it was a torturous decision that left them grieving for years. No woman could possibly view abortion as a mere convenience. If she makes that decision, there's a reason for it.


That was my point - if they're using it a convienience thing, I would be opposed to it. I understand that it would be a huge life-altering decision, I was using that as an unlikely example.

thefiddler wrote:Well, they could always put the kid up for adoption.

But that doesn't mean I don't think people should have a choice.

Pretty much, it's your body, do what you please. But you're the one who has to live with yourself and whatever regret you may have later, not me.

I completely concur.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
The Sleeping Tyrant
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:49 am UTC
Location: Ont., Canada
Contact:

Postby The Sleeping Tyrant » Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:34 pm UTC

I'm pro - life.

Will I preach and try to tell people what to do though? No, that's futile. People do what they will; and, if keeping abortion legal stops women from attempting to do it themselves then there's at least some good that comes from that.

In the end, it's their choice and they have to live with it.

User avatar
Lenale
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:54 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Lenale » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:08 pm UTC

I'm against abortion in all cases EXCEPT the ones where carrying on with the pregnancy would mean severe damage to the physical or psychological health of the woman, in which case I'm pro-choice (personally, if I had to choose between me and my kid, I would probably choose the kid - but that's something you can only decide for yourself).

As it was mentioned above, I'd prefer "no unwanted pregnancies". I honestly do think there are methods which will prevent you from getting pregnant against your will (and they also work for women!).

Babies are a possible consequence of having sex, and everybody planning to participate in the activity should realise that.
Physics is like sex. It might give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
--Richard Feynmann

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:12 pm UTC

The crime and punishment discussion has been split. Hooray.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:31 pm UTC

Air Gear in another thread wrote:And for the record, with abortion, it's spectacularly overused and I wouldn't mind seeing a bunch of restrictions on it. Thing is, the whole "necessity" case NEEDS to be kept plus the religious right's whole thing...I see that less as anti-abortion and more anti-sex in general since so many of them are ALSO against birth control. Shit, subsidize birth control. Patches? IUD's? Sterilizations? Damn, we'll PAY you to get fixed. Maybe we'll also tie repeated abortions to sterilizations; we'll see...


I'll agree on the anti-sex part and that contraceptives should be way more widely available. However, why do you say that abortions are "spectacularly overused"?
- Lani



"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
no-genius
Seemed like a good idea at the time
Posts: 4221
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby no-genius » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:04 pm UTC

lani wrote:
Air Gear in another thread wrote:And for the record, with abortion, it's spectacularly overused and I wouldn't mind seeing a bunch of restrictions on it. Thing is, the whole "necessity" case NEEDS to be kept plus the religious right's whole thing...I see that less as anti-abortion and more anti-sex in general since so many of them are ALSO against birth control. Shit, subsidize birth control. Patches? IUD's? Sterilizations? Damn, we'll PAY you to get fixed. Maybe we'll also tie repeated abortions to sterilizations; we'll see...


I'll agree on the anti-sex part and that contraceptives should be way more widely available. However, why do you say that abortions are "spectacularly overused"?


they're spectacularly underused by around half the population
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:12 pm UTC

lani wrote:
Peshmerga wrote:How other than carelessness can a woman procure a child and not know it?


Not wanting to drag this any further into debate, all I will say is this:

The average woman has a good 40 years of fertility.

That is an awfully long time to go without slipping up.


It would be like forgetting not to point a gun in your own face. If you have unprotected sex, especially during a critical time during a woman's cycle, she should always check it with those pregnancy test thingies.

It's careless (excusing those who manage to somehow slip by the 99% condom chance) to let a baby grow inside you for 7 weeks before wanting an abortion. I forget the exact time but there's a point where the baby develops a conscience or something- my memory escapes me. A part of me doesn't give a shit about the baby, and another tells me that a baby should never be killed off.

It's this natural selection / compassion waging war inside me!
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Postby ivnja » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:18 pm UTC

I feel that as a guy I really don't have a say in this matter, but I'd like to point out that it's really a matter of unnatural selection / compassion
Hi you.
she/her

User avatar
Aoeniac
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:55 am UTC
Location: RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY SPOT→•

Postby Aoeniac » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:37 pm UTC

Here's a watered down version of my stance on abortion, and you should be able to easily extrapolate more detailed points from your own methods of logic.


I don't remember being a fetus, do you?

People die, fairly often if I am not mistaken.

Potential gets wasted in more ways than early death, right?

Bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted or when the parents are not prepared can be tragic.

I would rather kill something that won't be able to perceive its own death than ruin a life that has already reached awareness.

If I was killed before I was even aware I was alive, I probably wouldn't hold it against you... if I had the capacity to do that at the time.

If you believe in souls or primal patterns or reincarnation or basically have a concept of consciousness not necessarily being dependent on the physical body, you could say that there's always another chance for you to live a life.
Class: 12th level Epiphenomenalist Alignment: Rational

narfanator
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:33 pm UTC

Postby narfanator » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:56 pm UTC

I am fascinated by this aspect of the argument:

If it's the woman's right to choose, why should (or should not) the guy be held responsible for the results of the woman's choce?

Air Gear
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:36 pm UTC

Postby Air Gear » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:01 am UTC

lani wrote:
Air Gear in another thread wrote:And for the record, with abortion, it's spectacularly overused and I wouldn't mind seeing a bunch of restrictions on it. Thing is, the whole "necessity" case NEEDS to be kept plus the religious right's whole thing...I see that less as anti-abortion and more anti-sex in general since so many of them are ALSO against birth control. Shit, subsidize birth control. Patches? IUD's? Sterilizations? Damn, we'll PAY you to get fixed. Maybe we'll also tie repeated abortions to sterilizations; we'll see...


I'll agree on the anti-sex part and that contraceptives should be way more widely available. However, why do you say that abortions are "spectacularly overused"?


Sucks that the thread splitting led to my abortion thing being in the other thread...but to entirely too many people, abortion is about convenience. Basically, there are all those other sorts of birth control that have no possible moral qualms to them except by total idiots, except people just aren't going to deal with them. Having known the "oops pregnant again" crowd...man oh man, if you're having "mistakes" on any sort of basis, there are quite a few forms of semi-long term sterilizations out there like IUD's, Depo, NuvaRings, Norplant, Implanon, and such. I'll not bring up tube-tying at the moment since, as something that's so hard to reverse, that definitely would not fit in that category.

And no-genius: it's not that abortions are spectacularly underused by half the population, it's that STERILIZATIONS are spectacularly underused in general, ESPECIALLY by half of the population. As said, I'd pay people to get semi-permanent and permanent things done...

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:10 am UTC

ivnja wrote:I feel that as a guy I really don't have a say in this matter, but I'd like to point out that it's really a matter of unnatural selection / compassion


You make it sound like natural selection still exists. With modern society it has been all but eliminated. If we were to take humanity back in time a bit, I doubt half of us posting here would survive past 20 or 30. But I digress. And I won't derail the thread twice in one day.

So, back to the rest of your post. Why shouldn't the guy have a say? If he was part of the process of making said fetus, why shouldn't he get a say in whether or not it survives to term?
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Postby ivnja » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:41 am UTC

That was pretty much my point, it isn't natural selection, no matter what modern society may or may not have eliminated. It's still some doctor going in and stopping things - not a horribly natural procedure.

I guess would be more accurate to say that if I were to be in a position where the choice had to be made, I would offer up my opinion and support, but it's not my body.
Hi you.
she/her

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:41 am UTC

So, back to the rest of your post. Why shouldn't the guy have a say? If he was part of the process of making said fetus, why shouldn't he get a say in whether or not it survives to term?


Because getting rid of it against the mother's will involves an invasive procedure in her body. And keeping it against her will involves essentially restraining her and forcing her to allow the growth of a little tumor she doesn't want.

Now, I *do* think a father should be able to go on the record sometime *before* the child is born and say "I would rather this child was aborted. If the mother won't abort it, I'm severing all ties with it. I will not provide support, I will not visit. I relinquish all claim and all responsibility for this child if the mother chooses to bring it to term against my wishes."

There was an attempt to pass a law to that effect, a while back. A lot of women objected. It was odd.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:45 am UTC

@Air Gear: I agree that sterilization is probably the best option there, but ultimately....it's their wallet. If you agree that the fetus isn't a conscious life, and that killing it has no moral ramifications, why does it matter that those people have chosen a really inefficient and costly method of birth control?

And if it *is* a life, why is it only bad when you kill it *often*?

Is there some kind of weird arithmetic here? Some equation where a certain number of abortions suddenly becomes morally wrong? Does 6 fetuses equal a human life or something?

I ask this because I've encountered this philosophy a lot, and I've never been able to make heads or tails of it.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:58 am UTC

Belial wrote:Because getting rid of it against the mother's will involves an invasive procedure in her body. And keeping it against her will involves essentially restraining her and forcing her to allow the growth of a little tumor she doesn't want.

Now, I *do* think a father should be able to go on the record sometime *before* the child is born and say "I would rather this child was aborted. If the mother won't abort it, I'm severing all ties with it. I will not provide support, I will not visit. I relinquish all claim and all responsibility for this child if the mother chooses to bring it to term against my wishes."

There was an attempt to pass a law to that effect, a while back. A lot of women objected. It was odd.


Yes, I do understand your point, and that was what I was driving at. It seemed like ivnja was discounting the guy's opinion all together. I wonder why the objection though...they want their child support?

Belial wrote:Is there some kind of weird arithmetic here? Some equation where a certain number of abortions suddenly becomes morally wrong? Does 6 fetuses equal a human life or something?


After 5 fetuses, I get a free toaster. That, and they make great snacks. :P
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:07 am UTC

Yum
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:28 am UTC

Air Gear wrote:
lani wrote:
Air Gear in another thread wrote:And for the record, with abortion, it's spectacularly overused and I wouldn't mind seeing a bunch of restrictions on it. Thing is, the whole "necessity" case NEEDS to be kept plus the religious right's whole thing...I see that less as anti-abortion and more anti-sex in general since so many of them are ALSO against birth control. Shit, subsidize birth control. Patches? IUD's? Sterilizations? Damn, we'll PAY you to get fixed. Maybe we'll also tie repeated abortions to sterilizations; we'll see...


I'll agree on the anti-sex part and that contraceptives should be way more widely available. However, why do you say that abortions are "spectacularly overused"?


Sucks that the thread splitting led to my abortion thing being in the other thread...but to entirely too many people, abortion is about convenience. Basically, there are all those other sorts of birth control that have no possible moral qualms to them except by total idiots, except people just aren't going to deal with them. Having known the "oops pregnant again" crowd...man oh man, if you're having "mistakes" on any sort of basis, there are quite a few forms of semi-long term sterilizations out there like IUD's, Depo, NuvaRings, Norplant, Implanon, and such. I'll not bring up tube-tying at the moment since, as something that's so hard to reverse, that definitely would not fit in that category.


People keep talking about women/families that say "oops, I'm pregnant again" and then go off to pay a lot of money for a potentially invasive surgery that takes some recovery time.

I know of women who spend an awful lot of their adult life pregnant. Hell, in my job, I talk and work with them all the time. I've also known a number of women who have gotten abortions.

But I have never, never known a woman to be pregnant multiple times and get abortions multiple times.* In fact, I'll even say that I highly doubt that there are any, and if there are, they are the extreme minority.

I'll say this again: No woman could possibly go through with an abortion and not be extremely aware of the profound decision she has made. It is never a light matter. It is never a matter of mere 'convenience'.


*By multiple times, I mean more than two - I know of women who have gotten two abortions because of failed contraceptives.
- Lani



"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
Vandole
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:04 am UTC
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby Vandole » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:37 am UTC

I admit, I pulled that last part out of nowhere. I really ought to stick to factual stuff... or at least make it obvious that it's a belief, not a fact, but I was on a rant. Don't mind me.

lani wrote:But I have never, never known a woman to be pregnant multiple times and get abortions multiple times.* In fact, I'll even say that I highly doubt that there are any, and if there are, they are the extreme minority.

It's my belief that after their first abortion, they either start using protection or stop having sex. Both of them seem to be a good course of action. Of course, people who are using protection and get pregnant are just unlucky.

Belial wrote:Now, I *do* think a father should be able to go on the record sometime *before* the child is born and say "I would rather this child was aborted. If the mother won't abort it, I'm severing all ties with it. I will not provide support, I will not visit. I relinquish all claim and all responsibility for this child if the mother chooses to bring it to term against my wishes."

There was an attempt to pass a law to that effect, a while back. A lot of women objected. It was odd.

Maybe the thought was that some men would just abandon their girlfriend if she got pregnant, so at the very least they'll have to pay child services. It sounds a little weird to me. I'm guessing it was opposed by the religious right wing... anything that deals with a non-model family must be inherently bad. At least that's the impression I get when I talk to most ones I know.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:56 am UTC

Maybe the thought was that some men would just abandon their girlfriend if she got pregnant, so at the very least they'll have to pay child services.


That was....kindof the idea, yes. If the woman can get an abortion and opt out of all other responsibility for the child, regardless of what the man says, why shouldn't the man be able to do something similar, regardless of what the woman thinks of the matter? It only seems fair.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

narfanator
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:33 pm UTC

Postby narfanator » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:12 am UTC

Had a talk with people about this over dinner. Arrived at some good conclusions.

The starting point is whether, given that the woman choses, the man bears any responsibility after that....

Me mum is of the opinion that the initialact of sex necessarily includes acceptance of responsibility for anything resulting from it...

This fails because both the man and woman made that choice (-not going there), and thus this fails to allow for any distinction between them. As soon as you get to a point where the choices are imbalanced, then the responsibilites must necessarily be imbalanced as well.

I've been taught that one of the fundamental principles of western law is that your freedom ends where another begins, and this is one of the best examples of an attempt to infringe this idea.

User avatar
Vandole
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:04 am UTC
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby Vandole » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:14 am UTC

Uhh sorry that didn't come out exactly as I thought it.

It's like... if you're in a relationship and your girlfriend gets pregnant, and you know she won't have an abortion, then you can choose between leaving her, and paying child services, or staying with her and raising the kid. Most guys who actually have feelings for the girl would choose the latter, right? But if there's a third option of shirking all responsibility for it, I think most guys would reason there will be another girl in their life and jump ship.

What I'm getting at is while this is better for the man, obviously he's no longer being coerced into something, it's worse for society. Inevitably we would get women who keep the kid - out of a sense of duty, maybe, or maybe they're morally opposed to abortion - and then that would produce a child with no father, and a mother who doesn't have enough money to support a child. The collective good outweighs the individual right in this case.

And I mean, the responsibility is important. I think you'd find the number of abortions sharply increase if such a law is passed. The responsibility would be solely on the female to prevent conception, and two people making sure no one's getting pregnant is more reliable than one.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:24 am UTC

Hmm. One could always compromise and say that a man "opting out" is required to front at least enough money to pay his part of the abortion...

Full disclosure time: Honestly, I really don't care if such a course of action results in more abortions. I don't consider fetuses to be any kind of life worth speaking of, I don't care if they die, and that amount of caring doesn't change with the number of abortions. 0 plus 0 multiplied by 0 equals 0, which pretty much describes my degree of outrage as number of abortions goes up.

I feel that the world needs fewer humans. And while I would prefer that those kids get not-born by way of birth control, sterilization (yay), and other such prevention, abortion works too.

So you'll forgive me if that doesn't detract from my enthusiasm for such a plan.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

narfanator
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:33 pm UTC

Postby narfanator » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:29 am UTC

I dunno, I find Vandole's point kinda compelling. I'm going to think on this one, because I still don't like the idea of having one person's fate dictated by another in such a matter.

User avatar
thefiddler
The Fora's Prophetess
Posts: 4041
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:07 am UTC
Location: The-middle-of-bumfuck-nowhere

Postby thefiddler » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:37 am UTC

I guess I'll throw in some more of my thoughts:

Sure, sometimes having an abortion means you'll keep your man, but what if he finds out and he's upset? Did you really have a right to end the life of not only yours, but his child, without consulting him? Is that really healthy for a relationship?

I think that if you're going to go through with an abortion, it needs to be discussed with whomever the father is.
Unless the father already abandoned you (in which case, he's a dick) and then it's up to you and whether or not you think you can live with yourself.

But as for me, I don't think I'll ever be getting an abortion.

(The whole not telling boyfriend thing made me think of "High Fidelity.")

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Postby German Sausage » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:39 am UTC

thefiddler wrote:Sure, sometimes having an abortion means you'll keep your man, but what if he finds out and he's upset?


i thought the whole point was that we should consult with partners and make the decision together?
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:41 am UTC

Belial wrote:I feel that the world needs fewer humans.


Seconded. We're screwing things up enough without more of us to contend with. Abortion (and death penalty, as per the other thread) are just more ways to help out.

Besides, the alternative is taking an AK-47 to a crowd of people, and I think more people would frown on that. :twisted:
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
thefiddler
The Fora's Prophetess
Posts: 4041
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:07 am UTC
Location: The-middle-of-bumfuck-nowhere

Postby thefiddler » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:41 am UTC

German Sausage wrote:
thefiddler wrote:Sure, sometimes having an abortion means you'll keep your man, but what if he finds out and he's upset?

i thought the whole point was that we should consult with partners and make the decision together?

Some people won't. Which is what I was getting at. :oops:

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Postby German Sausage » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:47 am UTC

thefiddler wrote:Some people won't. Which is what I was getting at. :oops:
fair enough, but i figured as most of the discussion has been pretty general we could maybe assume people will behave well...probably not. ignore the posts.
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

User avatar
thefiddler
The Fora's Prophetess
Posts: 4041
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:07 am UTC
Location: The-middle-of-bumfuck-nowhere

Postby thefiddler » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:49 am UTC

German Sausage wrote:
thefiddler wrote:Some people won't. Which is what I was getting at. :oops:

fair enough, but i figured as most of the discussion has been pretty general we could maybe assume people will behave well...probably not. ignore the posts.

Well... I don't know. I assume that if they're getting an abortion, this is likely a covert operation. And again, I'm wrong. Yay for being so completely, hopelessly wrong! :D

User avatar
Vandole
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:04 am UTC
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby Vandole » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:50 am UTC

If we really want to get less people in the world, we should first start "removing" elderly people. If we took away from any other group first, we would have a social net fallout - We either wouldn't have enough people in the workforce to support pensioned and retired citizens, or we won't have enough in the future.

I do agree it's a little too crowded here. This is a completely irrational view, but I think human lives are too long now. Take a look at someone who is seventy or older - most of them are very dependent on younger people. I believe we've extended our lifespan too far, while being unable to improve the quality of life for elderly people.

User avatar
thefiddler
The Fora's Prophetess
Posts: 4041
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:07 am UTC
Location: The-middle-of-bumfuck-nowhere

Postby thefiddler » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:52 am UTC

Vandole wrote:I do agree it's a little too crowded here. This is a completely irrational view, but I think human lives are too long now. Take a look at someone who is seventy or older - most of them are very dependent on younger people. I believe we've extended our lifespan too far, while being unable to improve the quality of life for elderly people.

I agree. I completely agree.

You, sir (I think, sir? Or, sorry if you're not :() have summed up all my thoughts concerning life span. :)


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests