Is elective abortion a woman taking or avoiding responsibility?

[DrDoug]

You say it is "her body" and I respond directly to that but I'm not sticking to the subject? You say it is legal and I point out that this isn't a sufficient reason to simply accept something by pointing to past actions that were legal but wrong. This directly refutes your point and is completely on subject.

And I'm not equating abortion with slavery I used slavery to refute your specific point about abortion being legal as if that answers the question that it isn't wrong. Stop making stupid arguments and maybe you wouldn't get so upset.

Lets start with last first... I'm not upset...lol! Second, you were equating the anti-abortion movement with the anti-slavery movement in that you view both movements actions as justifiable in light of fighting against what you view as unjust law. Finally, if you wish to fight against the law then go right ahead and be my guest. It's a free country, just don't expect people like me to ignore you, agree with you, accede to your demands or let you get your way. In light of my interpretation of the second point, you view the fight against people like me is akin to the fight against slavery supporters.

If I was willing to use lame arguments like yours I could argue that anti-abortion nuts seek to take away a right that women have, just like slavery took away the rights of others. See how that works? Enough, for the last time I am done with you other than to point and laugh.

 

[Cozarkian]

There is no reason that the government couldn't, but there are reasons they won't, so the argument is pointless.

Somehow I doubt you lack the immense powers of precognition needed to make your asserted conclusion of what government won't do in the future more than unsupported speculation. Further, it is never pointless to have a discussion re-evaluating the policies underlying our laws.

If you are interested in discussing specific reasons why they shouldn't adopt an idea, feel free to express said reasons, and if I find room for an interesting discussion, I'll respond.

 

[MrPickins]

Somehow I doubt you lack the immense powers of precognition needed to make your asserted conclusion of what government won't do in the future more than unsupported speculation. Further, it is never pointless to have a discussion re-evaluating the policies underlying our laws.

If you are interested in discussing specific reasons why they shouldn't adopt an idea, feel free to express said reasons, and if I find room for an interesting discussion, I'll respond.

I don't need precognition to know with reasonable certainty that the government is not going to give men the option of absolving themselves of parental responsibility. That would reverse a trend dating back hundreds of years.

Nor should they, for reasons that should be obvious to you (the biggest being that society would be much worse with masses of unsupported children). If you want to discuss it further, by all means go ahead. I, personally, consider this to be a better fit for the red pill... :thumbsdown:

 

[buckshot24]

Lets start with last first... I'm not upset...lol! Second, you were equating the anti-abortion movement with the anti-slavery movement in that you view both movements actions as justifiable in light of fighting against what you view as unjust law. Finally, if you wish to fight against the law then go right ahead and be my guest. It's a free country, just don't expect people like me to ignore you, agree with you, accede to your demands or let you get your way. In light of my interpretation of the second point, you view the fight against people like me is akin to the fight against slavery supporters.

If I was willing to use lame arguments like yours I could argue that anti-abortion nuts seek to take away a right that women have, just like slavery took away the rights of others. See how that works? Enough, for the last time I am done with you other than to point and laugh.

Is English your second language? I told you why I used slavery, you either didn't understand it or are calling me a liar. I'll say it again, I am in no way equating abortion and slavery or any of that stuff you just wrote. I used slavery for one specific reason and it stands un-rebutted.

You should be done if you're not going to believe a word I say or can't understand it.

 

[Paratus]

Is English your second language? I told you why I used slavery, you either didn't understand it or are calling me a liar. I'll say it again, I am in no way equating abortion and slavery or any of that stuff you just wrote. I used slavery for one specific reason and it stands un-rebutted.

You should be done if you're not going to believe a word I say or can't understand it.

So a question for you.

You said that men have to be responsible for the children they have. Do you think they also have to take responsibility for any of their children that die?

 

[werepossum]

I don't need precognition to know with reasonable certainty that the government is not going to give men the option of absolving themselves of parental responsibility. That would reverse a trend dating back hundreds of years.

Nor should they, for reasons that should be obvious to you (the biggest being that society would be much worse with masses of unsupported children). If you want to discuss it further, by all means go ahead. I, personally, consider this to be a better fit for the red pill... :thumbsdown:

Yep. If anything this trend is accelerating, with courts ordering men to support children that definitely are not in fact theirs. Sure, it's unfair that men don't get a say in whether their child is aborted but must support it if the woman so chooses. It's unfair that men can impregnate a woman and simply walk away, leaving her with that awful choice. Life is unfair, and it's unfair for everybody. If your most grievous inequity is being forced to support your own child against your will, you should shut the fuck up and be glad you won life's lottery.

And I'm not touching that poll question with, well, a large poll.

 

[Cozarkian]

I think you need to reread what you wrote. Trying to have a discussion about the "morality and legality" of something using vague terms that are open to interpretation is going to do nothing but distort "understanding." The usage of "baby parts" could mean a variety of definitions, from fetal trophoblastic cells to fetal kidney cells, to the placenta to the umbilical cord. There's no way an accurate discussion of the "morality or legality" is going to stem from relying on the fallacy of appeal to emotion, as you ascribe to.

If one is going to talk about when twinning occurs during development (an essential moment of discussion when it comes to when is the conceptus a single person), an intelligent discussion would involve descriptions of how the inner cell mass splits. But by your above test, you would advocate for using "my little baby" split into two little babies does nothing but clouds the discussion in inane, imprecise, and silly choice of language.

Take the following argument: "It should be illegal to sell baby parts from an abortion."

Responding to the above with: "It isn't baby parts, it is fetal tissue" would be a terrible argument. Imagine if the original speaker conceded the point, changing the argument to "It should be illegal to sell fetal tissue from an abortion." This provides virtually no change in substantive content. It merely replaces one emotionally charged word with a different emotionally charged word.

Now, I'm not saying that there are no situations where word choice is improper, I'm arguing in the very specific context of the posts in this thread. The use of the words "baby parts" in this context is deliberately used to advance an argument that the fetal tissue is comparable to and should be treated as if it came from the corpse of dead infant. Rebutting that argument by saying "No, it is fetal tissue" is as effective as saying "No, you are wrong" without any substantive analysis on why the underlying comparison is inaccurate.

Interestingly, baby parts may actually be a better descriptor in some situations, as saying fetal tissue may lead someone to believe that the speaker thinks it is okay to sell the byproduct of an abortion of an embryo, but not that of an aborted fetus.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

First, he is not being held responsible for 100% of that child's expense, is he? Second, he made a choice when he decided to have sex with her, right? It seems pretty damned simple to me at this point. What you are proposing is for men to be able to impregnate women and not be held responsible at all if they don't want the child.

Why won't the woman just go have an abortion then if she doesn't want to raise the child on her own, especially if the man is willing to pay for the costs? The man does have to be responsible--for paying the costs of the procedure. At this point it is 100% the woman's choice.

What I'm proposing is that women take responsibility for their decisions. Women seem to want choice but without responsibility for their choices.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Unconstitutional as that would be a Bill of Attainder. And I would guess that responsibility also includes caring for your child after birth. Which seems to be the argument that I hear a lot of pro-choice people using - "the woman is taking accountability by getting an abortion rather than being a welfare recipient and net drain on taxpayers." It's like you've infantilized her to basically declare she's incapable of being responsible, thus we need to take the course of action which minimizes her burden on the rest of us. Unlike child support, a custodial parent (almost always a woman) can completely fail to support her child and we don't care, we just bend over backwards to give her welfare. In an equal world, just as a non-custodial parent would have child support in arrears build up and be garnished from salary for the rest of their life, so should the custodial parent. If we give you welfare for your child, then you should be paying that shit back until you die and long after your kid turns 18.

The point is that people should have to pay for the costs of their ideology. Ignoring whether it would be Constitutional, it would work like this: A vote would be held as to whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal and votes would be recorded.

If the majority votes to outlaw abortion, the those people who voted to outlaw it would be made to pay for the costs of unwanted children. They would thus be taking responsibility for having foisted their religious beliefs onto other people.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Again, child support is awarded for the child's benefit, not the custodial parent's.

You people seem to forget that.

Absolutely, and in this case the mother would be 100% responsible since the decision to give birth was 100% hers. In contrast, the male did everything he (legally) could after conception to try to prevent that birth. The woman's choice is essentially an intervening cause that severs the man's responsibility to the child under these circumstances.

If the man is to be responsible, would you support his being able to obtain a court order forcing the woman to have an abortion? Why not?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Considering she's killing a future human being in an often advanced state of development I would say she is avoiding responsibility.

What if we're talking about a Plan B morning after pill and the embryo is two days old?

How about 6 weeks old where there really isn't much of a brain nor any conscious personality inside of it?

Is there some point in development where responsibility become irresponsibility (and if so, responsibility to whom, exactly?) or is aborting a 2 day old embryo irresponsible, too?

Do your views on this subject have anything to do with a belief that a God breathes a soul into the embryo at conception?

 

[DrDoug]

Why won't the woman just go have an abortion then if she doesn't want to raise the child on her own, especially if the man is willing to pay for the costs? The man does have to be responsible--for paying the costs of the procedure. At this point it is 100% the woman's choice.

What I'm proposing is that women take responsibility for their decisions. Women seem to want choice but without responsibility for their choice.

No, what you are proposing is that women take responsibility for men not thinking about all of the consequences of having sex with women. From the way you write it may come as a shock to you but women usually can't get pregnant without the participation of a man. I'm pretty sure that a lot of schools teach basic sex ed but maybe you come from one of those conservative states where they leave it to you to guess. Either way, when a man considers having sex with a woman he not only needs to consider how horny he is but how sexy the lady he is about to hop in the sack (or back seat, or bathroom, or...) with (unless he is drunk, then it doesn't matter) and the possibility of STDs/creepy crawlies. The most important thing, and what seems to be missed most by the cavemen here, is that he also has to consider the possibility that the woman may get pregnant (birth control, condoms and whatnot notwithstanding) and that she might not deal with the news in the manner that they wish her to. Shocking but it's reality so deal with it or it will deal with you.

A friend of our son is going through this right now and he deserves the pain he has coming. He led the girl on, made her think she was his world and then crapped all over her once she got pregnant and refused to get an abortion. He tried to convince her several times and when he couldn't get his way he left her and found another girlfriend in the hope that she would get an abortion in anger. Nope, it ain't happening. He is a little asshole and he's getting what's coming to him. A smart man would learn from this but he's pretty stupid. My son says that other than the problem he seems to have with women, he's a nice guy. I really doubt it but it's his friend.

Anyway, allowing what you want is doing nothing more than enabling men to go out and drop babies everywhere at no risk to themselves. Which probably explains why idiots like you think that this is a good idea. My son's friend would love it, that's for damned sure, and he's a fucking idiot.

 

[glenn1]

The point is that people should have to pay for the costs of their ideology. Ignoring whether it would be Constitutional, it would work like this: A vote would be held as to whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal and votes would be recorded.

If the majority votes to outlaw abortion, the those people who voted to outlaw it would be made to pay for the costs of unwanted children. They would thus be taking responsibility for having foisted their religious beliefs onto other people.

The means are already there to do this the opposite way without Constitutional issues - those who support abortion and welfare (generally the same people) support the family with their own personal funds.

But no, that would be a "collective action problem" and progressives hate those. Despite the fact that they comprise about 1/3 of the population and thus they have the 'collective' part covered and only lack the will. To them, the *only* way that welfare can be done and they'll pay for it willingly is when forced to by law along with everyone else; the forcing part is the key element not meeting the actual need.

 

[dank69]

Take the following argument: "It should be illegal to sell baby parts from an abortion."

Responding to the above with: "It isn't baby parts, it is fetal tissue" would be a terrible argument. Imagine if the original speaker conceded the point, changing the argument to "It should be illegal to sell fetal tissue from an abortion." This provides virtually no change in substantive content. It merely replaces one emotionally charged word with a different emotionally charged word.

Now, I'm not saying that there are no situations where word choice is improper, I'm arguing in the very specific context of the posts in this thread. The use of the words "baby parts" in this context is deliberately used to advance an argument that the fetal tissue is comparable to and should be treated as if it came from the corpse of dead infant. Rebutting that argument by saying "No, it is fetal tissue" is as effective as saying "No, you are wrong" without any substantive analysis on why the underlying comparison is inaccurate.

Interestingly, baby parts may actually be a better descriptor in some situations, as saying fetal tissue may lead someone to believe that the speaker thinks it is okay to sell the byproduct of an abortion of an embryo, but not that of an aborted fetus.

The problem is that the word "sell" is even more misleading. THAT was my argument. Baby parts is slightly misleading, as it leads to the audience envisioning full organs and limbs being parted out, which is not the case. A scraping or a small sample might be much less objectionable to many people. Add on top the highly misleading use of the word "sell" and you have a complete fabrication designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason.

 

[abj13]

Take the following argument: "It should be illegal to sell baby parts from an abortion."

Responding to the above with: "It isn't baby parts, it is fetal tissue" would be a terrible argument. Imagine if the original speaker conceded the point, changing the argument to "It should be illegal to sell fetal tissue from an abortion." This provides virtually no change in substantive content. It merely replaces one emotionally charged word with a different emotionally charged word.

Now, I'm not saying that there are no situations where word choice is improper, I'm arguing in the very specific context of the posts in this thread. The use of the words "baby parts" in this context is deliberately used to advance an argument that the fetal tissue is comparable to and should be treated as if it came from the corpse of dead infant. Rebutting that argument by saying "No, it is fetal tissue" is as effective as saying "No, you are wrong" without any substantive analysis on why the underlying comparison is inaccurate.

Interestingly, baby parts may actually be a better descriptor in some situations, as saying fetal tissue may lead someone to believe that the speaker thinks it is okay to sell the byproduct of an abortion of an embryo, but not that of an aborted fetus.

Just stop. You just keep digging a hole bigger and bigger. If one is to actual try to have a discussion about the "morality and legality" of something, using imprecise language does nothing but to cloud the discussion in pointless semantics, and not true discussion of the topic.

In the very context of this thread, you don't even understand. Trying to discuss the Planned Parenthood allegations with now "abortions of the embryo" is an utterly incorrect, inane, and distorted line of discussion. The embryonic stage is classically defined as the stage between the formation of the blastocyst to organogenesis. This is completely different than the fetal stage, and those videos are about the fetal stage. Trying to inject discussion with your incorrect terms is nothing but furthering the distortion and misdirection of the truth.

This is the reason people like buckshot24 continually miss the boat on any discussion he tries to participate in because he cannot even understand the idea behind using language with correct definitions that appropriately describe the situation.

 

[dank69]

The means are already there to do this the opposite way without Constitutional issues - those who support abortion and welfare (generally the same people) support the family with their own personal funds.

But no, that would be a "collective action problem" and progressives hate those. Despite the fact that they comprise about 1/3 of the population and thus they have the 'collective' part covered and only lack the will. To them, the *only* way that welfare can be done and they'll pay for it willingly is when forced to by law along with everyone else; the forcing part is the key element not meeting the actual need.

I agree. I think everyone that supports the legality of abortion should receive an equal share of a tax refund of the amount of money that legal abortion saves. Let's start with the amount of money saved by the precipitous drop in crime in the 90s that happens to coincide with the time frame that all the aborted babies allowed by RvW would have become full fledged criminal adults.

 

[glenn1]

I agree. I think everyone that supports the legality of abortion should receive an equal share of a tax refund of the amount of money that legal abortion saves. Let's start with the amount of money saved by the precipitous drop in crime in the 90s that happens to coincide with the time frame that all the aborted babies allowed by RvW would have become full fledged criminal adults.

Progressive constituents are a cost center and conservative constituents are a profit center, we already knew this. But don't you think it's a little macabre asking to be paid for cost avoidance of (primarily black) future criminal babies? I think the most dedicated voter bloc you have might just take some degree of offense to that, even if it's the argument you privately articulate.

 

[dank69]

Progressive constituents are a cost center and conservative constituents are a profit center, we already knew this. But don't you think it's a little macabre asking to be paid for cost avoidance of (primarily black) future criminal babies? I think the most dedicated voter bloc you have might just take some degree of offense to that, even if it's the argument you privately articulate.

We all know that red states are a drain on the federal budget and blue states pay the difference. Coupled with the fact that the majority of people who receive welfare are white and poor white people are more apt to vote Republican, I think it is pretty clear that your claim that "progressive constituents are a cost center and conservative constituents are a profit center" is a complete fabrication.

As for your assertion that abortion prevents "primarily black" criminals, current estimates are that black people only account for about 30% of abortions, so it seems that we are "primarily" preventing white criminals.

Do you ever get tired of being so wrong so often?

 

[CitizenKain]

Progressive constituents are a cost center and conservative constituents are a profit center, we already knew this. But don't you think it's a little macabre asking to be paid for cost avoidance of (primarily black) future criminal babies? I think the most dedicated voter bloc you have might just take some degree of offense to that, even if it's the argument you privately articulate.

If conservative constituents are such a profit center, why are red states a financial drain on this nation?

 

[MrPickins]

Yep. If anything this trend is accelerating, with courts ordering men to support children that definitely are not in fact theirs.

That is a good topic for debate, and something I'm not sure i agree with.

Sure, it's unfair that men don't get a say in whether their child is aborted but must support it if the woman so chooses. It's unfair that men can impregnate a woman and simply walk away, leaving her with that awful choice. Life is unfair, and it's unfair for everybody. If your most grievous inequity is being forced to support your own child against your will, you should shut the fuck up and be glad you won life's lottery.

I couldn't have said it better.

And I'm not touching that poll question with, well, a large poll.

 

[MrPickins]

Absolutely, and in this case the mother would be 100% responsible since the decision to give birth was 100% hers. In contrast, the male did everything he (legally) could after conception to try to prevent that birth. The woman's choice is essentially an intervening cause that severs the man's responsibility to the child under these circumstances.

If the man is to be responsible, would you support his being able to obtain a court order forcing the woman to have an abortion? Why not?

Did you even stop to think about what I wrote?

 

[glenn1]

We all know that red states are a drain on the federal budget and blue states pay the difference. Coupled with the fact that the majority of people who receive welfare are white and poor white people are more apt to vote Republican, I think it is pretty clear that your claim that "progressive constituents are a cost center and conservative constituents are a profit center" is a complete fabrication.

As for your assertion that abortion prevents "primarily black" criminals, current estimates are that black people only account for about 30% of abortions, so it seems that we are "primarily" preventing white criminals.

Do you ever get tired of being so wrong so often?

30% of abortions yet 12% of population, they likewise are over-represented in transfer payments like food stamps. Not even bothering the the red vs. blue state thing, go for it if you want to pay others for living in a lower cost of living area. If you'd rather give based on a nationally calculated "poverty line" value to give more money to Bubba in Alabama than Barbara in the Bronx despite relative expenses, well I'm sure Bubba appreciates the extra money for beer and truck nutz.

 

[dank69]

30% of abortions yet 12% of population, they likewise are over-represented in transfer payments like food stamps.

You said abortions primarily prevent black criminals. In that context, it doesn't matter if they are over represented compared to the general population. All that matters is the total.

Not even bothering the the red vs. blue state thing, go for it if you want to pay others for living in a lower cost of living area. If you'd rather give based on a nationally calculated "poverty line" value to give more money to Bubba in Alabama than Barbara in the Bronx despite relative expenses, well I'm sure Bubba appreciates the extra money for beer and truck nutz.

...

Instead of changing the subject to how stupid I am for "wanting to pay others" how about you first admit that your whole "libs are leeches and conservatives are oppressed" diatribe was complete shit?

 

[ivwshane]

You said abortions primarily prevent black criminals. In that context, it doesn't matter if they are over represented compared to the general population. All that matters is the total.


Instead of changing the subject to how stupid I am for "wanting to pay others" how about you first admit that your whole "libs are leeches and conservatives are oppressed" diatribe was complete shit?

Good luck with that!

 

[Attic]

Really depends on each individual situation. Which is why I leave the decision up to the woman who needs to make it.

This.

I'd add that I support that freedom of choice even when I disagree with the woman's reasons for making the choice.

If the woman does it because she doesn't want the weight gain

If a women doesn't do it when both her and the child's life are at grave risk


Basically empower the individual here, not the state and then all of us can fuck off on trying to control what the individual does while still having the freedom to call her nasty names for those so inclined.