• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The horror of abortion restrictions

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
randomrogue said:
I would support the forced sterilization of religious people before I'd support a ban on abortion. That's tongue in cheek of course but I really think it's time for people to stand up and tell these religious nut cases to mind their own business. It's not your body.
Click to expand...

I refer you to every other point made in this thread regarding "your body".
 
For a long time, I was pro life, because I don't believe there is any difference in the moral value of a baby immediately after it is born compared to before. Therefore, unless one believes that infanticide is moral, it would seem that one could not consider the abortion of a fetus immediately before birth as moral. Yes, their is probably a progression of the moral value of the fetus from the time of conception to the time immediately before delivery, but this becomes a fine line to draw.

Then I started to try to determine a moral equivalency to abortion that I could use to compare. I finally came up with what I believe is a pretty reasonable comparison, which actually changed my mind.

Consider a family with a child that needs a kidney in order to survive. Now imagine that the only person with a compatible kidney is the mother. Should it be legal to force the mother to donate the kidney? Thinking about this question, I felt, no, it shouldn't. I think it is morally reprehensible not to donate the kidney, but consider it even more so to force the mother to donate the kidney. Based on this, I also no longer believe that you can force the mother to deliver the child.

This also explains why I think abortions should be limited, however. I think abortions should be limited to the first trimester or 1 month after the mother first determines she is pregnant. Since I view the moral value of the fetus to be constantly increasing, approaching that of a baby over time, I think this decision needs to be made as early as possible. I compare this again to the kidney donation. If the mother signs a consent sheet saying she will donate a kidney, she can't keep changing her mind and switching back and forth. While it is her body, there are others affected by what she does with her body.

As for the generic, "It is her body, she can do what she wants with it" or "You can't tell a woman what to do with her body", these arguments are totally bogus. For example, we tell women everywhere that they can't use their body to beat their children. The real argument is that you can't tell a woman what to do with her body so long as her actions don't infringe on the rights of others. Now I realize a fetus has no well defined legal rights, I do believe the fetus has moral rights that should be considered, even if they currently aren't.
 
mect said:
For a long time, I was pro life, because I don't believe there is any difference in the moral value of a baby immediately after it is born compared to before. Therefore, unless one believes that infanticide is moral, it would seem that one could not consider the abortion of a fetus immediately before birth as moral. Yes, their is probably a progression of the moral value of the fetus from the time of conception to the time immediately before delivery, but this becomes a fine line to draw.

Then I started to try to determine a moral equivalency to abortion that I could use to compare. I finally came up with what I believe is a pretty reasonable comparison, which actually changed my mind.

Consider a family with a child that needs a kidney in order to survive. Now imagine that the only person with a compatible kidney is the mother. Should it be legal to force the mother to donate the kidney? Thinking about this question, I felt, no, it shouldn't. I think it is morally reprehensible not to donate the kidney, but consider it even more so to force the mother to donate the kidney. Based on this, I also no longer believe that you can force the mother to deliver the child.

This also explains why I think abortions should be limited, however. I think abortions should be limited to the first trimester or 1 month after the mother first determines she is pregnant. Since I view the moral value of the fetus to be constantly increasing, approaching that of a baby over time, I think this decision needs to be made as early as possible. I compare this again to the kidney donation. If the mother signs a consent sheet saying she will donate a kidney, she can't keep changing her mind and switching back and forth. While it is her body, there are others affected by what she does with her body.

As for the generic, "It is her body, she can do what she wants with it" or "You can't tell a woman what to do with her body", these arguments are totally bogus. For example, we tell women everywhere that they can't use their body to beat their children. The real argument is that you can't tell a woman what to do with her body so long as her actions don't infringe on the rights of others. Now I realize a fetus has no well defined legal rights, I do believe the fetus has moral rights that should be considered, even if they currently aren't.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable view.

...or we can talk to these women like the adults they are.

You don't want anyone telling you what to do with your body, well, stay off your backs for crying out loud. You are just making life harder on yourself.

If you're gonna be on your back, take the responsible adult approach and use some flippin' birth control. Then you won't ever have to worry about anti-abortion laws affecting you.

..and I am not talking about extreme cases like rape or molestation.

It's really stupid that these "women's rights" women want to be treated like an adults but refuse to act like adults. Instead, all the silly college-age simple-minded sluts want a president who not only accepts such trashy behavior, but makes others pay to mitigate the results of said trashy behavior. 🙄


...or better still, live with the consequences that can come from being sexually active, or if you don't want to, stop being sexually active.

My God I thought we were decision making humans....
 
Last edited:
randomrogue said:
I would support the forced sterilization of religious people before I'd support a ban on abortion. That's tongue in cheek of course but I really think it's time for people to stand up and tell these religious nut cases to mind their own business. It's not your body.
Click to expand...

So to be clear if a woman wants to have an abortion at 8.9 months she should be allowed to then?
 
mect said:
As for the generic, "It is her body, she can do what she wants with it" or "You can't tell a woman what to do with her body", these arguments are totally bogus. For example, we tell women everywhere that they can't use their body to beat their children. The real argument is that you can't tell a woman what to do with her body so long as her actions don't infringe on the rights of others. Now I realize a fetus has no well defined legal rights, I do believe the fetus has moral rights that should be considered, even if they currently aren't.
Click to expand...

The body argument is complete BS. Even most liberals do not believe it. Which is why they are okay with some restrictions based on their own definition of personhood.

Also, the fact that many of them would throw a fit if you suggest a woman's right to do what she wants with her body extends to prostitution.
 
nehalem256 said:
The body argument is complete BS. Even most liberals do not believe it. Which is why they are okay with some restrictions based on their own definition of personhood.

Also, the fact that many of them would throw a fit if you suggest a woman's right to do what she wants with her body extends to prostitution.
Click to expand...

Most liberals are for legal prostitution. Its conservatives that have a moral issue with it.
 
Rob M. said:
That's a reasonable view.

...or we can talk to these women like the adults they are.

You don't want anyone telling you what to do with your body, well, stay off your backs for crying out loud. You are just making life harder on yourself.

If you're gonna be on your back, take the responsible adult approach and use some flippin' birth control. Then you won't ever have to worry about anti-abortion laws affecting you.

..and I am not talking about extreme cases like rape or molestation.

It's really stupid that these "women's rights" women want to be treated like an adults but refuse to act like adults. Instead, all the silly college-age simple-minded sluts want a president who not only accepts such trashy behavior, but makes others pay to mitigate the results of said trashy behavior. 🙄


...or better still, live with the consequences that can come from being sexually active, or if you don't want to, stop being sexually active.

My God I thought we were decision making humans....
Click to expand...

Not all adults are responsible. Everyone knows this. Going back to my analogy, assume the child developed the kidney failure as a result of a poor diet provided by the parents. It wasn't intentional, but could have been prevented by a responsible adult. I still don't think it would be moral to force the mother to donate a kidney.
 
soulcougher73 said:
I gave her a choice. You are not. 24 weeks is more choice then none.
Click to expand...

Conservatives give her the same choice as liberals gave the man. Use birth control* or practice abstinence.

But it seems you concede you do not have a problem with controlling a woman's body. As long as its under conditions you approve of.

*actually the woman has more choices considering the most forms of reversible contraception are solely controlled by the woman.
 
Rob M. said:
You don't want anyone telling you what to do with your body, well, stay off your backs for crying out loud. You are just making life harder on yourself.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? There's nothing irresponsible or negligent about having sex.

If you're gonna be on your back, take the responsible adult approach and use some flippin' birth control. Then you won't ever have to worry about anti-abortion laws affecting you.
Click to expand...
Do you suffer from the delusion that birth control is without a measurable failure rate?

..and I am not talking about extreme cases like rape or molestation.
Click to expand...
Why not? Do you think that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape"?

It's really stupid that these "women's rights" women want to be treated like an adults but refuse to act like adults. Instead, all the silly college-age simple-minded sluts want a president who not only accepts such trashy behavior, but makes others pay to mitigate the results of said trashy behavior. 🙄
Click to expand...
Isn't that so-called "trashy" behavior still within their rights as citizens? What happened to favoring personal liberty?


...or better still, live with the consequences that can come from being sexually active, or if you don't want to, stop being sexually active.
Click to expand...
Why should she? She didn't violate any one's rights or behave negligently. Why shouldn't she have the right to seek a medical remedy to an unwelcome intrusion into her body?


My God I thought we were decision making humans....
Click to expand...
Well, there are those of us that think for ourselves, and then you have stupid religious nut jobs that don't really give a shit about the lives of fetuses, but just want to punish women for having sex.
 
Last edited:
nehalem256 said:
So if a woman cannot support her child and does not get abortion is that failing to take responsibility?

Or is any choice a woman makes "taking responsibility"?
Click to expand...
The responsible thing to do is carry the baby to term then ditch it at a government orphanage. We should encourage abstinence only education, tell people that condoms don't work, then push laws to ban abortion when possible. We will then use this exploding orphanage population to breed a special type of soldier. These soldiers will be perfect. They will be completely isolated from the rest of the country, no radios, no TV, no internet. Their brains will be washed and they will believe they are god's chosen warriors to bring justice to the world. They will be told that bisexuality is the ultimate virtue; this will keep morale high when units have oddball numbers of men and women. We will use these super soldiers to invade China in the years 2035




So to be clear if a woman wants to have an abortion at 8.9 months she should be allowed to then?
Click to expand...
Why do national parks always have signs saying not to feed the animals? Because it makes them dependent. Forcing the mother to feed that fetus at 8.9 months is what causes a society of entitlements and dependency. That fetus should pull itself up by the boot straps and feed itself.
 
Lets do a little questionnaire and see who's a hypocrite.

1) Do you have kids?
2) Do you believe that a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a newly born baby?
3) Do you believe that responsibility lies with the parents for creating the "child"
4) Do you believe that an abortion at 8 months kills a "child
5) Do you believe an abortion at 3 months kills a "child"
6) Is it immoral to put another's life at risk to get what you want?
7) If a gun is pointed at a newborn and the trigger pulled should that be illegal
8) If only 3 of the 6 chambers have rounds and the trigger is pulled should that be illegal?
9) If a woman takes a drug that has 100% chance of aborting a fertilized egg should that be illegal, is immoral?
10) if a women takes drug that has 50% chance of aborting a fertilized egg should that be illegal, is immoral?

Anyone man enough to answer?
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
You bet your lily white ass if men could get pregnant there would be no abortion debate.
Click to expand...

Right because society clearly has a problem telling men what to do.

That must be why 90% of prisoners are men.

That must be why men are forced to pay for children women choose to have. Even some cases for children they did not actually father.

That must be why society has had no trouble drafting men and forcing them to fight in wars.

Apparently sending millions of men to charge against machine guns is acceptable, but forcing men to carry a fetus that is a result of their choices is where the line would be drawn.

Do you even think about what you say? 🙄
 
nehalem256 said:
Right because society clearly has a problem telling men what to do.

That must be why 90% of prisoners are men.

That must be why men are forced to pay for children women choose to have. Even some cases for children they did not actually father.

That must be why society has had no trouble drafting men and forcing them to fight in wars.

Apparently sending millions of men to charge against machine guns is acceptable, but forcing men to carry a fetus that is a result of their choices is where the line would be drawn.

Do you even think about what you say? 🙄
Click to expand...

lol. Keep hating women. It's working really well for you so far. I seriously love how crazies like you are contributing to your own demise.
 
nehalem256 said:
Right because society clearly has a problem telling men what to do.

That must be why 90% of prisoners are men.

That must be why men are forced to pay for children women choose to have. Even some cases for children they did not actually father.

That must be why society has had no trouble drafting men and forcing them to fight in wars.

Apparently sending millions of men to charge against machine guns is acceptable, but forcing men to carry a fetus that is a result of their choices is where the line would be drawn.

Do you even think about what you say? 🙄
Click to expand...

You don't think deeply about ANYTHING. It really comes as no surprise, when one reflects on it, in fact.
 
I like how this nehelem guy throws out random facts that has nothing to do its the discussion to support his point.

Wine makes up 23% of California's export, and that is why I hate women.
 
nehalem256 said:
So to be clear if a woman wants to have an abortion at 8.9 months she should be allowed to then?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No woman would do that unless absolutely necessary. I've been witness to such a situation. It was about 8 months.

Mind your own business is all I have to say. Legislating Abortion is not something that government should be meddling in. It has nothing to do with you or the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top