Thoughts on Abortion

[Mursilis]

There is no question that he should be able to. For the mother to be able to carry the baby to term and then force money out of him is no less a violation of his rights than forcing the mother to carry the baby to term a violation of her rights.

Why? Pregnancy is a known consequence of sex. It doesn't happen all the time, and it can be prevented in most cases, but it's a known consequence nonetheless. We prosecute people for felonies if they drive drunk and kill someone, though there's absolutely no INTENT to kill anyone ever demonstrated. If people can only be held responsible for intended actions, you're saying the concept of negligence should not exist.

 

[Cogman]

I personally think that abortions are wrong, and should be avoided. That being said, I also believe that there are justifiable situations where an abortion can and should be considered such as when the pregnancy is a result from rape or the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.

Ultimately, I do feel it is the womans choice.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why? Pregnancy is a known consequence of sex. It doesn't happen all the time, and it can be prevented in most cases, but it's a known consequence nonetheless. We prosecute people for felonies if they drive drunk and kill someone, though there's absolutely no INTENT to kill anyone ever demonstrated. If people can only be held responsible for intended actions, you're saying the concept of negligence should not exist.

Pregnancy is a potential and frequently undesired consequence of sex. And sex is a ubiquitous behavior (at least to those who have access). So what you're essentially saying is that we should either repress the fuck out of the entire population (ask the Catholic Church how well that works) or we should punish those who are acting just like everyone else, but are unlucky enough to become pregnant.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why? Pregnancy is a known consequence of sex. It doesn't happen all the time, and it can be prevented in most cases, but it's a known consequence nonetheless. We prosecute people for felonies if they drive drunk and kill someone, though there's absolutely no INTENT to kill anyone ever demonstrated. If people can only be held responsible for intended actions, you're saying the concept of negligence should not exist.

But what if you are trying to be responsible. Gf/wife/lover is on the pill and you are snipped as well. Shouldnt that be enough responsibility and precaution taken for not wanting a pregnancy? Those 2 things can fail, but at least you were trying to do the responsible thing in the first place to prevent something you didnt want. And if the precautoins do fail you think people should have to be stuck with something they didnt want in the first place?

I am pro-choice and ultimatly its up to the woman to either do it or not. Although i think there should be some type of law set up to exsolve men of responsibility if they wanted the woman to have an abortion but she chooses otherwise.

 

[Mursilis]

Pregnancy is a potential and frequently undesired consequence of sex. And sex is a ubiquitous behavior (at least to those who have access). So what you're essentially saying is that we should either repress the fuck out of the entire population (ask the Catholic Church how well that works) or we should punish those who are acting just like everyone else, but are unlucky enough to become pregnant.

Oh please. Plenty of people manage to be both sexually active and to never get pregnant or get someone else pregnant. Isn't the failure rate for most birth control, properly used, something like ~1%? It's sad, but hardly shocking, to find such a cowardly approach to personally responsibility among the current generation. The baby boomers were truly lousy parents, as a whole.

 

[Mursilis]

But what if you are trying to be responsible. Gf/wife/lover is on the pill and you are snipped as well.

Has there ever even been a case where the man had a vasectomy and the woman was on the pill, and she got pregnant anyway? If you can find it, I'd love to see the link. The odds have got to be ridiculous.

 

[Blackjack200]

Oh please. Plenty of people manage to be both sexually active and to never get pregnant or get someone else pregnant. Isn't the failure rate for most birth control, properly used, something like ~1%? It's sad, but hardly shocking, to find such a cowardly approach to personally responsibility among the current generation. The baby boomers were truly lousy parents, as a whole.

Ok, and if we assume that 50% of the population is sexually active and has sex only once a month that's still nine million unwanted pregnancies per year. The people that "manage" to not get pregnant are lucky to an extent, but also typically better educated with more birth control options available to them.

Abortion is not "poor personal responsibility". Poor personal responsibility is bearing children that you are not equipped, emotionally or financially or in any other respect, to care for when a perfectly legitimate option like abortion is safe and available.

 

[soulcougher73]

Has there ever even been a case where the man had a vasectomy and the woman was on the pill, and she got pregnant anyway? If you can find it, I'd love to see the link. The odds have got to be ridiculous.

Ok ignore both of them together. Isnt the pill or a vasectomy on its own enough responsibility to avoid something you want no part of? But as usual for P&N you ingore the overall question and focus on some little lame detail like OMG that has never happened.

 

[Blackjack200]

Ok ignore both of them together. Isnt the pill or a vasectomy on its own enough responsibility to avoid something you want no part of? But as usual for P&N you ingore the overall question and focus on some little lame detail like OMG that has never happened.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it has. Law of large numbers. If we assume that birth control is 99% effective, and vasectomies are 99.9% effective, we can still expect a few unwanted pregnancies each year from people that had vasectomies and whose partner is using birth control.

A separate question is why men should be compelled to have vasectomies. I have no interest in getting a vasectomy. I might not want a baby today, but I might want one tomorrow.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why? Pregnancy is a known consequence of sex. It doesn't happen all the time, and it can be prevented in most cases, but it's a known consequence nonetheless.

Automobile collisions are a known consequence of operating a motor vehicle on public motorways. That doesn't mean we do not allow individuals to seek restoration of their respective status quos ante after such collisions occur and they have committed no acts of negligence.

We prosecute people for felonies if they drive drunk and kill someone, though there's absolutely no INTENT to kill anyone ever demonstrated.

Driving drunk is criminal and negligent behavior. Having sex is neither.

If people can only be held responsible for intended actions, you're saying the concept of negligence should not exist.

Nonsense. He's just not idiotic enough to confuse sex with a criminal or negligent act.

 

[Atreus21]

Actually two of them:

"Innocent" is a matter of perspective or opinion (though I would agree that a newborn baby would be, by any definition, "innocent"). I would say that it's wrong to kill any self-aware person. Terry Schiavo, for example, would've been considered by many to be "innocent", but I don't feel that killing her was wrong.

I would not have a problem with fourth trimester abortions. Really, the question of which side of the vagina the baby is on is academic at that point.

Exactly. So by your argument you'd have no problem with a mother aborting her child 5 minutes after birth?

 

[Blackjack200]

Exactly. So by your argument you'd have no problem with a mother aborting her child 5 minutes after birth?

I wouldn't have a problem with a mother aborting her child two weeks after birth.

 

[Atreus21]

I wouldn't have a problem with a mother aborting her child two weeks after birth.

Wow.

Do you mind if I put that in my sig?

 

[xj0hnx]

But what if you are trying to be responsible. Gf/wife/lover is on the pill and you are snipped as well. Shouldnt that be enough responsibility and precaution taken for not wanting a pregnancy? Those 2 things can fail, but at least you were trying to do the responsible thing in the first place to prevent something you didnt want. And if the precautoins do fail you think people should have to be stuck with something they didnt want in the first place?

Are safety harnesses and roll cages enough to protect race car drivers, and yet they still die as a consequence of their choice to race. Well we tried, but failed so let's just kill the kid ...no, because you know that even with those measures in place its still possible, so you are still taking responsibility, well, kill the child to avoid your responsibility.

 

[Mursilis]

Ok ignore both of them together. Isnt the pill or a vasectomy on its own enough responsibility to avoid something you want no part of? But as usual for P&N you ingore the overall question and focus on some little lame detail like OMG that has never happened.

Why the whining? It was your "lame little detail". If you didn't want it brought up, why'd you bring it up?

 

[Mursilis]

Wow.

Do you mind if I put that in my sig?

Wow indeed.

As for the sig, you don't need his permission, but I'm sure he'd give it. Seems proud of it, in fact.

 

[Atreus21]

Wow indeed.

As for the sig, you don't need his permission, but I'm sure he'd give it. Seems proud of it, in fact.

I think he stumped me. There's not much point in debating abortion if at the very least infantacide isn't off the table.

 

[Mursilis]

Are safety harnesses and roll cages enough to protect race car drivers, and yet they still die as a consequence of their choice to race. Well we tried, but failed so let's just kill the kid ...no, because you know that even with those measures in place its still possible, so you are still taking responsibility, well, kill the child to avoid your responsibility.

You're not going to convince soulcougher. He's already had one child aborted, with his support, so he's just going to stick to ex post facto justification for the rest of his days. That's why he clings to silly "logic" like "one abortion is fine, but two (or whatever today's number is) is wrong". But best of luck anyway.

 

[Blackjack200]

Wow.

Do you mind if I put that in my sig?

I'm aware that my view here is well outside the mainstream, though I'm happy to defend it. That said, I wouldn't want to be defined by it.

Ultimately, of couse, I'm fully aware that anything I post can be quoted, cross posted, linked, or used as a sig. So you are free to do with your sig as you choose, and I won't hold it against you.

 

[Mursilis]

I think he stumped me. There's not much point in debating abortion if at the very least infantacide isn't off the table.

Pretty much. Maybe he's just an absolute relativist? Who knows.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why the whining? It was your "lame little detail". If you didn't want it brought up, why'd you bring it up?

Im not whining. I posed the question again but seperated the two and you still ingored it.

I just dont see how people taking precautions to avoid getting prego should be forced to have the baby when the precaution fails to work. Which i think most BC options are ~1% as i think you stated earlier. Obviously they dont want a baby or they wouldnt be taking precautions in the first place.

 

[Blackjack200]

Wow indeed.

As for the sig, you don't need his permission, but I'm sure he'd give it. Seems proud of it, in fact.

What is so remarkable about this opinion? Do you think that two week old infant is fundamentally different from a baby that is partially born? If not, then my view is no different from someone who supports partial birth abortions.

 

[soulcougher73]

You're not going to convince soulcougher. He's already had one child aborted, with his support, so he's just going to stick to ex post facto justification for the rest of his days. That's why he clings to silly "logic" like "one abortion is fine, but two (or whatever today's number is) is wrong". But best of luck anyway.

You fail at comprehension. May want to go back to elementary school. I said multiple times that i think abortions are fine as long as that is not your main BC method. For example take the pill or other options. If a pregnancy does occur then im fine with an abortion. But if you dont take any other forms of BC but all you do is have multiple abortions. I think that is wrong. Abortions should not be your first step in BC, it should be the last.

How you fail to understand that ill never know. Im sure others are scratching there heads at your lack of comprehension as well.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think he stumped me. There's not much point in debating abortion if at the very least infantacide isn't off the table.

Well, let's try it this way, at what point do you think it's okay to end/prevent life?

Is it the moment of conception? Is it a certain trimester? Why do you feel that way?

 

[soulcougher73]

I wouldn't have a problem with a mother aborting her child two weeks after birth.

Even though we both believe in abortions. Im going to go with the others and say 'Wow'. In my opinion once its out of the womb its a life not to be taken. You should have plenty of time before that to decide if abortion was right for you.