# The future of abortion



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 30, 2014)

Abortion is something that we all know is great (even though those stupid religious people say otherwise).

So, how is it that we were able to make such great strides and bring abortion to mainstream acceptance?

I attribute this success to the great Providence of Satan.  There's still work to be done, of course.  There has been lost ground in third-trimester abortions.  Now, it seems, it's not legal anymore to have abortions after the second trimester.

In the future, though, we should work together to legalize after-birth abortion of children up to age 5.  Children aren't really self-aware until they reach about 5 years old, so that's a good cut-off point for after-birth abortions.

Here's a great quote from a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics here: (You can also read Slate's article on the paper here)



> When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. â€¦ [W]e propose to call this practice â€˜after-birth abortionâ€™, rather than â€˜infanticide,â€™ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus â€¦ rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.



So, what's your position on abortion? Before the baby is born, when is the cut-off point for abortion? Do you believe after-birth abortion is acceptable, and up to what age?

Also, how do we regain lost ground and re-legalize third-trimester and partial-birth abortion?


----------



## Distorted (Oct 30, 2014)

You are some kind of special, man. I just don't know.


----------



## Eggdodger (Oct 30, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> Do you believe after-birth abortion is acceptable, and up to what age?



Well, that depends. How old are you, again?


----------



## Sylver (Oct 30, 2014)

I think that abortion is fine.

While a fetus is undoubtedly a member of the human species, it is not a person, so I don't have a problem with it. I suppose the same could be said about brain dead people, they are undoubtedly a member of the human species, but they are not a person arguably, but we still pull the plug.

I don't know, it's food for thought anyway... it's not exactly the best example and I could point out a lot of flaws in my reasoning, but I just can't be fucked writing a novel to justify my position.

Edit: not sure if this is a troll thread or not...I don't really care anyway


----------



## jtrekkie (Oct 30, 2014)

This is a troll thread. He is obviously playing games here.


----------



## Eggdodger (Oct 30, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> This is a troll thread. He is obviously playing games here.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PITn4rXNzU8


----------



## Ieono (Oct 31, 2014)

The world would be a lot better if abortion was more widespread, actually.


----------



## Misomie (Oct 31, 2014)

Rather than a troll, I'm pretty sure he is being satirish to actually promote pro-life thoughts.


----------



## Eggdodger (Oct 31, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Rather than a troll, I'm pretty sure he is being satirish to actually promote pro-life thoughts.



That would imply some sort of inner depth of character to this particular individual, or that he grasps the concept of satire.

Not sure you know who we're talking about, here. =v

Unless THIS is satirizing a naive forumgoer who doesn't know how to identify a troll! Brilliant, Misomie! You're golden!


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Oct 31, 2014)

My sister had an abortion 2 times already
I am glad that she did because nobody would like to have my sister as a mom. 
Her children would just end up without a future


----------



## Misomie (Oct 31, 2014)

Eggdodger said:


> That would imply some sort of inner depth of character to this particular individual, or that he grasps the concept of satire.Not sure you know who we're talking about, here. =vUnless THIS is satirizing a naive forumgoer who doesn't know how to identify a troll! Brilliant, Misomie! You're golden!


I mainly just thought satire because of some choice words. I actually didn't recognize the poster until now. XD


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 31, 2014)

I can't tell if this is a troll thread or a person who just wants attention for his/her own agenda, then again, what's the difference? Yet, it isn't uncommon when you see some person with a leftist viewpoint create some kind of topic that starts a heated argument bashing right-wingers or religious people.


----------



## Harbinger (Oct 31, 2014)

I would say OP is an advocate for it :V


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 31, 2014)

Harbinger said:


> I would say OP is an advocate for it :V


Or a poster child, perhaps.


----------



## Bonobosoph (Oct 31, 2014)

That's nice, dear. 

Also after birth abortion is the stupidest idea I've ever heard.


----------



## JaskaTheFennec (Oct 31, 2014)

I am like 99% sure this entire post is satirical - and that OP is completely against abortion.


----------



## funky3000 (Oct 31, 2014)

In all honesty though I think abortion should be allowed in special cases.

Think about it. Its extremely painful to give birth.

Do you really think rape victims want to give birth and put the child up for adoption? I mean sure that'd be the life friendly choice...

But if it was with her husband she'd have had a choice. This was with a rapist, the media is forcing her to have that rapist's child that she didn't plan on having in the first place.

The pain of rape is strongly mental and emotional in its first stages. Then when you get pregnant it could become socially destructive, with some people calling you a slut or a whore. Then 9 months later the last bomb is set off which brings unbearable pain.

Rape attacks the mental, emotional, social, and physical aspects of our lives. Yet society shuns the victim if they don't want to go through each of those pains.


----------



## JaskaTheFennec (Oct 31, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> In all honesty though I think abortion should be allowed in special cases.
> 
> Think about it. Its extremely painful to give birth.
> 
> ...



Abortion should be allowed always.

You don't have the right to tell a lady what she can and cannot do with her body.

What if she isn't ready? What if it was an accident because the condom broke? What if the birth threatens her life? What if, what if, what if.
You can't make special cases - you either allow it, or you don't.

I am - and always will be - pro choice because it is not, has not, and will never be my place to tell a woman what she can do with her body. It's not the governments place, either. As I've heard a thousand times, "Keep your religion & your politics out of my vagina."

(and no, I'm not mad lol. Just staring my opinion.)


----------



## funky3000 (Oct 31, 2014)

Heh, probably should have said "at LEAST special cases".

I'm not against abortion either, but I do understand why some people are against it but I won't side with them or stay neutral just for that simple fact.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

JaskaTheFennec said:


> Abortion should be allowed always.
> 
> You don't have the right to tell a lady what she can and cannot do with her body.
> 
> ...




That's a false dichotomy. In instances where the foetus is so developed that it could survive in an incubator, the process of aborting it would be as dangerous as birth, and therefore without point unless the foetus was severely disabled or already dead. 

So, with reference to that limit, abortion laws should be a function of time since conception and other overruling considerations, such as whether the foetus has died already. 



Simplifying a subject of medical intervention to 'yes all the time or no all the time' is asinine.


----------



## Lomberdia (Oct 31, 2014)

People shouldnt tell folks what to do with their body but we do. You dont own your body, the government does. More so if you're in the military. Plenty of cases were the law has taken away someone's right to do what they want with their bodies for whatever reason. Abortions isnt something special, just women wanting to do what they want with their bodies. If the government or tax payers are paying for this abortion then said people should have a say in it, hence laws. If the woman is paying for it, then who cares let her abort to her heart's content.


----------



## JaskaTheFennec (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> That's a false dichotomy. In instances where the foetus is so developed that it could survive in an incubator, the process of aborting it would be as dangerous as birth, and therefore without point unless the foetus was severely disabled or already dead.
> 
> So, with reference to that limit, abortion laws should be a function of time since conception and other overruling considerations, such as whether the foetus has died already.
> 
> ...



OH I'm sorry! I was speaking in the terms it's generally legal. Up to whatever time it's okay to abort a fetus. My apologies.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> You dont own your body, the government does.




Hey, FYI yo, *THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T MEANT TO OWN US. WE ARE MEANT TO OWN THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.* WE pay taxes in and provide for their salaries. In the semantics of it, WE elect our representatives to make choices on OUR behalf. However, the _actuality _of this is up for debate, and why so many people (including you, apparently) feel like the government is doing things AT them rather than FOR them. 

Jesus christ. 

Get more hands on about your government and pull your head out of your ass. So many people bitch about how BROKEN AND CORRUPT AND UNCHANGEABLE the system is. But when it comes down to it these people don't vote or even attempt to work within the possibility of changing policy from within the system. So unless you're planning on a coup d'Ã©tat, you're more or less bitching about your own consent to laying down and let your government walk all over you. 

The government _doesn't_ own us--even if most of the population has decided to throw up their hands and accept that they're making more decisions for big-corporate and extreme-leftist/rightist groups instead of the behalf of the people. 

Fucking A.


----------



## Lomberdia (Oct 31, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Hey, FYI yo, *THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T MEANT TO OWN US. WE ARE MEANT TO OWN THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.* WE pay taxes in and provide for their salaries. In the semantics of it, WE elect our representatives to make choices on OUR behalf. However, the _actuality _of this is up for debate, and why so many people (including you, apparently) feel like the government is doing things AT them rather than FOR them.
> 
> Jesus christ.
> 
> ...


Gov says 'jump' you say 'how high?' Sure you can fight the government and sometimes it works. If the IRS wants to come after you, very little you can do about it regardless if you're in the 'right'. on paper we DO own the government but in reality we don't. Money speaks louder than the constitution and any rights you may have. You cant be so blind to this and honestly believe all the crap you just said. Money can corrupt people very easily and if not, violence will.

Anyway, key words you just said "MEANT" we are meant to own the governments but obviously we DONT.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> Gov says 'jump' you say 'how high?' Sure you can fight the government and sometimes it works. If the IRS wants to come after you, very little you can do about it regardless if you're in the 'right'. on paper we DO own the government but in reality we don't. Money speaks louder than the constitution and any rights you may have. You cant be so blind to this and honestly believe all the crap you just said. Money can corrupt people very easily and if not, violence will.
> 
> Anyway, key words you just said "MEANT" we are meant to own the governments but obviously we DONT.



Government says jump I ask, "Why?" Just because YOU have decided to roll over and accept that it's all "out of your hands" that everyone else should either. You're implying that change _never happens ever_ when in it's in the people's best interests. Take the cannabis legalization in Washington and Colorado. Technically? _Still federally illegal._ All the internet bills that tried to get passed? Shot down by mass reaction to congress men and women. Again. Again. And again. 

Government spying? We've got a man still on the run to _this very day_ who decided to stand up and say "This isn't acceptable". Edward Snowden is still living in some undisclosed area in Russia, and confirmed one of the biggest public fears we've ever held to date. 

Just because _most people don't_ doesn't mean that _no one can._ This is what some government would _like_ you to believe, as you so ignorantly display. But it's not the truth. 

I'm not blind to everything you just said. It still doesn't change the fact that at the heart of it all, we're the ones meant to be in charge. It's people like *you* who have created this new world where the opposite is true.


----------



## Misomie (Oct 31, 2014)

This reminds me of some of the abortion horror stories. This one woman's child was being miscarried but her doctors wouldn't abort because it was illegal in their country. For three days she suffered and then died. Another lady's water broke way too early. This would prevent the baby from being able to move it's arms and legs around so it would be born paralyzed if it survived birth. The doctors also refused to abort even though the baby would have most likely died at birth (which it did) and even if it lived, its quality of life would have been too low to justify keeping it alive. 

https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproduct.../pregnant-woman-suffers-you-wont-believe-whos

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/woman-denied-a-termination-dies-in-hospital-1.551412


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

Catholicism responsible for human suffering? 


Is the pope a catholic? :V


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

Thank you for not aborting me (nsfw)


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

Oh my goodness, that poor girl. ._.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Oh my goodness, that poor girl. ._.



But she was given a chance to live a full and wholesome life that is the important thing. 

/sarcasm


----------



## Lobar (Oct 31, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> People shouldnt tell folks what to do with their body but we do. You dont own your body, the government does. More so if you're in the military. Plenty of cases were the law has taken away someone's right to do what they want with their bodies for whatever reason. Abortions isnt something special, just women wanting to do what they want with their bodies. If the government or tax payers are paying for this abortion then said people should have a say in it, hence laws. If the woman is paying for it, then who cares let her abort to her heart's content.



You have some of the grossest opinions on this forum, just fyi.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Thank you for not aborting me (nsfw)



Look Red... I know I've been somewhat facetious in some of the things I've said on the forum.  Sometimes I say things I don't mean just to make people think.  I honestly feel that people should be more free to express their species identity, and I also like to ponder other taboos as well.  None of it's meant to be offensive!  The truth is, I'm just a left-leaning person who was raised in a very right-wing religious family.  Since I know what the typical right-wing response is to everything, as I lived with right-wing people, I sometimes use their points to, well, spice up the conversation a little bit :3

But you touched on one of the main points that I was arguing for in this thread.  This picture illustrates one of those cases where after-birth abortion might be appropriate.  If you read the paper that I linked in the OP, you will see that the science is all there.  After-birth abortion can be ethical in some situations.

Anyway, I highly urge you and everyone else to read the articles in the OP in full!  You'll find these very informative, and maybe we can debate this particular abortion topic further.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 31, 2014)

I support this movement


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

After-birth abortion is a ludicrous notion because the 'hurdle' of birth, which represents a significant risk of mortality for the mother, has already been passed and the baby is no longer directly reliant on the use of the mother's life-support systems; it can be transferred to adoptive carers. 


/captain obvious


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> After-birth abortion is a ludicrous notion because the 'hurdle' of birth, which represents a significant risk of mortality for the mother, has already been passed and the baby is no longer directly reliant on the use of the mother's life-support systems; it can be transferred to adoptive carers.
> 
> 
> /captain obvious



There's two problems with your argument:
1) Abortion is performed even in circumstances where the mother is not at risk of death.
2) The process of putting a child up for adoption could possibly be more traumatic to the mother than after-birth abortion.

It's hard to debate this topic if people don't actually *read the article*. The ethicists clearly state the following:



> A possible objection to our argument is that after-birth abortion should be practised just on potential people who could never have a life worth living. Accordingly, healthy and potentially happy people should be given up for adoption if the family cannot raise them up. Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone's right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?
> 
> Our reply is the following. We have previously discussed the argument from potentiality, showing that it is not strong enough to outweigh the consideration of the interests of actual people. Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero. On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, *we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption*. Birthmothers are often reported to experience *serious psychological problems* due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief. It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well as adoption, but *we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic*. For example, â€˜those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversibleâ€™.
> 
> ...



Not only do these ethicists state that after-birth abortion would be in the best interests of the mother in some situations, but each claim that the ethicists make are backed up by even more articles documenting specific cases.

If you want to make a valid point against after-birth abortion, I suggest you first *read the article*, then read all of the *supporting evidence* presented in the *references* section. I'm not trying to be mean, but it almost seems like you haven't ever even taken a class in science.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> There's two problems with your argument:
> 1) Abortion is performed even in circumstances where the mother is not at risk of death.
> 2) The process of putting a child up for adoption could possibly be more traumatic to the mother than after-birth abortion.
> It's hard to debate this topic if people don't actually *read the article*. The ethicists clearly state the following:
> ...



>Implying that after birth abortion is less traumatic than giving a child up for adoption  


lol k


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

I did read the article.

When you're forcing a skull through your vagina, you are always at risk of death.
The process of putting a child up for adoption, if it is traumatic, is not best solved by killing babies. It is best solved by improving adoption policy. Killing newborn babies is surely going to present huge trauma for everyone involved, derp.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> >Implying that after birth abortion is less traumatic than giving a child up for adoption
> 
> 
> lol k



"lol k" isn't an intelligent and informed response.  Do I have to ask you direct questions in order to get you to think and respond intelligently?

Do you feel, in the case of the picture that you presented, that there would be any merit to allowing an after-birth abortion within a short timeframe after birth?  Do you feel this would offer any benefit to the mother in any way?


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> "lol k" isn't an intelligent and informed response.  Do I have to ask you direct questions in order to get you to think and respond intelligently?
> 
> Do you feel, in the case of the picture that you presented, that there would be any merit to allowing an after-birth abortion within a short timeframe after birth?  Do you feel this would offer any benefit to the mother in any way?



That's a very difficult question, but the article you posted also defended killing newborns with no serious abnormalities.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> That's a very difficult question, but the article you posted also defended killing newborns with no serious abnormalities.



Some conditions, like autism, aren't even apparent until after birth. After-birth abortion could be the best way to reduce undue burden to the parents in these circumstances.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 31, 2014)

Fine, but why can't you just call it 'euthanasia'? 
'After-birth abortion' sounds retarded. Isn't retardation something you're trying to avoid?


----------



## Harbinger (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> When you're forcing a skull through your vagina, you are always at risk of death.



Fallowfox presenting the most metal way to describe birth.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Fine, but why can't you just call it 'euthanasia'?
> 'After-birth abortion' sounds retarded. Isn't retardation something you're trying to avoid?



Euthanasia is usually reserved for consensual death. 

This would more accurately be called 'infanticide', but the authors present an argument for not using that word.



nanakiwolf13 said:


> Some conditions, like autism, aren't even  apparent until after birth. After-birth abortion could be the best way  to reduce undue burden to the parents in these circumstances.



Killing kids would be a bigger problem than autism is, if one even regards autism as inherently awful, rather than a mosaic. 

When a child has passed the 'mortality barrier' their life and interests should be considered too, and it becomes their parents' responsibility to take care of them, not to murder them for convenience.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> "lol k" isn't an intelligent and informed response.  Do I have to ask you direct questions in order to get you to think and respond intelligently?



I'm only putting forth the effort that your topic is worth. I pointed out flaw in your logic. (After birth abortion being less traumatic than giving up for adoption). You chose to ignore that to throw in a completely different angle. 

But no, I don't think it would provide any more convenience/inconvenience than giving it up for adoption. Once you've reached the point of birth--it's too late. It's here. Killing it at that point would just be killing a baby. At the very least, give it up to a facility that would be willing to take care of it until the child passes. Usually they don't live long on their own. 

Once you open the door to after birth abortion, you start pushing the limits of "oh I don't want a down's kid. abortion." Even though there's people with down syndrome that do manage to live happy fruitful lives. Same with autism. And then how do you distinguish intelligence by merely physical appearance? You can't. 

Then that begins to bleed over into "aw I wanted a boy child" "Aw I wanted a girl child" 


In the end I'm just really jaded on having controversial discussions for the sake of edginess where no one's mind will be changed. I don't feel like killing a living breathing infant is justified after birth in any way. Only if the child is on dedicated life support for the rest of its life should it even be discussed. If your morals didn't allow you to have an abortion when appropriate, then they damn sure don't justify doing it afterwards.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Fine, but why can't you just call it 'euthanasia'?
> 'After-birth abortion' sounds retarded. Isn't retardation something you're trying to avoid?



Euthanasia is different from after-birth abortion in one key aspect: Euthanasia is performed on a patient in the interest of the patient to avoid suffering. After-birth abortion is a procedure that is performed in the interest of the mother to avoid her undue suffering.

So, if it was determined that an after-birth fetus was suffering too greatly and terminated as a result, this would be euthanasia.  If the after-birth fetus were terminated in circumstances where it was in the best interests of the mother's psychological health to do so, then it would be after-birth abortion.



RedSavage said:


> I'm only putting forth the effort that your topic is worth. I pointed out flaw in your logic. (After birth abortion being less traumatic than giving up for adoption). You chose to ignore that to throw in a completely different angle.



The article states (and provides evidence) that we cannot assume that giving the child up for adoption is less traumatic to the mother than after-birth abortion.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

We cannot assume it, and we're not going to do any tests to determine it, because once you're out of the womb you're not in someone else's body and don't pose them a significant ongoing mortality risk. 

They can't be forced to care for you, but they can't demand you be killed for convenience either.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> We cannot assume it, and we're not going to do any tests to determine it, because once you're out of the womb you're not in someone else's body and don't pose them a significant ongoing mortality risk.
> 
> They can't be forced to care for you, but they can't demand you be killed for convenience either.



It's not really for convenience.  It's for a mother's psychological health.  After-birth abortion could be the best approach to ensure a mother's psychological health and could keep her from becoming suicidal as a result.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> Euthanasia is different from after-birth abortion in one key aspect: Euthanasia is performed on a patient in the interest of the patient to avoid suffering. After-birth abortion is a procedure that is performed in the interest of the mother to avoid her undue suffering.
> So, if it was determined that an after-birth fetus was suffering too greatly and terminated as a result, this would be euthanasia.  If the after-birth fetus were terminated in circumstances where it was in the best interests of the mother's psychological health to do so, then it would be after-birth abortion.
> The article states (and provides evidence) that we cannot assume that giving the child up for adoption is less traumatic to the mother than after-birth abortion.



No, what the article states is:



			
				Abstract said:
			
		

> Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call â€˜after-birth abortionâ€™ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.



So, really, the point of the article is that newborns don't have the same moralistic rights other people. They they are considered a fetus even after birth. So that killing them either which way for any particular reason, medical or not, is perfectly acceptable. In countries where it behooves a family to have a son rather than a daughter, they already do this. It's disgusting and abhorrent.  And in the case of a Utah woman who killed and stored 7 dead infants in her garage, it was determined by criminal courts to be murder. 

And he provides no real evidence for abortion being any less traumatic than giving it up for adoption. Just a bunch of misconstrued moral arguments using moral logics and actuality against each other. 

You're not arguing any real point. 
You're just pushing forward controversial points for the hell of it.  And just because one batshit doctor with PHD next to his name thought it was a good idea and wrote a paper about it doesn't mean it's even close to being wholly acceptable. 

So. Whatever. 


-shrugs-


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> It's not really for convenience.  It's for a mother's psychological health.  After-birth abortion could be the best approach to ensure a mother's psychological health and could keep her from becoming suicidal as a result.



The health of the baby should also be considered, because it is now capable of independent survival and has passed the mortality barrier. It is now also a person. 

More over, no test has been conducted but I suspect killing newborn babies would be a huge stress for everyone involved. 

If you have to kill your new born baby, because the thought of letting someone else take care of it is so awful, you need to be sectioned.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

Again--no actual stress test research on after-birth abortion versus after birth adoption was done. Just a bunch of shitty, cold moralistic arguments. If one were to argue it's alright to kill an infant after birth simply for convenience, then it should be acceptable to put down old folks once they're too old to take care of themselves. Yanno. Just for convenience. 

But we have these weird things called "nursing homes" and "assisted living" communities where it's more morally positive to let them life out the rest of their days.


----------



## Misomie (Oct 31, 2014)

After-birth abortion is a stupid phrase and you should feel stupid for  using it (abortion = termination of a pregnancy, abortion =/= killing a  born baby). Euthanasia is a much better term. Compare it to having a  sick/dying/deformed dog/puppy. You have it euthanized because you can't  afford treatment/want to end suffering/just got sick of having it around  (or it being a danger to society because of neurological problems, or  whatever reason the owners come up with). The term for consensual  euthanasia is better as assisted suicide (mainly as euthanasia is a  common term used for humanly killing pets, that's all). At least, that's just my opinion regarding the terms. 



nanakiwolf13 said:


> Euthanasia is different from after-birth abortion in one key aspect: Euthanasia is performed on a patient in the interest of the patient to avoid suffering.



Not really. People euthanize pets for no reason. In shelters they are often just killed for there being too much room. Therefore it's often in the interest of the caretaker (I'm not talking about terminally ill animals that belong to loving owners).


----------



## Ieono (Oct 31, 2014)

Are people really arguing with someone who believes in "after-birth abortion"??? Successful troll is successful.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

Ieono said:


> Are people really arguing with someone who believes in "after-birth abortion"??? Successful troll is successful.



We're bored.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> No, what the article states is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The question presented to me was about the difference between euthanasia and after-birth abortion. The question had nothing to do with the point of the article. The article did, however, state that "we cannot assume that [giving up a child for adoption is less harmful to the mother than after-birth abortion.]"

I get that you disagree with after-birth abortion.  The problem is, however, you don't offer any new points that can be debated on the subject.  Perhaps you can compile some data about abortion and adoption, and then compare which is typically more stressful to the mother.  Maybe find some data about stress to the mother when a newborn dies, such as sudden infant death syndrome.  Then there would be a basis for your opposition to after-birth abortion because you could demonstrate in your data that after-birth abortion is more stressful to the mother than adoption.

You did make one good observation, though.  You noted that the article is based on the premise that newborns "don't have the same moralistic rights of other people."  This is something we could debate.  My position on this is in line with the Slate article posted in the OP (different from the article in the Journal of Medical Ethics).  The Slate article proposes that a person's value increases gradually after birth.  This means that Slate believes that a newborn does not in fact the same "moralistic rights of other people".  The JME article even talks about this difference in personhood.  This isn't really backed up by hard facts like other claims in the article, but it states "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."  I agree that the moral status of a fetus is reasonably equivalent in the moments before and after birth.

So, the only point you are really making is about the personhood of the after-birth fetus, and you are not acknowledging or debating any potential benefits that after-birth abortion may bring to the mother.  This doesn't leave us with much to debate.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> We're bored.



_Really_ bored. We should start a club.


----------



## Ieono (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> We're bored.



Let's make out.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> This.




You know--I started to type an argument, but at this point you're just shooting down via semantics to frustrate and/or aggravate. I don't have to have a "new point" to make to know that killing an infant is wrong. I don't have to "do my own research" to know that it has no more benefits than _not getting pregnant to begin with or having a proper abortion._ If we're not arguing anything philosophically or moralistically--then what the fuck are we doing? 

Nothing. Nothing at all. 

So--yanno. Later gator. I'm gonna go make out with Ieono if he's down. If not, apparently he's got trained mice that I'm pretty damned curious about.
---------------


Also, I love how OP is all "SOMETHING SOMETHING, THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION" but once the conversation actually makes headway against his batshit propositions he just -disappears-. 

So yeah. I think I'm just gonna fuck around in Nanaki threads from now on. Not much anything else worth doing.


----------



## Maelstrom Eyre (Nov 1, 2014)

Most "pro lifers" really aren't pro life.

They're pro-birth.

They're all about making sure that fetus is BORN.

Once it's born. . .they don't care.  

They don't care if it carries some genetic disorder that will leave it permanently disabled or disfigured, causing the child to live in pain, to be forever dependent on caretakers, or addicted to whatever substance their mother was addicted to during the pregnancy.

The pro-birthers don't care if the child grows up in extreme poverty, in a home where the parents never wanted children.  They don't care if the child will grow up dependent on government handouts to pay for their home and food.  They don't care that the child may even be told throughout its life that it is worthless and unwanted, that it should have been aborted.

Most of the "pro birth" people I know are the same people who complain about the generations of welfare-dependents in our country.  They think that the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to teach people total abstinence.  They want to remove or significantly reduce the availability of contraception and women's health care.  They often make it nearly impossible for women without children to get long-term or permanent birth control, even if the woman knows she does not want children.

Pro-birth has nothing to do with cherishing life.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 1, 2014)

God loves mutant retard babies the most. They're the least resistant to the fundie conversion process.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Nov 1, 2014)

It's time to abort this thread.


----------



## Troj (Nov 1, 2014)

Agreeing with Maelstrom Eye that most pro-lifers really aren't pro-life. When you look at how they vote, they consistently reject--or even, actively fight--policies, laws, and programs intended to help pregnant women, poor mothers, children with disabilities, and/or children living in poverty.

Not to be crass--but, yes, to be crass--pro-lifers love babies, as long as they're middle-class, white, and English-speaking. If they're brown or poor, they're "moochers," like their parents.

My stance is that children are a massive responsibility; that human beings are a major drain on the planet; and that, depending on what happens to them early on, children will grow into adults who will either help society, or harm it, so people need to plan and think carefully before having children, and any society that treasures its continued success and survival would do well to support people's efforts at family planning, and invest in parents and their children.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Nov 1, 2014)

Gryphoneer said:


> It's time to abort this thread.



If you didn't want this thread you should just have kept your browser closed.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Nov 1, 2014)

I don't agree with abortion as I think it's kinda horrible, especially after-birth ones or developed fetuses, but I'm not going to tell a women what to do with her child, yet doesn't mean it changes my opinion or the option to express my views on it either.


----------



## Bonobosoph (Nov 1, 2014)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I don't agree with abortion as I think it's kinda horrible, especially after-birth ones or developed fetuses, but I'm not going to tell a women what to do with her child, yet doesn't mean it changes my opinion or the option to express my views on it either.


I get ya. I am pro choice in the political sense, but the actual action of abortion makes me feel really upset. It's something I could never do lest I feel horrid for the rest of my days. But I can't tell anyone else what to do, hence why I'm still technically pro-choice.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 1, 2014)

Just popping in to say that abortions are illegal in pretty much everywhere once the fetus is too old
There's no such thing as after-birth abortion.


----------



## Troj (Nov 2, 2014)

I'm disappointed that some members of Congress aren't eligible for an 300th-trimester abortion.


----------



## Nikolinni (Nov 2, 2014)

My thing is I'm pro-choice, techincally, since I feel that it's your choice to decide what you want to do with your baby. I don't like abortion, but hey, what can I do? Just 'cause I don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal. 

However, there is some needed attitude changes in regard to it. There's still places that will try to push women towards abortions, and not really provide them with the full information on what you can do if you want to keep the child (and yes, I know the inverse is true as well); I believe that if you want to make the decision either way doctors and people should be unbiased and provide you with information for BOTH, not ONE choice. And I've read stories online where women were put under tremendous pressure to abort their child, just like those who want to get an abortion are. So simply put, bullshit happens to both sides. 

I also don't like how hard people try with the "It's just a clump of cells!" Argument. Y'know the whole "When does life begin"; I can get the logic behind how a zygote could be argued against as just cells but days after it's already beginning to be visibly human in some ways. It just feels like the pro-choice people who push that are trying to dehumanize the fetus so it's more acceptable to abort it...because after all, it isn't human, right? But that's just my thoughts on it, and the impression I've gotten from others. 

Also God help you if you're female and pro-life. If you thought death threats and other things only happened to pro-choice people you're deathly mistaken.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 3, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> However, there is some needed attitude changes in regard to it. There's still places that will try to push women towards abortions, and not really provide them with the full information on what you can do if you want to keep the child (and yes, I know the inverse is true as well); I believe that if you want to make the decision either way doctors and people should be unbiased and provide you with information for BOTH, not ONE choice. And I've read stories online where women were put under tremendous pressure to abort their child, just like those who want to get an abortion are. So simply put, bullshit happens to both sides.



I call bullshit.  What's the motivation to pressure someone to _have_ an abortion?  You can't even say "money" because every abortion costs a future delivery, which is where the real money is.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Nov 3, 2014)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I don't agree with abortion as I think it's kinda horrible, especially after-birth ones or developed fetuses, but I'm not going to tell a women what to do with her child, yet doesn't mean it changes my opinion or the option to express my views on it either.



I know this is a troll thread but I'm still gonna throw in my 2 cents.

People always use the argument of "you can't tell a woman what to do with her body". Implying that the decision on whether to abort or carry the fetus should be
ENTIRELY down to her just because it's growing inside her. I just feel that's bullshit.

Say a couple are in a loving relationship, and have consensual sex, but the birth control fails (or maybe they weren't using any at all) and there is a pregnancy. Is it acceptable to say that the guy should have NO say in something that affects his life as well in about the biggest way possible? It might be the girl's body, but it's BOTH OF THEIR fetus. They should make the decision as a couple and decide what's best for all 3 of them. It makes no difference that "it's her body".

Of course, in the unfortunate case that the girl is raped, of course it would be entirely her decision.


----------



## Nishbitz (Nov 3, 2014)

Making something illegal doesn't make it magically disappear It just goes underground and becomes completely unregulated,
Not a good thing for a medical procedure. It should be legal everywhere for the safety of the women involved. it doesn't matter if you think its "murder" even if it is it's not your choice to make. The situation is different for everyone, people simply don't have an abortion because they "just don't want a kid" it could completely throw their lives offtrack forcing them to quit jobs, dropout of college, completely change there aspirations, our most of all cause extreme financial instability.  I don't think that's fair


----------



## Lobar (Nov 3, 2014)

Alexxx-Returns said:


> Say a couple are in a loving relationship, and have consensual sex, but the birth control fails (or maybe they weren't using any at all) and there is a pregnancy. Is it acceptable to say that the guy should have NO say in something that affects his life as well in about the biggest way possible?



Yes, yes it is.  If they are in a loving relationship I'm sure she'll listen to his input, but under no circumstances can he ever ethically be allowed the power to overrule her decision.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 3, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Yes, yes it is.  If they are in a loving relationship I'm sure she'll listen to his input, but under no circumstances can he ever ethically be allowed the power to overrule her decision.



"I want you to carry the existing fetus through a full 9 month term and give birth to it in an extremely painful and arduous process because I want to be a father! And because I ejaculated my sperm into you, which managed to make it to your egg and fertilize, I have the right to say whether or not you put your body through this!"


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 3, 2014)

And I assume he has no place in deciding whether or not he wants to take part, right?

If the woman wants to abort, she can abort, because it's her life.

If a man wants no part in the parenting, he can't do anything about it, even though it's his life. I guess a man's life isn't important. Doesn't matter if said contraception was sabotaged.

I don't think any man has the right to make a woman have/not have a baby, but a woman has no right to drag a man along for the ride.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 3, 2014)

Gotta love dem double standards.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 3, 2014)

Schwimmwagen said:


> And I assume he has no place in deciding whether or not he wants to take part, right?
> 
> If the woman wants to abort, she can abort, because it's her life.
> 
> ...



He can decide to not take part by keeping it in his pants in the first place.

I also like how "birth control fails" in the original hypothetical scenario evolves into "contraception was _sabotaged_" when you retell it.  SPERMJACKING!


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 3, 2014)

So a woman is babied and not held accountable for her mistakes like an independent adult, but a man is?


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 3, 2014)

Schwimmwagen said:


> So a woman is babied and not held accountable for her mistakes like an independent adult, but a man is?



_Welcome to the after-dredges of old law._
It's shit and it's not fair--but it's the way it is. Woman gets trump card over the child because it's her body that's carrying. Guy has no say either way--but if forced to foot half the bill whether or not he wants it. 

It's a shit fookin mess of incomplete laws right along with eminent domain, the 9/10ths possession law rule, and the fact that there is no contesting a rear end accident unless you have dashcam proof the other person was being an idiot driver.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 3, 2014)

If the man wanted a say in what happens to his seed, he shouldn't have left it in the woman for more than a month :V


----------



## Lobar (Nov 3, 2014)

Schwimmwagen said:


> So a woman is babied and not held accountable for her mistakes like an independent adult, but a man is?



Oh, pregnancy is about holding women _accountable_, now?

What the hell happened to you, Gibby?



RedSavage said:


> _Welcome to the after-dredges of old law._
> It's shit and it's not fair--but it's the way it is. Woman gets trump card over the child because it's her body that's carrying. Guy has no say either way--but if forced to foot half the bill whether or not he wants it.



Wouldn't you say it was fair if abortion wasn't possible?  We have to create special financial rights for men now to keep up with medical progress for women?


----------



## silver_foxfang (Nov 3, 2014)

Abortion is wrong!! God loves babies as long as theyer whore mama isn't livin on the wellcare! Jesusus didn't dig the guatamaly canal wit the necronomiconicl in 1536 so dem librils culd print wellcare checks made of dead babies


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 3, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Oh, pregnancy is about holding women _accountable_, now?
> 
> What the hell happened to you, Gibby?



Nothing happened, anyone with any sense of reason can see painfully obvious double standards. What, so only one party is responsible for pregnancy now? It takes two to tango, and if one doesn't want to, they shouldn't have to. I like to think that equality is about not giving a single party full authority over the lives of two people.

A woman can decide whether or not she wants to be a parent, and also have sex willy-nilly, and even get to rope in another person and also get a chunk of their money, which they can get a prison sentence for if they don't/can't pay up.

A man doesn't have that privelige.


----------



## Misomie (Nov 3, 2014)

Some double standards will continue to exist (even once the sexes are considered equal) due to biology. That's just the way it is. Until people use pods to carry their baby, it is the mother's decision because she has to carry it. However, I also believe that some laws should be revised just because of how unfair they are. The father should be able to opt out if he wants and not have to pay child support. Both sexes deserve birth control (to be in charge of their fertility) and the ability to opt out.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 3, 2014)

Schwimmwagen said:


> Nothing happened, anyone with any sense of reason can see painfully obvious double standards. What, so only one party is responsible for pregnancy now? It takes two to tango, and if one doesn't want to, they shouldn't have to. I like to think that equality is about not giving a single party full authority over the lives of two people.



Only one party is _involved_ in pregnancy.  You have no role in it after fertilization, which is already entirely optional to you.  Should you find a way to sustain a fetus inside your body, then you'll have the same right to interrupt that process as anyone else.  But you don't get a risk-free opportunity to completely walk away from your obligations to your child to "compensate" for a woman's potential access (but we're working on that! :V) to an invasive medical procedure to terminate a long, arduous process that she might also have strong moral feelings about.


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Nov 3, 2014)

Child support laws in America are fucked. This discussion reminds me of a few articles I read the other week about how men are forced to pay child support even when the baby isn't his, but the mother put their names down as the father anyway. Child support payments more often than not in this country are a joke more concerned about making the man pay as much as possible so that the courts get a larger percentage of money from each payment. 

The articles I mentioned are Here and Here


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 3, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Oh, pregnancy is about holding women _accountable_, now?


i have a question for you (and i'm asking honestly for context);

do you believe it is possible that an unwanted pregnancy could be due to a woman being highly sexually irresponsible?


----------



## silver_foxfang (Nov 4, 2014)

Use the pill and a condom! Taste the meat not the heat! People are stupid I tell you what.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 4, 2014)

hey i had an idea lets make men pay for abortions to hold them accountable for failing to get a vasectomy



Evan of Phrygia said:


> i have a question for you (and i'm asking honestly for context);
> 
> do you believe it is possible that an unwanted pregnancy could be due to a woman being highly sexually irresponsible?



Without a man that is every bit as highly sexually irresponsible?  No, not really.

edit: not that it's even your or anyone else's prerogitive to use someone's own body against them to punish them for their sexual activity


----------



## Ieono (Nov 4, 2014)

If someone figures out a way to sterilize the entire human race, then abortion won't be an issue anymore.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 4, 2014)

Ieono said:


> If someone figures out a way to sterilize the entire human race, then abortion won't be an issue anymore.


 Bearded Skynose knows we could breed less.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 4, 2014)

Ieono said:


> If someone figures out a way to sterilize the entire human race, then abortion won't be an issue anymore.



Do your service to the community today! 
Stop abortion!
Be homogay!


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 4, 2014)

Is that Lobar thing really a man? I've never seen such a staunch male feminist. Sounds weird just saying it.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 4, 2014)

Hinalle K. said:


> Is that Lobar thing really a man? I've never seen such a staunch male feminist. Sounds weird just saying it.



I can neither confirm nor deny that I've poked Lobar's willy.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 4, 2014)

Hinalle K. said:


> Is that Lobar thing really a man? I've never seen such a staunch male feminist. Sounds weird just saying it.



More man than you can handle.

Maybe it's a little out of the ordinary in whatever hellhole you're from, but I don't think standing up for existing abortion rights won back in the fucking 70's makes me particularly extreme.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> More man than you can handle.
> 
> Maybe it's a little out of the ordinary in whatever hellhole you're from, but I don't think standing up for existing abortion rights won back in the fucking 70's makes me particularly extreme.


So what happened in your childhood that made you hate your own kind so passionately?


----------



## Lobar (Nov 4, 2014)

Hinalle K. said:


> So what happened in your childhood that made you hate your own kind so passionately?



_People_ are my kind.  The entire framing of abortion rights as something adversarial to men is asinine to begin with.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Nov 4, 2014)

It's not about making anyone "accountable". Mistakes do happen (and yes, there ARE young girls who tell their boyfriend they are on the pill because they want a bebbeh and actually use this bullshit "you can't tell me what to do with my body" rule to force them into becoming fathers when neither party is ready), but the resulting fetus belongs to BOTH parents. It has the power to severely fuck up BOTH their lives (and the kid's life, too).

It's not about blaming or hating anyone. Both parties should have the right to sit down and discuss what they are going to do about something that would change both their lives. Yeah, sure, the man doesn't have to put up with pregnancy or childbirth, and no he doesn't HAVE to be around, but he WILL BE a father, and after that kid is born, nothing will change that. He will be forced to pay for something he begged his partner to not keep, and he will be shamed if he doesn't pay up, and shamed f he doesn't become at least a part-time dad who sees the kid every fortnight. I think that's kinda wrong if this dude never wanted to be forced into that situation.

By all means, if the couple sit down and eventually decide to carry the pregnancy, that's fine as long as they made that decision for the right reasons. Not just "it's my body and you can't tell me what to do with it".

I agree totally, it would be so much better if all pregnancies were done in an artificial incubator.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> _People_ are my kind.  The entire framing of abortion rights as something adversarial to men is asinine to begin with.


I didn't mean about this thread specifically, more like in general.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 4, 2014)

Alexxx-Returns said:


> Both parties should have the right to sit down and discuss what they are going to do about something that would change both their lives. Yeah, sure, the man doesn't have to put up with pregnancy or childbirth, and no he doesn't HAVE to be around, but he WILL BE a father, and after that kid is born, nothing will change that. He will be forced to pay for something he begged his partner to not keep, and he will be shamed if he doesn't pay up, and shamed f he doesn't become at least a part-time dad who sees the kid every fortnight. I think that's kinda wrong if this dude never wanted to be forced into that situation.



By all means, sit down and discuss whatever.  But the man is not entitled to compel the woman to get or not get a medical procedure, or to abandon a child if he doesn't get his way.  _That_ would be wrong.

In fact, it would be great if guys would have this discussion with women _before_ having sex.  Men aren't helpless bystanders; everything leading up to the pregnancy is within their sphere of control.  If men would have these conversations in the first place, they could decide to keep it in their pants if their partner's stance on abortion doesn't mesh with their own.  That's how men can put in their two cents on abortion: by deciding whether or not there's a pregnancy to abort in the first place.



Hinalle K. said:


> I didn't mean about this thread specifically, more like in general.



My answer stands.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Without a man that is every bit as highly sexually irresponsible?  No, not really.
> 
> edit: not that it's even your or anyone else's prerogitive to use someone's own body against them to punish them for their sexual activity


see that just seems short sighted to me. i'm not saying that all women should be punished or some severely extreme concept, but the simple idea of a woman who either sleeps around or cheats and has a contraceptive fail on her (and i realize under your logic, it's the mans fault for something she could easily withhold) is definitely something that is important. i think if a pregnancy comes due to someone who is not taking care of themselves and is not thinking about the consequences of certain sexual actions, then there _is_ some potential for a woman being considered the irresponsible party of the two.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Nov 4, 2014)

I think most cases, the woman is the irresponsible party. They DO lie about their birth control. Yeah, I think if the guy isn't quite that gullible, and really wants to make sure there is no pregnancy (I had a partner once who, given the opportunity, liked to see my empty pill-packets and see me take the pill, and I liked to provide him this reassurance), he will follow up and make sure she's telling the truth, so blame can't be placed 100% on either side.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> My answer stands.


I don't believe that. Something must have shaped you this way. Men don't just turn this fiercely beta out of the blue.

I'm all for freedom and all that, but you take that to the ÃŸ level.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 4, 2014)

Hinalle K. said:


> I don't believe that. Something must have shaped you this way. Men don't just turn this fiercely beta out of the blue.
> I'm all for freedom and all that, but you take that to the ÃŸ level.



Ah so. You've decided just to resort to outright non-subtle trolling. 



K.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 4, 2014)

Evan of Phrygia said:


> see that just seems short sighted to me. i'm not saying that all women should be punished or some severely extreme concept, but the simple idea of a woman who either sleeps around or cheats and has a contraceptive fail on her (and i realize under your logic, it's the mans fault for something she could easily withhold) is definitely something that is important.



Couldn't disagree more.  How responsible or irresponsible you feel a woman's behavior is is completely irrelevant to her right to bodily autonomy.



Alexxx-Returns said:


> I think most cases, the woman is the irresponsible party. They DO lie about their birth control. Yeah, I think if the guy isn't quite that gullible, and really wants to make sure there is no pregnancy (I had a partner once who, given the opportunity, liked to see my empty pill-packets and see me take the pill, and I liked to provide him this reassurance), he will follow up and make sure she's telling the truth, so blame can't be placed 100% on either side.



I have no reason to believe this is a thing that actually happens with any real frequency, and there's still nothing preventing dudes from keeping their dicks wrapped.



Hinalle K. said:


> I don't believe that. Something must have shaped you this way. Men don't just turn this fiercely beta out of the blue.
> 
> I'm all for freedom and all that, but you take that to the ÃŸ level.



hahahaha you can't be serious


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 4, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Ah so. You've decided just to resort to outright non-subtle trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> K.


Butters , is that you?

I'm serious though, that guy has always been so anti-male it's kind of annoying. I can't possibly be the only one who noticed that.

It's like he's a fat black American tumblr lady within.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Couldn't disagree more.  How responsible or irresponsible you feel a woman's behavior is is completely irrelevant to her right to bodily autonomy.


So it's also irrelevant to the potential ramifications that an arguably misled male may face for someone else's poor choices? Or how about if she decides to birth the child and doesn't have the ability or maturity to support it? 

We're thinking strictly about her right to her body, which is important. But that doesn't mean that is the _only issue in this topic_â€‹


----------



## Tao (Nov 4, 2014)

If you're not a woman, you probably shouldn't have any say in abortion.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 4, 2014)

Hinalle K. said:


> Butters , is that you?
> 
> I'm serious though, that guy has always been so anti-male it's kind of annoying. I can't possibly be the only one who noticed that.
> 
> It's like he's a fat black American tumblr lady within.



Hi, I'm right here.  I find you annoying too.

Maybe as a man I just don't feel all that oppressed? v:?v


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Couldn't disagree more.  How responsible or irresponsible you feel a woman's behavior is is completely irrelevant to her right to bodily autonomy.



because not wanting to be used as a financial slave means aborting the baby against the mom's will


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Hi, I'm right here.  I find you annoying too.
> 
> Maybe as a man I just don't feel all that oppressed? v:?v


You seem to feel other people's oppression though and 'fend for them.


----------



## Troj (Nov 4, 2014)

What about holding men accountable, given that they DON'T get pregnant and DON'T have to stick around if they don't want to? 

How are we going to hold men accountable when they, for example, whine to a woman that condoms don't feel good and therefore, they won't want to use one?


----------



## Nikolinni (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> I call bullshit.  What's the motivation to pressure someone to _have_ an abortion?  You can't even say "money" because every abortion costs a future delivery, which is where the real money is.



What if the female wants to keep the child, but for whatever reason others don't feel that she should? That would be reason enough to put pressure on someone to have an abortion. And I've read stories where that happens quite a bit on sites like Tumblr. I tried to dig up some posts I read involving that, but the pro-life/pro-choice/abortion tags are flooded with voting posts at the moment. So here's some stuff I found on Google: 

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/31/...bortion-clinics-pressure-to-have-an-abortion/
http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/...uing-to-be-pressured-to-have-an-abortion.html
http://www.babycenter.com/400_19-ye...-being-pressured-to-have-an-ab_8606735_504.bc

So there's a few examples of people being pressured. You really couldn't think of a reason on your own why people would force or pressure others to have an abortion? Are you just saying that to challenge my viewpoints or are you just that dense?



Troj said:


> What about holding men accountable, given that they DON'T get pregnant and DON'T have to stick around if they don't want to?
> 
> How are we going to hold men accountable when they, for example, whine to a woman that condoms don't feel good and therefore, they won't want to use one?



I think men SHOULD be held accountable in situations like that. I mean how we do it exactly I'm not sure; but as others have pointed out on here, it takes two to tango; ergo the man should have some accountability/responsibility in this. 

Also "No Uterus, No Opinion" is something I disagree with; not only is it sexist ("Men can't speak on abortion issues!"), but you're potentially silencing men that could be on your side or like myself, not liking the idea of it, but not liking the idea of making it illegal because they feel it's the choice of the person and their own moral code shouldn't interfere with what others think.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 4, 2014)

Troj said:


> What about holding men accountable, given that they DON'T get pregnant and DON'T have to stick around if they don't want to?
> 
> How are we going to hold men accountable when they, for example, whine to a woman that condoms don't feel good and therefore, they won't want to use one?


we're not speaking strictly in female accountability. male accountability is fair and should be acknowledged. the point was about _equal_â€‹ or at least more equal forms of accountability

i get the impression that this discussion is going to get more heated than it already was. above anything, it should be fair to care about the woman's body and that's a big discussion in pro-choice issues, but then there is definitely more that needs to be discussed beyond women's rights within pregnancy carriage, and it should be acknowledged that nobody who is arguably rational is saying that the woman doesn't have her respective rights. My point is trying to define that line better so that the women who are responsible and careful get the benefits of these situations.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 4, 2014)

Hinalle K. said:


> Butters , is that you?




You spent two pages in a thread ripping on an emotional dude and his now dead kitten, and then turned around and called everyone out for ripping on a girl who was allowing herself to be emotionally manipulated by 12 year olds. 

You spend another thread ripping on someone for being a schizo, but criticize me for being upset at my mentally ill brother. _I eventually come to terms with my brother's illness and let go of that anger, and then you criticize me for it._

You criticize American ignorance and bullheadedness, and then you blatantly display your own prejudices towards me and my life choices over the course of an entire day. Including that of cleaning up and living a healthy life without drugs. Almost as if you'd prefer that I'd remained an unreformed drug dealer and coke snorter. Oh---and then you followed me around and harassed me for a day or so about it until you were literally told to shut the fuck up by the mods. 

To top it off, every time a final point gets made, you don't actually concede on anything. You've never once given any sort of thought to anything outside your alternative views on anything--nearly as if you don't really believe in them. You just start shit, play semantics until you can't, and then fucking vanish. So much, in fact, that I actually don't expect you to attack/defend/confirm/deny/ the idea that you may be some pissant who just hops in and out of threads to start shit. You'll just pick up on one or two of my points to attempt play against myself and hammer those into the ground into the original point is forgotten. Or you'll just make some generalizing sarcastic comment and leave it at that.

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, for what it was worth. (Not a damn thing.) But you've reached a new low of obvious antagonizing that it merely gets tiring, and I foresee a future where no one takes you seriously. No one responds to you. Everyone, except the newcomers, ignore you and just chuckle with each other at the still in-character shit starter who claims to be some misled, western societal defunct criticizer from Saudi-Fucking-Arabia who changes his IP address because of "internet police". 

And the worst part? (For you, at least, since you literally have no effect on anything or anyone here other than momentary distraction within a distraction of a distracted hobby) Even if this is all real--just you being you--then that would be even sadder, and my convoluted derision of your being on these boards would in reality be the best case scenario.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 4, 2014)

Out of honest curiosity about the American justice system though, if one commits a crime , but is never found out, isn't he or she technically still a criminal since he/she never formally paid for it, even if they change their ways of life?


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 4, 2014)

Case in fucking point.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 4, 2014)

I'm just asking! Nothing personal.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 4, 2014)

Evan of Phrygia said:


> So it's also irrelevant to the potential ramifications that an arguably misled male may face for someone else's poor choices? Or how about if she decides to birth the child and doesn't have the ability or maturity to support it?
> 
> We're thinking strictly about her right to her body, which is important. But that doesn't mean that is the _only issue in this topic_â€‹



Bodily autonomy is a human right and thus the _overriding_ issue in this topic.



Schwimmwagen said:


> because not wanting to be used as a financial slave means aborting the baby against the mom's will



If you're this paranoid then maybe sexhaving isn't for you.



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> You seem to feel other people's oppression though and 'fend for them.



So, a little secret about me: when I encounter novel opposing arguments, I actually stop to consider them and make the best case for them that I can in a basic plausibility check.  The reason that I argue as vociferously as I do is that I am confident in my positions after having ensured that I really have thought them through.  When I first encountered feminist criticism, I did the same thing â€“ rather than whipping off a knee-jerk rebuttal, I stopped, considered seriously, and found that they had a valid point.  MRAs, on the other hand, I get rank dishonesty from with such frequency that I've come to consider them as akin to creationists in regards to intellectual honesty.



Troj said:


> What about holding men accountable, given that they DON'T get pregnant and DON'T have to stick around if they don't want to?
> 
> How are we going to hold men accountable when they, for example, whine to a woman that condoms don't feel good and therefore, they won't want to use one?



Seriously.  Take away the one reason men have to keep their dicks wrapped, and what do you think is going to happen?

"No, really, I'll pull out, baby.  I promise."



Nikolinni said:


> What if the female wants to keep the child, but for whatever reason others don't feel that she should? That would be reason enough to put pressure on someone to have an abortion. And I've read stories where that happens quite a bit on sites like Tumblr. I tried to dig up some posts I read involving that, but the pro-life/pro-choice/abortion tags are flooded with voting posts at the moment. So here's some stuff I found on Google:
> 
> http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/31/...bortion-clinics-pressure-to-have-an-abortion/
> http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/...uing-to-be-pressured-to-have-an-abortion.html
> ...



Here's part of your post I replied to (emphasis mine):
[





Nikolinni said:


> There's still *places* that will try to push women towards abortions, and not really provide them with the full information on what you can do if you want to keep the child



I'm calling bullshit that there are _institutions_ that, despite having no personal stake in the matter, will pressure women that don't want an abortion into getting one.  I'm well aware that there are men who would pressure their SOs into aborting, I'm arguing with some of them right now.  I also don't put much faith into shit like "lifenews" as an unbiased source.



Evan of Phrygia said:


> we're not speaking strictly in female accountability. male accountability is fair and should be acknowledged. the point was about _equal_â€‹ or at least more equal forms of accountability
> 
> i get the impression that this discussion is going to get more heated than it already was. above anything, it should be fair to care about the woman's body and that's a big discussion in pro-choice issues, but then there is definitely more that needs to be discussed beyond women's rights within pregnancy carriage, and it should be acknowledged that nobody who is arguably rational is saying that the woman doesn't have her respective rights. My point is trying to define that line better so that the women who are responsible and careful get the benefits of these situations.



Rights aren't rights if you have to pass a test to be able to exercise them, especially a test based entirely on your opinions about "responsibility".


----------



## Ieono (Nov 4, 2014)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> You seem to feel other people's oppression though and 'fend for them.



I believe that's called compassion. Maybe you should try it sometime.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Bodily autonomy is a human right and thus the





Lobar said:


> _overriding _issue in this topic.


Human rights in regards to abortion _is_ the topic. We're debating the male's right to speak in a situation, as well as the women's rights to respond. Where should that be allowed,where should that be withheld, what _rights_ do they have in the situation. Bodily autonomy is an example of something that should be considered, and for me personally is a right that should be defended. There are others that I do not agree with.





> If you're this paranoid then maybe sex having isn't for you.


He's literally in the wrong country just to be in a relationship and not strictly for the sex. I think if there's a trust issue it would have started at the plane, not at the condom. 





> So,a little secret about me: when I encounter novel opposing arguments,I actually stop to consider them and make the best case for them that I can in a basic plausibility check. The reason that I argue as vociferously as I do is that I am confident in my positions afterhaving ensured that I really have thought them through. When I first encountered feminist criticism, I did the same thing â€“ rather than whipping off a knee-jerk rebuttal, I stopped, considered seriously,and found that they had a valid point. MRAs, on the other hand, I get rank dishonesty from with such frequency that I've come to consider them as akin to creationists in regards to intellectual honesty.


This surprises me because feminists don't have anywhere near one consolidated argument. Christine Sommers is not remotely similar to Anita Sarkeesian. To say that "feminism" is more right than"MRA" is like saying Britain has better people than Scotland. If anything, MRA has become more prominent as a backlash of certain forms of feminism that tend to lean into borderline misandry. The statistical misconceptions are abound in both fields.

I'm glad you try to check your arguments, but I think to better your perception of feminism and MRA you should avoid classifying things strictly under "feminist" and "MRA". Not all groups are exclusively representative of the views they reference, and there is more than enough dispute between certain forms of the same category that saying that "feminists are right, MRA are wrong" is a limited statement.


> Seriously.Take away the one reason men have to keep their dicks wrapped, and what do you think is going to happen?
> 
> "No,really, I'll pull out, baby. I promise."


Man,you're really going to make an assumption like that? First off, STI's are most definitely still a thing, and second you realize that by saying that you're extending your generalization to gay men, who(based on my experience) are _very _big on condoms and sex health. That's just a ridiculous thing to say and ignores the fact that people care about sexual health beyond pregnancy, not to mention the fact that you're just assuming that all men have no human decency or are all having sex with people they don't care about, which is absurd. You really think a husband/boyfriend who knows just as well as his wife/girlfriend that dealing with a pregnancy and abortion are going to be okay because he won't be held accountable?




> I'm calling bullshit that there are _institutions _that,despite having no personal stake in the matter, will pressure women that don't want an abortion into getting one. I'm well aware that there are men who would pressure their SOs into aborting,I'm arguing with some of them right now. I also don't put much faith into shit like "lifenews" as an unbiased source.


Which directly cited a story from a book that claims to look for a neutral position on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/Bitter-Fruit-...h+Unplanned+Pregnancy,+Abortion,+and+Adoption

If you're looking at just what the URLs say and not what their sources are, that's an issue. I hate Kotaku but when I can find sources, I read them. the bias still exists, yes, but so does the source.
(I won't hold this book as a truly "valid" counterargument more than a comment on sourcing because I personally have not read the book, but I do trust the summary to give an indication of what it may entail in regards to perceived bias)




> Rights aren't rights if you have to pass a test to be able to exercise them,especially a test based entirely on your opinions about"responsibility".


I honestly don't know how to argue with you on this because you're making it sound absurd to talk about morally sound actions. Additionally, you're taking me out of context a bit. I'm not saying you have to pass a test to have a right to do something (unlike driving,education, gun ownership, teaching, citizenship etc), rather that if we are just choosing to not even address the situation at hand that that could compromise a lot more rights, for child, and parents. I'm not talking about "men should have equal rights over their children", I'm just saying they should have any at all, and that actions that are deemed reprehensible should be treated as such.

Additionally, we're talking about whether or not certain actions led to the pregnancy, which then affects both parents and makes them both accountable unless it is shown that one has committed to certain actions that no longer make it an incident within responsible actions. It is my opinion that such a system should exist, not my opinion on "whether or not it's the women's fault" (which is frankly how I feel you're representing me)

All in all, I can see that this argument could go on for a while though.


Ieono said:


> I believe that's called compassion. Maybe you should try it sometime.


It would certainly be impressive if he could show compassion and insult someone at the same time!


----------



## Ieono (Nov 4, 2014)

Oh god, the lack of capitalization just invalidates anything you have to say.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 4, 2014)

Ieono said:


> Oh god, the lack of capitalization just invalidates anything you have to say.


Edited. Did I miss any?


----------



## Ieono (Nov 4, 2014)

Evan of Phrygia said:


> Edited. Did I miss any?



Ah, now that is a worthy academic argument. 

Also, I was commenting on cup's statement in of itself, not in relation to anything Lobar may have said. Honestly, arguing abortion/women's rights isn't gonna get the people involved anywhere most of the time, because these things are heavily-intertwined with their value systems. Value systems usually take a very long time to change. And when people meet others with beliefs contrary to theirs, it usually feels to them as a personal attack on what they hold dear. It is hard for people to speak rationally about emotional matters, and I doubt this forum invites the kind of intellectuals who are adept at doing such a thing.


----------



## Misomie (Nov 4, 2014)

Man, you guys are all riled up. How about we agree that if a mother can choose to be a mother then a father can choose to become a father. Since the biology is different, how about a compromise? Females get ultimate decision on if they abort or not while males get ultimate decision if they want to help with the baby or not (child support, parenting, ect.). I don't see the latter happening for awhile, but society is beyond (or at least it should be) the state it was in when child support became a thing. Also, there are scumbags in every gender. Stop arguing about who is worse as it's petty and annoying. Instead, stick to ideas that'll help the situation and not drive you guys to dumb insults and using scumbags as support for your point.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> I have no reason to believe this is a thing that actually happens with any real frequency, and *there's still nothing preventing dudes from keeping their dicks wrapped.*


It reduces the quality of sex, something which is supposed to be mutually enjoyable. Or maybe we should all just have nothing to do with each other and masturbate instead. The only real sex that would make any sense at that point is sex for the sole purpose of procreation. Funny how shit comes full circle like that.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> If you're this paranoid then maybe sexhaving isn't for you.



Fortunately for me, I'm in a very strong loving relationship with mutual trust and respect for each other and each others' lives. I have been having perfectly safe sex inbetween splendid days out with my ladyfriend in NYC so I'm not afraid of those things as I have no reason to be in my own life.

For other men that isn't quite the case. Now gimmie more of that delicious ad hominem.


----------



## Feste (Nov 4, 2014)

Anyone else curious about the Journal of Medical Ethics the troll quoted? It's apparently a real journal, but what sort of journal registers a website as ".com" instead of ".edu" or ".gov" if its not privately owned (this one is apparently). I suspect some sort of political influence behind it, considering the field.

As for may take, I am pro-choice. Outside the obvious arguments of abortion for situations where the woman's life is at risk, I believe that, especially in the Western World, we have a strong societal belief in that people should be allowed to do with their bodies what they see fit, even if we don't tend to practice this in real life. Especially taking into considering the theocratic bent to legislation against abortion in the US, I do believe that abortion should be allowed with the proper education of the ACTUAL risks of abortion vs. birth (abortion does not cause breast cancer, you moronic state legislatures ><).

 Also, on a more pragmatic but darker and controversial note, I also support it since there is likely some correlation with the crime rate, as terrible as it may sound. Seriously, try that argument on an economic conservative, it's quite fun to see them get flustered at the thought of "less homeless people".


----------



## Troj (Nov 4, 2014)

For the record, while I do think that women ultimately hold the trump card when it comes to choosing whether to bear a child or not, I do think it's sad and unfortunate that one consequence of this is that men often get left out of the decision altogether, or have to deal with an outcome they didn't want. 

There's no clean fix or win-win compromise for this, obviously, but it's still an unfortunate situation.

The only fix I see, really, is if science advances to the point where children can be grown in artificial wombs, or where men can get pregnant. That's a ways off, obviously.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 4, 2014)

Evan of Phrygia said:


> words



Your post is such an ugly mess of BBCode tags that I just clipped the whole damn thing.

Men can speak all they want regarding pregnancy and abortion.  Women just aren't obligated to agree.

The MRA movement is a backlash against feminism, period.  The entire point is to distract from and diminish the importance of women's issues.

STIs have yet to be seen by participants in this thread as a reason for women to not "have sex willy-nilly", and I'm sure it's not going to stop a great deal of men either because omg why even have sex if you have to wear a rubber it makes it so awful. 

Men's control over pregnancy is proportional to their involvement in pregnancy.  It's already fair.  If men want to ensure that their partners won't disregard their opinion on abortion, then they need to be discussing the subject _before_ whipping their dicks out.  Waiting until after the situation is outside their sphere of control and then trying to assert control anyways is unacceptable.



Misomie said:


> Man, you guys are all riled up. How about we agree that if a mother can choose to be a mother then a father can choose to become a father. Since the biology is different, how about a compromise? Females get ultimate decision on if they abort or not while males get ultimate decision if they want to help with the baby or not (child support, parenting, ect.). I don't see the latter happening for awhile, but society is beyond (or at least it should be) the state it was in when child support became a thing. Also, there are scumbags in every gender. Stop arguing about who is worse as it's petty and annoying. Instead, stick to ideas that'll help the situation and not drive you guys to dumb insults and using scumbags as support for your point.



There's no reason to compromise: the idea that men's obligations to their children should be based on medical progress for women is absurd, and speak to a terrifying mindset that women are obligated to abort and if they don't it can only be to use the child as a weapon against the guy who got her pregnant.



Schwimmwagen said:


> Fortunately for me, I'm in a very strong loving relationship with mutual trust and respect for each other and each others' lives. I have been having perfectly safe sex inbetween splendid days out with my ladyfriend in NYC so I'm not afraid of those things as I have no reason to be in my own life.
> 
> For other men that isn't quite the case. Now gimmie more of that delicious ad hominem.



Have you sat down and had the talk about how you feel entitled to walk out on her if she has a kid yet?


----------



## Carnau (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Have you sat down and had the talk about how you feel entitled to walk out on her if she has a kid yet?



Hey there, schwimmwagen's girl here.
No I dont feel threatened over him leaving in case said child were to be concieved. I trust him enough with that. And besides, if he decided to do so I wouldnt feel entitled to his finances. That's not what attracted me to him. I try and keep things equal by putting myself in his shoes, parenting is an ENORMOUS responsibility and it's terrifying. I get that. I do not feel entitled to drag his life down because I'm *sure as hell* that divorce courts will not be fair to him or any other man. 

I know from experience that he is responsible enough to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. We know that we wouldnt want a child for a long time anyways, that's wayyyyy off in the future.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Have you sat down and had the talk about how you feel entitled to walk out on her if she has a kid yet?





Carnau said:


> Hey there, schwimmwagen's girl here.
> No I dont feel threatened over him leaving in case said child were to be concieved. I trust him enough with that. And besides, if he decided to do so I wouldnt feel entitled to his finances. That's not what attracted me to him. I try and keep things equal by putting myself in his shoes, parenting is an ENORMOUS responsibility and it's terrifying. I get that. I do not feel entitled to drag his life down because I'm *sure as hell* that divorce courts will not be fair to him or any other man.
> 
> I know from experience that he is responsible enough to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. We know that we wouldnt want a child for a long time anyways, that's wayyyyy off in the future.



Wow that went fast, I didn't have to ask

impregnate me immediately please


----------



## Eggdodger (Nov 4, 2014)

Carnau said:


> Hey there, schwimmwagen's girl here.
> No I dont feel threatened over him leaving in case said child were to be concieved. I trust him enough with that. And besides, if he decided to do so I wouldnt feel entitled to his finances. That's not what attracted me to him. I try and keep things equal by putting myself in his shoes, parenting is an ENORMOUS responsibility and it's terrifying. I get that. I do not feel entitled to drag his life down because I'm *sure as hell* that divorce courts will not be fair to him or any other man.
> 
> I know from experience that he is responsible enough to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. We know that we wouldnt want a child for a long time anyways, that's wayyyyy off in the future.



You got a winner here, Goober. Seriously, she's not even considering herself in this picture. This whole post was about how she doesn't wanna put you down. It's so heartwarming, I'm choking up for real =']

You kids have something special


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 4, 2014)

Eggdodger said:


> You got a winner here, Goober. Seriously, she's not even considering herself in this picture. This whole post was about how she doesn't wanna put you down. It's so heartwarming, I'm choking up for real =']
> 
> You kids have something special



She need not consider herself as I consider her feelings and her life a greater deal than she realises! I personally couldn't allow myself any irresponsibility that gives her AIDS or worse yet, babies, at least not for a very looong time. I respect her, her space, her choices, and she respects mine.

We actually discuss topics like these over romantic dinners at Burger King with sappy love songs playing on the radio. We as a couple are very indecisive about the topic of abortion, but we both agree that manufacturing babies without getting further in education/careers beforehand is a shit idea, and the best thing we can do is take preventative measures. Diapraghms w/ spermicide are pretty cool. It's like a second holocaust in there.


----------



## Teckolf (Nov 5, 2014)

How on earth did a thread on abortion get so sappy so quickly... But anyway, good for you guys.

I don't have anything to add but an opinion. I am pro-life in general, in the way that I personally do not agree with abortion as a practice. However, it does not effect my voting, nor do I impose it on anyone. I understand why someone would have an abortion, and frankly it is none of my business to force my views on them. 

I actually remember reading the article from the Journal of Medical Ethics when it first came up in the news articles several years ago. From what I can gather it was not an argument for or against abortion or "post-birth euthanasia" but more of a practice in ethical theoreticalism. Logically speaking the ethical conclusion was technically sound... However, I think it was more of a "what-if" meant to ignite discussion amongst academics .


----------



## Sylver (Nov 5, 2014)

Edit: Holy shit. I edit this once and it screws up by removing all of my paragraphs and making it this giant blob of text...fml...hopefully it's fixed.

I thought to myself "I should read this entire thread and have a good understanding of the contents before I enter into it"; I got to the 5th page and was halfway through it when I decided to give up because too many things were going on and couldn't follow them all.



Fallowfox said:


> The health of the baby should also be considered, because it is now capable of independent survival and has passed the mortality barrier. It is now also a person.



That depends on what your definition of a person is. One interpretation of the word person is a human being, while a philosophical definition of the word is something which is self-conscious or rational. I did an essay on the ethics and controversy surrounding Peter Singer's beliefs and statements - one of the topics I covered were abortion, to which Singer had some interesting views. He believes that a being's right to live is determined by their ability to be self-aware, have a sense of a future, are capable of relating to others, and being capable of feeling pain and pleasure (Singer, 1993:169). I copied that last sentence directly from my essay; I thought I'd leave the reference in there in the event that someone wants to look up his book or something. Basically, he said that what defines something as a person in a philosophical sense are those conditions.

I don't know if a baby is self-aware, has a sense of a future, or is capable of relating to others - the latter two I doubt, but the first one is arguable. If you use the philosophical definition of what a person is, then a baby is not a person. Although then again, how do we know a baby doesn't have a sense of a future or how do we know they can't relate to others? If I remember correctly his conclusion was that they are not 'people' until they become older, but there is no definite line that determines when a baby becomes a person. I suppose my conclusion to this is that we can't know if or when a baby becomes a person in a philosophical sense, but a good defining line is the birth of the child, after which you could classify it as a person even though it may not be for quite some time. If after-birth abortion (I don't care about the nomenclature of it) ever becomes a thing then I would assume it would be a very very touchy subject, since you're bordering on killing another person.

I think that it is very thought provoking, because that logic can be applied to a whole variety of things and not just abortion; e.g. someone who is brain-dead or a vegetable. Singer used the same logic to justify his beliefs that some members of the disabled community are not classified as people, which obviously raised hell in the disabled community...some people even went so far as to call him a neo-nazi.Anyway, just something interesting to think about. 



Misomie said:


> Not really. People euthanize pets for no reason. In shelters they are often just killed for there being too much room. Therefore it's often in the interest of the caretaker (I'm not talking about terminally ill animals that belong to loving owners).



Using the same philosophical definition for what a person is that I used above, one could argue that pets are not people. In my personal opinion, I don't believe that animals should be treated any differently(with regards to their right to live) from humans, but that's just my moral standing on the situation.

I had a few other quotes I meant to respond to, but I lost them unfortunately. I also won't be able to actively participate in a debate if my comment is replied to and picked apart, so I may take a while to respond. Oh jesus i'm going to regret posting this...I should have read it over more. Oh well.

I've got another quote from RedSavage that I meant to respond to, but I just don't have time right now... it was just one of those thought provoking things..


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Nov 5, 2014)

Feste said:


> Anyone else curious about the Journal of Medical Ethics the troll quoted? It's apparently a real journal, but what sort of journal registers a website as ".com" instead of ".edu" or ".gov" if its not privately owned (this one is apparently). I suspect some sort of political influence behind it, considering the field.
> 
> As for may take, I am pro-choice. Outside the obvious arguments of abortion for situations where the woman's life is at risk, I believe that, especially in the Western World, we have a strong societal belief in that people should be allowed to do with their bodies what they see fit, even if we don't tend to practice this in real life. Especially taking into considering the theocratic bent to legislation against abortion in the US, I do believe that abortion should be allowed with the proper education of the ACTUAL risks of abortion vs. birth (abortion does not cause breast cancer, you moronic state legislatures ><).
> 
> Also, on a more pragmatic but darker and controversial note, I also support it since there is likely some correlation with the crime rate, as terrible as it may sound. Seriously, try that argument on an economic conservative, it's quite fun to see them get flustered at the thought of "less homeless people".



Those kinds of journals are not affiliated with or owned by educational institutions or the government.

As to your last point, I think there's a lot of conservatives out there who like to think they have the moral high ground, but they don't truly stay consistent in their morals.  For instance, I've spoken to conservatives who basically say, "Yeah, abortion is sad, and it's wrong.  But there's a good side to it: many of those abortions are keeping people off the welfare roles."  So, the conservative who pretends to be on the side of "the unborn children" throws those fetuses under the bus for the sake of their own wallet.  How nice.

And I have to include one of my all-time favorite Rush Limbaugh quotes here... Rush Limbaugh was talking about some poll that showed a trend of increasing conservatism among millennials, and he said, "You might be thinking, 'What's happening to all the liberals?'  Well, that's easy: they're all being aborted!"  I really hope I don't have to explain to anyone why this is laugh-out-loud, side-splittingly, outrageously funny.  I literally almost drove my car off the road when I heard this on the radio because I was laughing so hard.  They're all being aborted!  Holy *fuck*, that's funny.

But anyway, I tend to stay pretty morally consistent, myself.  I tend to agree with abortion, and I'm not one of those people who thinks of life as this thing that we need to all fall over ourselves just to save every last bit of it.  That's why I'm OK with after-birth abortion.  I mean, shit, life isn't Maxwell's Good-To-The-Last-Drop coffee or anything.  Why not focus on making actual people's lives better rather than saving every last single baby?

One of the major selling points, though, of after-birth abortion is that it's basically effective as legal protection for existing abortion procedures.  Often times, *fetuses will survive the abortion procedure*, and you're left with this half-living... extra-vaginal fetus.  So, often times what happens is these fetuses are basically left to go through demise on their own.  Other times, the fetus is terminated outside of the womb.  You can call this after-birth abortion, but it's really just *completing the abortion process* (and it's currently illegal but not always prosecuted).  Why are we going to let women and doctors go through legal hell just to complete an abortion?

There's just so many levels to after-birth abortion that it warrants serious consideration.  That's what this thread is supposed to be about.  It's about the future of abortion and strengthening legal protections for abortions that are performed, and also possibly extending abortion into other procedures that can psychologically help actual people.

Finally, there's nothing controversial or dark about wanting to decrease the crime rate or keep people from experiencing homelessness.  This is *our* world, and we have every right and even a duty to ensure that it is as good a world for *us* as possible.  We *can* make a difference, and after-birth abortion is a complex issue that we need to understand and take a side on.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 5, 2014)

Carnau said:


> Hey there, schwimmwagen's girl here.
> No I dont feel threatened over him leaving in case said child were to be concieved. I trust him enough with that. And besides, if he decided to do so I wouldnt feel entitled to his finances. That's not what attracted me to him. I try and keep things equal by putting myself in his shoes, parenting is an ENORMOUS responsibility and it's terrifying. I get that. I do not feel entitled to drag his life down because I'm *sure as hell* that divorce courts will not be fair to him or any other man.
> 
> I know from experience that he is responsible enough to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. We know that we wouldnt want a child for a long time anyways, that's wayyyyy off in the future.



Oh, hi.  So, this is all easy to say, while said child is just an unlikely hypothetical, while you're in the honeymoon phase with your real, living SO.  So I'm going to ask you to exercise your imagination a little bit.

Think of how much your closest family member means to you.  A child means even more than that.  You alone are responsible for sustaining him or her as well as yourself, with no outside support from anyone.  You're a capable worker, but the time commitments to your child make any sort of decent career job impossible regardless.  Two meals of the day consist of ramen noodles, and your kid may as well forget the idea of college right now.

Is this an existence you willingly take not only upon yourself, but thrust upon another, your own flesh and blood?  For the sake of your former partner, who had an equal hand in bringing that child to life, just so that he can have no strings attached and no commitments to anyone but himself?

Would you tell each and every single mother that you expect the same sacrifice from them?

Would you still castigate any who wanted better as being purely vindictive?


----------



## Lomberdia (Nov 5, 2014)

My girlfriend and I made a prior agreement and understanding that if we make a child,

1) she will abort it or;
2) she will keep it and we will break up

She has 3 kids (2 were planned from her last marriage) and had complications with the 3rd one. I told her that I'm fixed and can't have kids but she keeps worrying about the small chance that the tubes reconnect and I knock her up...like that 1% chance it happen. 

If folks know they dont want kids, get fixed. If you know you wont want them for a few years then use protection or some kinda hormone thing for women. If there was one for men I bet that would be awesome.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Nov 5, 2014)

I think the general attitude with a lot of pro-choice people I do not agree with is that the fetus is just a thing you get rid of like a piece of trash whenever you want to, and not even having compassion like pro-life people do and then act like abortions are something you should be proud about after having one done. Very strong abortion supporters have a very stuck up attitude and act like the fetus inside them is practically meaningless or human life doesn't even matter and should just be thrown away at their own will. I can say it is a women's choice, but it's the really careless "I don't give a shit about this piece of trash all because I had unprotected sex, going to get an abortion if I want to" attitude which makes me not want to identify with politics who are generally pro-choice. It just seems kinda low. Technically, I would be considered pro-choice, but I don't see how when I do not even agree with the choice of having an abortion. I don't think it's the fact that they are pro-choice, but more so the careless and stuck up attitude these people have from their own selfish irresponsibility after having sex or whatever. Also, these people tend to be very strong feminists and leftists and think it's only the men who are against abortion telling them what to do when there are a lot of pro-life women as well. I don't have a problem with being pro-choice in the sense that believing it's a women's choice really, but it's the lack of compassion and degenerate attitude that upsets me. You can say pro-life people only care about the child, but it seems as if pro-choice people only care about the woman and her decisions.

I'm not talking about the rape cases with abortion. That's a different scenario.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 5, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Oh, hi.  So, this is all easy to say, while said child is just an unlikely hypothetical, while you're in the honeymoon phase with your real, living SO.  So I'm going to ask you to exercise your imagination a little bit.
> 
> Think of how much your closest family member means to you.  A child means even more than that.  You alone are responsible for sustaining him or her as well as yourself, with no outside support from anyone.  You're a capable worker, but the time commitments to your child make any sort of decent career job impossible regardless.  Two meals of the day consist of ramen noodles, and your kid may as well forget the idea of college right now.
> 
> ...


Are you saying this just because she disagrees with you? I'm not sure you're really justified to behave as though she hasn't even thought it through.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 5, 2014)

Evan of Phrygia said:


> Are you saying this just because she disagrees with you? I'm not sure you're really justified to behave as though she hasn't even thought it through.



A woman disagreeing with his feminist ideas/values comes as a shock to him every time, this isn't surprising.

Here he is now treating her like she's a damned idiot just because she has a different set of values - _of course_ she and I have thought about what we want in our lives. Which isn't babies right now, not for a long time, even if we DO want them. We have all kinds of shit to sort out and we're already doing a good job as a pair.

Our lives as a pair are two separate lives from everyone else. We like to speak about what _we_ value in our own lives, we don't really feel like imposing them onto others. But yes, one of our plans is to prevent babby. Even as a pair it's a foolish decision, it'll fuck up our lives. I never liked the idea of forcing her to have an abortion, and she never liked the idea of tethering me down over an accident. 

It's called mutual respect. If you don't like our ideas and values, tough shit m80, how fortunate it is that our lives have nothing to do with yours. _"Would you tell each and every single mother that you expect the same sacrifice from them?"_ Fucking hell, how stupid and condescending can you get? I thought he respected women.


----------



## Misomie (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm with Schwimmwagen on this. My boyfriend and I agreed early on that if I was to get pregnant, it'd be aborted without second though. Neither of us are ready for a baby and if I had one (despite not having a job nor a home of my own) and if we ever broke up, I could shred his life to pieces by pursuing child support (given all the bills he has and whatnot). That's *incredibly* cruel. So having a baby at this stage in life would be incredibly irresponsible. I also stand by my belief that no baby should EVER be born if it's unwanted (plus, the hormones I'm on would wreck the fetus up in sooooo many ways to the point that it'd be irresponsible to birth it). 

Couples should already have the plans way in advance.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2014)

Schwimmwagen said:


> A woman disagreeing with his feminist ideas/values comes as a shock to him every time, this isn't surprising.
> 
> Here he is now treating her like she's a damned idiot just because she has a different set of values - _of course_ she and I have thought about what we want in our lives. Which isn't babies right now, not for a long time, even if we DO want them. We have all kinds of shit to sort out and we're already doing a good job as a pair.
> 
> ...



You ratfucking demagogue.  At least find the gonads to address me directly, if you're gonna talk shit like this.

I am not treating Carnau like an idiot.  Someone who is being treated like an idiot doesn't get asked to engage in a thought experiment and answer difficult questions.  Treating her like an idiot would look more like, I dunno, someone popping up presuming to speak on her behalf with a tirade of manufactured outrage (and what a manufactured outrage it was, good lord, you have the gall to call _me_ condescending).  I'm well aware that she knows she doesn't want a baby in her life right now, because I actually read posts beyond scanning them for key words to lock onto and mindlessly fire off talking points against.  It's actually kind of the point of the hypothetical preface, to get someone to consider their perspective from a position they don't expect to find themselves in.

It wouldn't be a shock to me if she disagreed with me.  It's always disheartening to hear someone having internalized discriminatory attitudes against their own group, be it women thinking they deserve a subservient existence, racist stereotypes from blacks, Jewish collaborators in the Holocaust, whatever.  But a shock?  No, it's known that a few such people exist.  What may come as a shock to you, though, as I know the Reddit crowd never really pays attention to these things, is that attaching minority status to a shitty opinion does not act make it a trump card.  That's not actually how it works at all.

Not that I've actually heard _her_ opinion yet, mind, but her proximity to you does make it more likely that she's absorbed some ugly myths.  She apparently already thinks divorce court isn't just an arbitration between both parties, and that the judge is going to actually go out of his way to nail your ass to the wall over her objections or something.  That her chief virtue in your eyes is that she has no consideration for herself at all doesn't bode well, either.  But I hope she'll entertain the hypothetical long enough to see that if she did have a child, there'd be reasons to want to keep him or her clothed and fed and with a future ahead, other than to spite you.  I've given up such hope for you, the idea of a woman going against a man's wishes for any reason other than a vendetta against Y chromosomes appears to be alien to you.

I don't see how it's at all condescending to put the question of what you've been advocating through this whole thread to her.  This is what you want to be the default scenario: a woman either has to get an abortion, or face the threat of poverty for herself and her child, so that men never need fear any consequences from sex.  You act like women need to collectively pay for (possible) access to the progress of reproductive medicine by waiving their children's fathers of any and all obligation to support their children.  You think I need to respect a different set of values, but God forbid a woman have any reservations about having their potential future child surgically scooped out of their uterus just to absolve you of responsibility.  You don't give a shit yourself, so you and men everywhere are entitled to be deadbeats.  You're so entitled, in fact, that just to find your viewpoint disgusting is to you an act of hate against men.

In short: fuck off.


----------



## Nikolinni (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar said:


> You ratfucking demagogue.  At least find the gonads to address me directly, if you're gonna talk shit like this.
> 
> I am not treating Carnau like an idiot.  Someone who is being treated like an idiot doesn't get asked to engage in a thought experiment and answer difficult questions.  Treating her like an idiot would look more like, I dunno, someone popping up presuming to speak on her behalf with a tirade of manufactured outrage (and what a manufactured outrage it was, good lord, you have the gall to call _me_ condescending).  I'm well aware that she knows she doesn't want a baby in her life right now, because I actually read posts beyond scanning them for key words to lock onto and mindlessly fire off talking points against.  It's actually kind of the point of the hypothetical preface, to get someone to consider their perspective from a position they don't expect to find themselves in.
> 
> ...



"Internalized discriminatory attitudes"? Just how does one develop these? And why is it whenever anyone disagrees with an SJW or Feminist and they're a minority or female it's because of "Internalized misogny/discrimination"?


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar said:


> In short: fuck off.


glad we're on the same page...this thread is probably well past its' deserved life if a tirade like that is gonna go down


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> "Internalized discriminatory attitudes"? Just how does one develop these? And why is it whenever anyone disagrees with an SJW or Feminist and they're a minority or female it's because of "Internalized misogny/discrimination"?



It's more or less the idea that "Even if I am the baby's daddy, it isn't my problem" mindset, which goes either way depending on where you are. And I believe that mindset, when not discussed fully with their partners, is a destructive one. 
At the same child, having a child is a serious life changing event and should not be taken lightly. If the mother and father come to terms with something, that's them and what they feel they should do. There are also mothers that wish that their child has nothing to do with the father at all.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar said:


> You ratfucking demagogue.  At least find the gonads to address me directly, if you're gonna talk shit like this.
> 
> I am not treating Carnau like an idiot.  Someone who is being treated like an idiot doesn't get asked to engage in a thought experiment and answer difficult questions.  Treating her like an idiot would look more like, I dunno, someone popping up presuming to speak on her behalf with a tirade of manufactured outrage (and what a manufactured outrage it was, good lord, you have the gall to call _me_ condescending).  I'm well aware that she knows she doesn't want a baby in her life right now, because I actually read posts beyond scanning them for key words to lock onto and mindlessly fire off talking points against.  It's actually kind of the point of the hypothetical preface, to get someone to consider their perspective from a position they don't expect to find themselves in.
> 
> ...



What the fuck is the matter with you

I don't have sex with rats, you get rabies from that shit


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar, I think it's time you toned down the SJW and hostility towards other opinions.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2014)

Schwimmwagen said:


> What the fuck is the matter with you
> 
> I don't have sex with rats, you get rabies from that shit



You chose to make this personal.  I didn't even post as much ad hom as you.

get cucked gamelord


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Nov 6, 2014)

ITT people throwing buzzwords around and try to sound smart


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 6, 2014)

time to post-birth abort this thread


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar said:


> You chose to make this personal.  I didn't even post as much ad hom as you.
> 
> get cucked gamelord



I merely pointed out that you get posterier pulverized when people in certain groups disagree with your ideals for said groups for their own lives. _Their own lives_. That's not all that adhommy. You don't really have much respect for another person's decisions and go as far as to insinuate that they're being manipulated and brainwashed. And by "get cucked" you sound like you're seething so badly you want my girlfriend to bone guys in front of me. Like wow, you're so mad that people disagree with you, you wish for the end of a relationship?

And thanks for the compliment at the end, I am indeed the lord of videogames.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2014)

Schwimmwagen said:


> I merely pointed out that you get posterier pulverized when people in certain groups disagree with your ideals for said groups for their own lives. _Their own lives_. That's not all that adhommy. You don't really have much respect for another person's decisions and go as far as to insinuate that they're being manipulated and brainwashed. And by "get cucked" you sound like you're seething so badly you want my girlfriend to bone guys in front of me. Like wow, you're so mad that people disagree with you, you wish for the end of a relationship?
> 
> And thanks for the compliment at the end, I am indeed the lord of videogames.



You really don't read for comprehension, do you?  The main point was how gross your _expectation_ of zero responsibility and assertion of it as a right is.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar said:


> You really don't read for comprehension, do you?  The main point was how gross your _expectation_ of zero responsibility and assertion of it as a right is.



I don't expect zero responsibility. I expect the lack of a pregnancy in the first place.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2014)

Schwimmwagen said:


> I don't expect zero responsibility. I expect the lack of a pregnancy in the first place.



But should one occur regardless, you expect zero responsibility, one way or another.  And you hold that this should be the societal standard, that fathers have the right to opt out of any obligation to their kids, because child support is just a weapon of the evil feminazis to keep men down and not for anything such as supporting a child.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar-kun, play nice or else the axe. 



Schwimmwagen said:


> I don't expect zero responsibility. I expect the lack of a pregnancy in the first place.



Accidents can always happen, regardless if you expect it or not.  Remember condoms and The Pill isn't 100% full-proof. 
Also look into alternatives too, or get yourself neutered too.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Lobar-kun, play nice or else the axe.



This is literally his position and it's fair to call him on it.


----------



## Nikolinni (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar said:


> This is literally his position and it's fair to call him on it.



I think Orizel was hitting at some of the language you were using.


----------



## Mentova (Nov 6, 2014)

Ok guys, there has been a lot of pointless name calling in here. Drop the attitudes or I'll be handing out infractions. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you need to resort to name calling and insults.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I think Orizel was hitting at some of the language you were using.



Not on this page.


----------



## Nikolinni (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Not on this page.



It doesn't have to be this page to be counted as offensive.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar said:


> But should one occur regardless, you expect zero responsibility, one way or another.  And you hold that this should be the societal standard, that fathers have the right to opt out of any obligation to their kids, because child support is just a weapon of the evil feminazis to keep men down and not for anything such as supporting a child.


I'm sorry I have to interject again, but what the hell are you on about?
He literally just said he doesn't expect zero responsibility, and suddenly you are tossing accusations of what he thinks should be the societal standard blahblahblah and feminazi weapons even more blah.
So just by disagreeing with you, he thinks child support is a feminazi weapon because of the most ridiculous reason you can think of.
Man, get a grip of yourself. You are fabricating things to offend yourself with.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 6, 2014)

This thread is making me feel unusually sane. Maybe it deserves to live?


----------



## Nikolinni (Nov 6, 2014)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I'm sorry I have to interject again, but what the hell are you on about?
> He literally just said he doesn't expect zero responsibility, and suddenly you are tossing accusations of what he thinks should be the societal standard blahblahblah and feminazi weapons even more blah.
> So just by disagreeing with you, he thinks child support is a feminazi weapon because of the most ridiculous reason you can think of.
> Man, get a grip of yourself. You are fabricating things to offend yourself with.



I'd wager a guess and say that Lobar's saying that it's a Feminazi Weapon because that's most likely been said somewhere on the internet, so he's making nothing short of an assumption there. Either that or someone said something to that effect in this thread.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Nov 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'd wager a guess and say that Lobar's saying that it's a Feminazi Weapon because that's most likely been said somewhere on the internet, so he's making nothing short of an assumption there.* Either that or someone said something to that effect in this thread.*


Which is why I went through Schwimmwagen's replies to see if there was anything that'd lead to that conclusion and I didn't find any.


----------



## Misomie (Nov 6, 2014)

Can't we all agree that the current version of child support is severely flawed? It was created back when there were few programs to help single mothers. Today there are tons of those. Child support shouldn't be a blanket rule because of how easy it is to abuse. It needs some serious revision. 

 If people use protection and it fails, they were being responsible and life decided to slap them.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2014)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I'm sorry I have to interject again, but what the hell are you on about?
> He literally just said he doesn't expect zero responsibility, and suddenly you are tossing accusations of what he thinks should be the societal standard blahblahblah and feminazi weapons even more blah.
> So just by disagreeing with you, he thinks child support is a feminazi weapon because of the most ridiculous reason you can think of.
> Man, get a grip of yourself. You are fabricating things to offend yourself with.



He only said that he expects there to never be a possibility of a pregnancy that could lead to a need to take responsibility in the first place.  But that's not completely guaranteed unless stops having sex (which would probably also be a violation of men's rights or w/e).

Gibby literally supports the right of men to ditch their obligations to their children if the mother won't abort for them.  He has supported it in this thread and in past threads.  Nothing is fabricated.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Nov 6, 2014)

Lobar said:


> He only said that he expects there to never be a possibility of a pregnancy that could lead to a need to take responsibility in the first place.  But that's not completely guaranteed unless stops having sex (which would probably also be a violation of men's rights or w/e).
> 
> Gibby literally supports the right of men to ditch their obligations to their children if the mother won't abort for them.  He has supported it in this thread and in past threads.  Nothing is fabricated.


He said he doesn't expect to get a child, and that should an event of such caliber arise for some reason he'd discuss it with Carnau.
I don't think he ever said or implied he thought child support was a feminazi weapon or that men should be able to ditch their child at will. 
Listen to yourself.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 6, 2014)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> He said he doesn't expect to get a child, and that should an event of such caliber arise for some reason he'd discuss it with Carnau.
> I don't think he ever said or implied he thought child support was a feminazi weapon or that men should be able to ditch their child at will.
> Listen to yourself.



Child support is apparently used to drag men down and turn them into financial slaves.  But that's totally different from using it as a weapon!


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Nov 6, 2014)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> ITT people throwing buzzwords around and try to sound smart



Buzzwords like 'SJW'?


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 7, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Buzzwords like 'SJW'?


Let's not be picky, at least 60% of this thread is a buzzword


----------



## Ieono (Nov 7, 2014)

I love Lobar so much. He didn't even intentionally insult anyone to begin with, and now it's all out war because someone assumed he had. Irony is such a delicious treat.


----------



## Ieono (Nov 7, 2014)

I love Lobar so much. He didn't even intentionally insult anyone to begin with, and now it's all out war because someone assumed he had. Irony is such a delicious treat.

No one can come close to making more sense than him, though~


----------



## Lobar (Nov 7, 2014)

I should add this here too: This conflict is spread out over a couple threads, so I'm just linking to this effortpost I just made over here.

e: vvvv You're not subtle at all in your trolling, so I'm not going to even bother.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Nov 7, 2014)

Lobar said:


> I should add this here too: This conflict is spread out over a couple threads, so I'm just linking to this effortpost I just made over here.



Are you saying that some people oppose abortion simply because they are against women?

It seems like you're saying: "there exists a group of sexists who oppose abortion ostensibly for what they feel are the rights of fetuses, but their true aim is to suppress women.  Basically, these sexists don't really care about the abortion issue, but they use it as a tool to oppress women, which is their true aim."

I'm open to the possibility that such a sexist group exists, but I am unaware of any evidence to support this.  I did a search for "abortion sexism," but the results I got weren't clear.  It seems like people are just alleging that opposition to abortion is sexist, but not a whole lot of hard evidence is provided.  Also, a lot of the results in my search threw in other issues, such as contraceptives and STD's.

You can't ever know what someone is thinking, but still, I would like to see some hard evidence of sexist opposition to abortion beyond just "they're against birth control too."

I'm not ready to point the finger at people until I see some evidence to do so.  But if you can find something to back up this claim that there are sexists who hide under the cover of the abortion issue to advance their sexist goals, I will agree that your anger is justified and will support you.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 7, 2014)

Just because someone isn't overtly "against something" doesn't mean they're not showing prejudice. 

"Now, I'm not racist, but most niggers on the by and by are generally uneducated."


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Just because someone isn't overtly "against something" doesn't mean they're not showing prejudice.
> 
> "Now, I'm not racist, but most niggers on the by and by are generally uneducated."



I don't know how I feel about N-bombs being dropped in my thread.  But I'm talking about people who *are* overtly "against something" (abortion) and asking for a legitimate reason for why I should consider their position on the issue to be prejudicially based.

Let's not make an argument when there isn't one.  I'm not trolling or being contrarian.  I'm just saying, let's just find ONE person who is clearly sexist and who uses the abortion issue as cover for their sexist agenda.  If you're going to build a case against people, you have to start small with individual cases that support your argument and accusations.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 7, 2014)

Fyi: No one ever THINKS they're being sexist/racist/pejuduced. They simply hold their position because that's "the way things are" or they have some other vague agenda. Religious, political, moralistically, etc.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 7, 2014)

Eggdodger said:


> You got a winner here, Goober.



I can't say I remember much of ice cream avatar other than "her" rather poor performance in the Sexism is Chocolate thread. 

Also, this thread is ass. (Delicious ass, but still)


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Fyi: No one ever THINKS they're being sexist/racist/pejuduced. They simply hold their position because that's "the way things are" or they have some other vague agenda. Religious, political, moralistically, etc.



I think I can kind of see what you're saying.  Healthcare is a good thing for everyone, and being against healthcare would be anti-everyone because you shouldn't be against people's best interest of getting healthcare.  Since poor people generally have a tough time getting healthcare, being against Obamacare is inherently classist because you are opposing the best interests of the lower classes.

You could argue that Obamacare is a bad implementation of a good idea, or that it unfairly penalizes upper-middle class people.  But your opposition is still classist because you are standing in the way of lower classes getting something that they need and that is good for them.

Similarly, abortion is a good thing for women, and being against abortion is inherently sexist because you are trying to withhold something from women that is good for them.

So, even though your religious perspective might make you against abortion, it's just that you don't *realize* that your position is sexist.

I can understand that.  It's just that I was thinking that there might be a more hard-core group of sexists out there who are full-on knowingly sexist, like a sexist version of the KKK or something.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 7, 2014)

You I don't think I've ever really stated my stance on abortion on this forum before. :/ You woulda thought i'd have had time. 

I know a lot of people think the dads are entitled to a little say so but really, a baby is part of a lady's body while its in her. And we should all respect that. If the gal wants it gone, its gone. A lot of people see babies as sacred little gifts from above but come now. The act of forcing a woman to do something with her body against her will? 

No wonder rape is still so prevalent. So many people see women's bodies as their property.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 7, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> all this



I can never really agree with you even when you're agreeing with me because you always externalize my logic to extreme examples that are only _vaguely_ applicable in very subjective senses.



Butters Shikkon said:


> No wonder rape is still so prevalent. So many people see women's bodies as their property.



... Did you miss a few letters and words in there? I feel like you did.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> I can never really agree with you even when you're agreeing with me because you always externalize my logic to extreme examples that are only _vaguely_ applicable in very subjective senses.



You're arguing with a troll, Red.  Check his post history.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> ... Did you miss a few letters and words in there? I feel like you did.



Perhaps I'm being rather vague but lets say a woman is forced into having a baby she did not want. It's akin to the thought "well, gosh. she's just a woman! I'll use her the way I want."


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 7, 2014)

Lobar said:


> You're arguing with a troll, Red.  Check his post history.



Oh I know. I just didn't want there to be any question that I agree/disagree with him. 
When he has issues with the word "nigger" being used as an example but has previously called me a "tranny", trust me. I know he's a fuck-off. 



Butters Shikkon said:


> Perhaps I'm being rather vague but lets say a woman is forced into having a baby she did not want. It's akin to the thought "well, gosh. she's just a woman! I'll use her the way I want."



Well women's bodies ARE they're property. But it being their property doesn't really... neccesiate more rape. In fact, the respect for that fact creates less. 
Your vagueness actually made a lot very unclear.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Well women's bodies ARE they're property. *But it being their property doesn't really... neccesiate more rape.* In fact, the respect for that fact creates less.
> Your vagueness actually made a lot very unclear.



Entirely the opposite of my argument. But i'm sorta tired atm, so i'll concede i could have made that plainer.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Well women's bodies ARE they're property. But it being their property doesn't really... neccesiate more rape. In fact, the respect for that fact creates less.
> Your vagueness actually made a lot very unclear.



I think you're parsing his statement wrong.  "Their" refers to "people" and not "women" in that sentence.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Oh I know. I just didn't want there to be any question that I agree/disagree with him.
> When he has issues with the word "nigger" being used as an example but has previously called me a "tranny", trust me. I know he's a fuck-off.



I was doing the same thing that you did: saying something offensive to show what people are *really* thinking.

Besides, people throw the term "furfag" around here in a really pejorative way.  So, I'm getting called a "furfag" in one of the few places that "furfags" have to go on the internet, but suddenly you're the offended one?

And on top of that, you've repeatedly called me an "idiot" for identifying with trans people.  Why exclude me?  I'm just as much a wolf as you are a woman.

BTW, none of this has *anything* to do with abortion.

--------

EDIT:
Also, I don't like the term "trans-species".  I prefer "therian", but you could legitimately call it "trans-species".  Regardless of whether your trans identity is about gender or species, either way, you're still trans.  So, that's what I think about all of that.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 7, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> I was doing the same thing that you did: saying something offensive to show what people are *really* thinking.
> Besides, people throw the term "furfag" around here in a really pejorative way.  So, I'm getting called a "furfag" in one of the few places that "furfags" have to go on the internet, but suddenly you're the offended one?
> And on top of that, you've repeatedly called me an "idiot" for identifying with trans people.  Why exclude me?  I'm just as much a wolf as you are a woman.
> BTW, none of this has *anything* to do with abortion.



Dude we've already established your irrelevancy as an intentional "super edgy" type who only happens to bring issues up to talk about in the worse way. 
Give it a rest.



Lobar said:


> I think you're parsing his statement wrong.  "Their" refers to "people" and not "women" in that sentence.




Oh. OH. -facepalms-
Shit. Maybe I'M the tired one.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Dude we've already established your irrelevancy as an intentional "super edgy" type who only happens to bring issues up to talk about in the worse way.
> Give it a rest.



If you find some of the things I've said to be extreme, then don't talk to me about those things.  I've made plenty of statements in the last couple pages that you can respond to.  Some might even be in agreement with your opinions.

But, I don't even know if I agree with you or not, because you haven't said much that is substantive.  Either your responses are 1-2 sentences, or they're not on-topic.

In contrast, I've been effortposting my ass off and basically for no reason at this point.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 7, 2014)

Basically you're saying that because I'm transgender, by extension I should recognize and teapect the concept of being transpecies?

No. 

You once mentioned dressing up in a fursuit and jacking off as part of your therianism. This is why I cant take you or your comparison seriously. Being trans is not about getting off in the body of a woman. And furthermore---

Just what. Why. Why am I bothering to take time to explain this to someone who keeps fucking with semantics? 
Again. I am Sisyphus. Here to shove the boulder up the mountain again. 

Fuck that. Think whatever the fuck you want.


----------



## Teckolf (Nov 7, 2014)

All I have to say is that my head hurts trying to follow all of the tangents this thread has taken. With that being said I agree with certain individuals and not others in this thread in all of the various tangents but there are far too many to comment on.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Basically you're saying that because I'm transgender, by extension I should recognize and teapect the concept of being transpecies?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



I once read an article about a trans man who would wear their chest binder during sex to bind up his physical breasts.  It's the same thing.  Maybe during sex some people might want to express themselves in a way that they're most comfortable with.  And if that means cutting your hair short or wearing your chest binder to express your masculinity, or whether it means wearing a fursuit to express whatever species you feel you are... how is any of that a problem?  And why should I be called an idiot or any other name for just being blatantly honest and saying things that are uncomfortable (and true)?


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 7, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> I once read an article about a trans man who would wear their chest binder during sex to bind up his physical breasts.  It's the same thing.  Maybe during sex some people might want to express themselves in a way that they're most comfortable with.  And if that means cutting your hair short or wearing your chest binder to express your masculinity, or whether it means wearing a fursuit express whatever species you feel you are... how is any of that a problem?  And why should I be called an idiot or any other name for just being blatantly honest and saying things that are uncomfortable (and true)?



No.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Nov 7, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> No.



Yes.  My thread.

No girls allowed.


----------



## mcjoel (Nov 7, 2014)

*Sighs* this thread makes puppies cry :V


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 8, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> I can't say I remember much of ice cream avatar other than *"her"* rather poor performance in the Sexism is Chocolate thread.



What the hell is that supposed to mean right there?


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 8, 2014)

Schwimmwagen said:


> What the hell is that supposed to mean right there?



So testy. Not too hard to troll this forum anymore. Or maybe it was never that hard to begin with.

No wonder Tenzen ended things with you years ago...


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Nov 8, 2014)

mcjoel said:


> *Sighs* this thread makes puppies cry :V


The puppies are crying because children are being killed in the womb.


----------



## Maelstrom Eyre (Nov 8, 2014)

Not sure if any of the other women participating in this thread, especially those who do not have children, have ever tried to get permanent or long-term birth control - in the form of an Essure, TL, or just an IUD for long-term birth control. 

It's a challenge.

I am child-free, by choice.  I do not want kids, I never have.  Even when I was a child, a pre-teen, a teenager - I knew I didn't want children of my own and I have stuck by that.

I'm now in my (late) thirties.  It's safe to say this "I don't want kids" thing is not just a passing rebellious phase I was going through.  I have heard every possible condescending remark about my decision not to reproduce.  I've been told that it is selfish, I have been told that it makes someone "incomplete" to not have children, I've been told that I will regret it, that I will be old and alone.

've been told that I will change my mind when I "meet the right man" - because apparently there are some men who are so irresistable and perfect that all women just want to have their babies? I wouldn't know, I've never met one of those men. . .the "perfect" man for me is a guy who doesn't want to have kids together. . .and I've already met him. 

Actually finding doctors who will agree to long term or permanent birth control can be a challenge, if you don't already have kids.   

Women are constantly questioned and second-guessed when it comes to decisions to NOT reproduce.  Some doctors will say things like "you're too young to make that decision" or "have you discussed this with your boyfriend/fiance/husband?"

In other words, the mindset is still very strong (even among medical professionals) that a woman's body is not really hers. . .that she still should get some form of permission or approval or input from a male partner before making any changes or alterations to its reproductive ability.  

Even if she is single, never married, unattached, it's assumed that she cannot think for herself on this issue.  She "needs" a man's input before she can make a decision about her own body.

Her personal choice to not have children (for whatever reason) is dismissed, what she knows about herself and what she desires out of her life is questioned constantly by people who think they know what is "best" for her.  That may include her "significant other," or her parents, family members, doctor, church/religious leader, political leader, etc.

And, like it or not, I believe that this "choice" carries over in cases of pregnancy.  Even if that embryo/fetus contains half of the man's biological material, he has already made his contribution. . .but it is now her body that will carry the unborn baby, it is her health that will be at risk (yes, pregnancy and childbirth ARE risky).  

The "man in her life" can express his opinions. . .but really, they're JUST opinions.  The choice is still hers, and if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy even though he wanted her to have the baby, that is something HE is going to have to deal with.

If a man is dead-set against the idea of abortion, or if he expects the woman to get his permission or approval before making any "alterations" to her own reproductive ability. . .this is something he needs to discuss with a woman early in a relationship, before there is even a chance of her getting pregnant.   

Then, she can make the CHOICE of whether or not she wants to stay in a relationship and have sex with such a controlling douchenozzle. 

(side note - anti-choice/pro-birth activists seem to want to believe that women who use birth control, or women who get abortions, are single, unattached, promiscuous, irresponsible party-girl sluts. . .they seem to forget that many women who are IN relationships, even women who already have kids, also use various forms of birth control simply because they don't want to have children, or another child)


----------



## Kleric (Nov 8, 2014)

I never really understood the "It's my body" argument for abortion, I may be miss-interpreting or even completely missing what people mean by this.
As someone leaning toward Pro-life, I personally don't give a shit about anyone's body, do whatever the hell you want with it. I guess it comes to my perception of not necessarily thinking a growing fetus as part of one's body... At least, I wouldn't care what you do to your arm because your arm isn't one day going to pop off and sprout a life of it's own.
Sure, there are definitely circumstances where I think abortion is justified, mostly being rape victims. However I can't really ever consider it an act of a purely good heart, but I certainly won't force someone to choose a morally right choice over a morally indifferent one.
Then again, I may be missing a piece of the puzzle to this argument, because I certainly don't see conjoined twins justly killing their sibling because it was "their body". :|

I shall be civil if anyone happily explains this to me more. â˜º


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 8, 2014)

Kleric said:


> I never really understood the "It's my body" argument for abortion, I may be miss-interpreting or even completely missing what people mean by this.
> As someone leaning toward Pro-life, I personally don't give a shit about anyone's body, do whatever the hell you want with it. I guess it comes to my perception of not necessarily thinking a growing fetus as part of one's body... At least, I wouldn't care what you do to your arm because your arm isn't one day going to pop off and sprout a life of it's own.



This isnt , say, giving a woman a flower pot with a seed that takes 9 months to sprout where she sets it on her window sill and simply has to water it. This is taking that seed, implanting in her body, and then the woman giving up her body for 9 whole friggin months to supply this seed with life and sustenance. 

Any justification of, "well she sleeps around" or "she knew the implications of having sex" or "the man gave her the seed to start this life" are a bit of a nonpoint.  You're overriding the morals of a woman having the choice to use her body for such an arduous task simply for the sake of something that was not planned, wanted, or expected. 

That's the best I can put this. You're trading morals. This isnt simply the -act of conception- and equal shared rights on the fetus. This is a woman's body giving life to another being for nine months. 

Keyword "giving". Not "obligation to give". I'm not saying that a fetus is some sort of parasite. But I am saying that it's much more than "just a life" for the woman to carry. This is part of a woman's life. She should have an obligation to decide yes or no--no matter the circumstance. 

I don't -like- that some woman (AND men) lack foresight to properly prevent a pregnancy. But it's nobody's place to force a woman to do -anything- with a body. You cant supersede morals for another.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> Yes.  My thread.
> 
> No girls allowed.



Mod rules supercede Op thread. Girls are allowed, weed is legal, and gambling is okay!


----------



## Maelstrom Eyre (Nov 9, 2014)

Kleric said:


> I never really understood the "It's my body" argument for abortion, I may be miss-interpreting or even completely missing what people mean by this.
> As someone leaning toward Pro-life, I personally don't give a shit about anyone's body, do whatever the hell you want with it. I guess it comes to my perception of not necessarily thinking a growing fetus as part of one's body... At least, I wouldn't care what you do to your arm because your arm isn't one day going to pop off and sprout a life of it's own.
> Sure, there are definitely circumstances where I think abortion is justified, mostly being rape victims. However I can't really ever consider it an act of a purely good heart, but I certainly won't force someone to choose a morally right choice over a morally indifferent one.
> Then again, I may be missing a piece of the puzzle to this argument, because I certainly don't see conjoined twins justly killing their sibling because it was "their body". :|
> ...



I don't subscribe to the "personhood" idea - that a fetus is a "person" while it is still in the womb and dependent on the woman's body for survival.  I just don't, certainly not to the point where I think that the unborn baby's existence is given priority, and the woman is forced to carry and give birth to it against her will.

There are any number of reasons why a woman might choose to terminate a pregnancy.  Sometimes it is simply because she does not want a child, she and her partner both used protection or contraceptives but somehow the pregnancy still happened.  Maybe it is a case of rape or incest.  Maybe she knows she has some disorder or disease that will likely pass on to her offspring, and she does not want the child to go through its life with those issues.  Maybe carrying the pregnancy to term would endanger the life or the mother or "unborn" to the point where abortion must be done.

In any case, it's really up to her.  The embryo/fetus is not a "person" as long as its survival depends on being incubated and nourished by the mother's body.

It's difficult to provide an example of how this might apply to things a man would experience. . .because it's not something a man is ever actually going to experience. 

I could use the example of being "oopsed" by a woman who wants to have the guy's baby, then being forced to pay child support for the child's entire life. . .but that's just money - still not the same as being required to use your body for something you don't want to do.t

Maybe, to have be "host" to some other life form for a certain period of time, even if it is not by your free will or choice, because the law requires you to?  Your life and health become secondary to the existence of the "life form" that your body is hosting.  You are told that you don't have to keep it once it no longer needs you as its host. . .but you do not want it inside you, nor do you want to be required to care for it.

But everyone else around you calls you "selfish" for not wanting it.

That almost sounds like a sci-fi movie, doesn't it?


----------



## Kleric (Nov 9, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> This isnt , say, giving a woman a flower pot with a seed that takes 9 months to sprout where she sets it on her window sill and simply has to water it. This is taking that seed, implanting in her body, and then the woman giving up her body for 9 whole friggin months to supply this seed with life and sustenance.
> 
> Any justification of, "well she sleeps around" or "she knew the implications of having sex" or "the man gave her the seed to start this life" are a bit of a nonpoint.  You're overriding the morals of a woman having the choice to use her body for such an arduous task simply for the sake of something that was not planned, wanted, or expected.
> 
> ...


This is much more understandable, the argument makes sense now. 
I guess what comes into play is the different set of values on what an unborn child is to either of us, Is it worth more or less than the ambitions of the two parents to escape the responsibility of something they could easily foresee and prevent? (Rape victims, Failed contraception users, or anyone whose pregnancy was something out of their control is justified for what I see, The people I'm throwing under the bus... eh.)
Most people seem to view a fetus as for what it is in the moment, an embryo that cannot feel anything, and wouldn't know whether it stopped existing or not. I know I keep getting personal with this, but I view things in the present and the future, so I'd see an embryo as the potential to become a person, live a life, and have a chance to be happy. To take away that from ever happening, ending a cycle you had personally started, I can't really see it as something one could so easily brush off like it's nothing.
I know I keep bringing morality into this, but can you at least understand how and why I see this the way I do? :|


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 9, 2014)

Kleric said:


> This is much more understandable, the argument makes sense now.
> I guess what comes into play is the different set of values on what an unborn child is to either of us, Is it worth more or less than the ambitions of the two parents to escape the responsibility of something they could easily foresee and prevent? (Rape victims, Failed contraception users, or anyone whose pregnancy was something out of their control is justified for what I see, The people I'm throwing under the bus... eh.)
> Most people seem to view a fetus as for what it is in the moment, an embryo that cannot feel anything, and wouldn't know whether it stopped existing or not. I know I keep getting personal with this, but I view things in the present and the future, so I'd see an embryo as the potential to become a person, live a life, and have a chance to be happy. To take away that from ever happening, ending a cycle you had personally started, I can't really see it as something one could so easily brush off like it's nothing.
> I know I keep bringing morality into this, but can you at least understand how and why I see this the way I do? :|



It's not hard to see why you feel the way you do. There's been a lot of religious and moral majority support of anti-abortion bills and such. A lot of "oh, what a shit person you are for killing babies!!!" 

I think Georgie says it best though.


----------



## Phyllostachys (Nov 9, 2014)

Okay, after thinking for a week, I decided that my initial negative reaction to the paper was merely a case of moral dumbfounding, and I came to agree with the basic logic of the paper. However, considering that we have cognitive modules that cause us to show protective tendencies for babies(and other creatures sharing baby schema), I doubt such infant euthanasia could be performed in practice without causing much mental suffering to those involved, and I think that should be considered. I also doubt if the fact "those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss" can be applied per se in the case of infant euthanasia, as unlike losing an infant due to disease or accident, actively choosing to euthanize it involves intention and choice, and possibly aggravate the distress birthmother might suffer.

And, while I know this is a rather pointless nitpicking, I find it awkward when people compare sowing seeds in a plot to impregnation, when pollination and fruiting would be better analogue if the process must be explained to plant/agriculture analogue. It feels like to me that such analogue views women to be mere incubator, a media for embryo when women contribute half the genetic material.




Kleric said:


> I'd see an embryo as the potential to become a person, live a life, and have a chance to be happy.



I don't know, to me, that makes as much sense as arguing that a cell from a pine needle should be considered as to be same as a full grown pine tree because it has totipotency and can be raised into one.


----------



## Kleric (Nov 9, 2014)

Phyllostachys said:


> I don't know, to me, that makes as much sense as arguing that a cell from a pine needle should be considered as to be same as a full grown pine tree because it has totipotency and can be raised into one.


I'll be honest, I don't really see anything wrong with valuing both similarly in this comparable situation either. 
If planted correctly, the only real difference between the two is Time. Sure the pine needle is not useful to you now, but it will be.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 9, 2014)

Kleric said:


> Sure the pine needle is not useful to you now, but it will be.


 ...when we kill the adult tree and grind it into a fine paste, which is dried, rolled, and used to wipe the shit from our assholes.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 9, 2014)

Kleric said:


> If planted correctly, the only real difference between the two is Time. Sure the pine needle is not useful to you now, but it will be.



Uhhhhh. No. The pine needle is different in mass, weight, color, height, etc. You're not really doing your argument many favors when you look at a pine needle and say "Look at that beautiful tree!!!"


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 9, 2014)

Kleric said:


> I'll be honest, I don't really see anything wrong with valuing both similarly in this comparable situation either.  If planted correctly, the only real difference between the two is Time. Sure the pine needle is not useful to you now, but it will be.



Basically, you're saying you hold the morals of what _has yet to come_(fetus) over _what is now._(woman's body). 

Once again. A difference in morals. The other belief is that the woman that is now, the thing that is alive now, holds priority over the fetus. Does abortion suck? _Yes._ It does. You know what sucks MORE in my opinion? _Forcing a woman to carry a fetus full term._ This attitude of deeming the "sanctity of life" is kinda BS when you take in how conception works. 

Like--sometimes the egg will fertilize but won't have time to latch onto the uterine wall before a period. So---death of a baby? Sometimes women miscarry. We don't exactly hold funerals, do we? Census takers don't count fetuses. Families don't have to count them on their taxes. And so on and so forth. Basically in every other walk of life a fetus -isn't- held to a standard of life EXCEPT when it comes to abortion. Which... is kind of bullshit when you think about it.


----------



## Kleric (Nov 9, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Uhhhhh. No. The pine needle is different in mass, weight, color, height, etc. You're not really doing your argument many favors when you look at a pine needle and say "Look at that beautiful tree!!!"



Don't turn this into a petty argument, I'm sure you were able to understand what I meant. :?



RedSavage said:


> Basically, you're saying you hold the morals of what _has yet to come_(fetus) over _what is now._(woman's body).
> 
> Once again. A difference in morals. The other belief is that the woman that is now, the thing that is alive now, holds priority over the fetus. Does abortion suck? _Yes._ It does. You know what sucks MORE in my opinion? _Forcing a woman to carry a fetus full term._ This attitude of deeming the "sanctity of life" is kinda BS when you take in how conception works.
> 
> Like--sometimes the egg will fertilize but won't have time to latch onto the uterine wall before a period. So---death of a baby? Sometimes women miscarry. We don't exactly hold funerals, do we? Census takers don't count fetuses. Families don't have to count them on their taxes. And so on and so forth. Basically in every other walk of life a fetus -isn't- held to a standard of life EXCEPT when it comes to abortion. Which... is kind of bullshit when you think about it.



I can see this is getting heated, so I'll tread a bit more carefully.
I can understand your point of view, and It's credible. If you understand mine, I'm happy. 
The whole sanctity of life thing, It's a bit different with me, at least compared to what people have expressed their views with. And it's hardly fair to decide something morally based off of _our_ current system in how we treat things, obviously we don't have a perfect societal system going on, so things contradicting each other will obviously happen, whether it be right or wrong.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 9, 2014)

Kleric said:


> Don't turn this into a petty argument, I'm sure you were able to understand what I meant. :?



And you basically ignored my point. Which is that a fetus is not a person, its a bunch of cells that can become human life. But "can be" sure as hell isn't "is". Otherwise, every woman who has a period is a serial killer according to you.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 9, 2014)

Kleric said:


> And it's hardly fair to decide something morally based off of _our_ current system in how we treat things, obviously we don't have a perfect societal system going on, so things contradicting each other will obviously happen, whether it be right or wrong.



I also said some biological things but, well, feel free to ignore those in lieu of moral semantics. 

I'm not getting heated, really. If that's the impression it is what it is. I'm being forthright because this isn't a sugar-coatable topic. 

But you've got some roundabout morals going on. Because in your light, not only do we have A: A woman being forced to have a kid even though she doesn't want it. And then B) A kid being raised in a less than prepared household by someone who never wanted him/her (assuming the mother wanted an abortion), or B.2) Being subject to that mentality of a parent that never wanted the kid, or B.3) Being put into an adoption or foster home, suffering whatever abuses it goes through in the adoption system, and then growing up with that vague complex of _my birth mother didn't -want- me for some reason..._

Quite frankly? It'd be morally incompetent to force an unwanted kid into this world. Bottom line. Yeah you can say, "Oh but see, it had a chance at LIFE. And so long as it has a chance at LIFE, things will be good!"

Which...quite frankly, is a naive statement at best. You can't guarantee that quality of life. A "chance" is a shattered argument. "We shouldn't make guns cause there's a CHANCE that it may kill someone." "You're a failure because there was a CHANCE you could be successful in life but now you're only making minimum wage."

I suppose the end argument is "well SOME chance is better than none..." which... Well, I disagree with. 

Basically this argument loops back into, "It's a LIFE, man" but once again. When you start going around dictating when something becomes life there's a bunch of biological semantics that contradict it. As long as it is dependant on the woman---it is not yet its own life. 

No, siamese twins is not a comparable argument.


----------



## Sylver (Nov 9, 2014)

Maelstrom Eyre said:


> I don't subscribe to the "personhood" idea - that a fetus is a "person" while it is still in the womb and dependent on the woman's body for survival. I just don't, certainly not to the point where I think that the unborn baby's existence is given priority, and the woman is forced to carry and give birth to it against her will.
> 
> In any case, it's really up to her. The embryo/fetus is not a "person" as long as its survival depends on being incubated and nourished by the mother's body.



Yeah I agree; I already went into a bit more depth on the topic of "What is a person" before in page 6 (https://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/1268746-The-future-of-abortion/page6) but for the sake of convenience I'll just copy/paste the sections I think are relevant:

"One interpretation of the word person is a human being, while a philosophical definition of the word is something which is self-conscious or rational. I did an essay on the ethics and controversy surrounding Peter Singer's beliefs and statements - one of the topics I covered were abortion, to which Singer had some interesting views. He believes that a being's right to live is determined by their ability to be self-aware, have a sense of a future, are capable of relating to others, and being capable of feeling pain and pleasure."

"I don't know if a baby is self-aware, has a sense of a future, or is capable of relating to others - the latter two I doubt, but the first one is arguable. If you use the philosophical definition of what a person is, then a baby is not a person. Although then again, how do we know a baby doesn't have a sense of a future or how do we know they can't relate to others? If I remember correctly his conclusion was that they are not 'people' until they become older, but there is no definite line that determines when a baby becomes a person. I suppose my conclusion to this is that we can't know if or when a baby becomes a person in a philosophical sense, but a good defining line is the birth of the child, after which you could classify it as a person even though it may not be for quite some time."

I'm not arguing against you or anything, I just stuck that there because I wanted to offer some clarity to your views.



Kleric said:


> Most people seem to view a fetus as for what it is in the moment, an embryo that cannot feel anything, and wouldn't know whether it stopped existing or not. I know I keep getting personal with this, but I view things in the present and the future, so I'd see an embryo as the potential to become a person, live a life, and have a chance to be happy.



This also links back with my post that I made (link above and quote above)

A fetus isn't technically a person by the philosophical definition of the word. Yes, it is a member of the human species, but it is not a person. I remember Singer commented on the argument that a fetus will eventually become a person, and if I remember correctly he replied saying that the argument was flawed since there is no definite point that a fetus/baby becomes a person. He then later mentioned that the point of birth is a good defining line to consider a fetus/baby a person, even though it may not be until it's older.

I like RedSavage's views on it, technically the mother is the one giving it life and the one that is creating it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 9, 2014)

I find it painful trying to take most arguments from 'philosopy' that seriously, regardless of their position. Concepts like 'personhood', 'self-awareness', 'freewill' et cetera are woefully subjective and biased.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 9, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Concepts like 'personhood', 'self-awareness', 'freewill' et cetera are *woefully subjective and biased*.



this is why we'll probably always end up getting nowhere


----------



## Sylver (Nov 10, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I find it painful trying to take most arguments from 'philosopy' that seriously, regardless of their position. Concepts like 'personhood', 'self-awareness', 'freewill' et cetera are woefully subjective and biased.



I agree to 'some' extent. I agree that these topics shouldn't be taken seriously (in the sense that you start to get heavily emotionally involved); it's a topic that's heavily based on ethics and opinions with a few facts sprinkled here and there, you're going to have people who agree and disagree because that's just what the way they view things.

In the end this is a troll thread and we're merely debating with whatever we have on-hand - whether they be cold hard facts, your opinion, or just some ethical semantics (not sure if I used that word correctly). I don't think we're going to prove or disprove that abortion is bad or good (let's face it, this is a topic mostly based on philosophy/ethics), but more gain a better understanding of other people's opinions and views on the subject (as well as some facts along the way).

It's just one of those meaty threads that I love to get into because you learn so much about the way other people think; we all know there's no winning or losing, but a simple exchange of information - what we do with that information after is completely up to us.


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 10, 2014)

Hey I found this neat article about when certain government institutions decided to take the 'moral high road' in holding the fetus's life above that if a woman's. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?smid=fb-share

Here's a few tidbits. 





> How does this play out? Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.
> 
> In Iowa, a pregnant woman who fell down a flight of stairs was reported to the police after seeking help at a hospital. She was arrested for â€œattempted fetal homicide.â€
> 
> ...



I think that last part sums it up best.
Basically, this is a women's rights issue. Any argument about "well what about the fetus's life" is a red herring argument. It's merely distracting from the real issue. Forcing a woman to do something with her body that she does not wish.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Nov 10, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> I think that last part sums it up best.
> Basically, this is a women's rights issue. Any argument about "well what about the fetus's life" is a red herring argument. It's merely distracting from the real issue. Forcing a woman to do something with her body that she does not wish.



I think it's sad that the same people who use the "well what about the fetus's life" spiel generally do fuck all to improve the lives of potential mothers and already living children.
As mentioned before, these people are pro-birth, not pro-life.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 10, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I think it's sad that the same people who use the "well what about the fetus's life" spiel generally do fuck all to improve the lives of potential mothers and already living children.
> As mentioned before, these people are pro-birth, not pro-life.


It's what I'd expect from the states mentioned in the example cases.


----------



## Kleric (Nov 10, 2014)

Just got back. And I think I'll have to throw in my towel for this discussion, nothing really irks me more than having a continuous debate on my mind waiting for the person's response, which more often than not ends up nowhere further than we started. :?
I can at least say I got some good insight on Pro-choice, a much less demonized view of it considering I'm still living with my religious right-wing parents. :V


----------



## Maelstrom Eyre (Nov 11, 2014)

Kleric said:


> Just got back. And I think I'll have to throw in my towel for this discussion, nothing really irks me more than having a continuous debate on my mind waiting for the person's response, which more often than not ends up nowhere further than we started. :?
> I can at least say I got some good insight on Pro-choice, a much less demonized view of it considering I'm still living with my religious right-wing parents. :V



For most of my years as a twenty-something, I was deeply involved in faith and was also "pro-life."  Not sure exactly when or how I changed my stance. . .it was a gradual thing. . .but now I am very much pro-choice and don't follow any faith or religion.

From the female perspective, I can just say that I became increasingly frustrated with the teaching that a woman's "duty" is to be a wife and a mother.  It's presented as though you can choose when to have kids. . .but eventually you're going to have them.  No one ever stops to consider that there are some of us out here in the world who just don't want them. Ever.

So, it bothers me to have people who don't know me at all. . .who really ought to have no say in my life because my choices don't affect them at all. . .think that their feely-feelings about embryos and pregnancy and souls should matter to me.  

I know women who have had abortions.  Some regret it later.  Some feel guilty.  Many others don't.  I don't know any women who WANTED to be in a situation where they had to have an abortion in the first place. . .it's not like they were saying "oh, I want to get knocked up just so that I can get an abortion."  T

hey would have preferred not getting pregnant at all, and they took precautions and used protection.  They were not whoring around or being sluts.  They were in committed long-term relationships - including marriage - but birth control failed and they learned they were pregnant. 

I support the woman having the right to decide what happens to the "life" she is hosting inside her own body. . .to make that choice for herself, without having to ask permission of anyone else - especially not people (like political leaders, church leaders, or total strangers waving protest signs outside of clinics) who have no actual connection to her and will not be directly affected by her choice.


----------



## silver_foxfang (Nov 18, 2014)

its his baby as well! if the father wants that baby and she doesn't than is aborting it any less horrible to him than a man who forces a woman to miscarry or get an abortion looks in the eyes of the woman? don't get me wrong i am all for abortion. an unwanted child is better off that way in a lot of cases. and of course to save the life of the mother if complications are major. but if women are to expect men to be accountable than men need an equal say in the lives of there children


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 18, 2014)

silver_foxfang said:


> its his baby as well! if the father wants that baby and she doesn't than is aborting it any less horrible to him than a man who forces a woman to miscarry or get an abortion looks in the eyes of the woman? ... but if women are to expect men to be accountable than men need an equal say in the lives of there children



You literally just skipped all of the debate. 
Go back and read. End prognosis: It's her body. The man doesn't have say just cause his sperm _happened_ to fertilize her egg. At all. Forcing a woman to carry to full term something she doesn't want is nothing short of using her as a living incubator.


----------



## Maelstrom Eyre (Nov 19, 2014)

silver_foxfang said:


> its his baby as well! if the father wants that baby and she doesn't than is aborting it any less horrible to him than a man who forces a woman to miscarry or get an abortion looks in the eyes of the woman? don't get me wrong i am all for abortion. an unwanted child is better off that way in a lot of cases. and of course to save the life of the mother if complications are major. but if women are to expect men to be accountable than men need an equal say in the lives of there children



If a man wants a baby/children, he needs to choose a partner who shares his interest in having a child and raising it to be a responsible member of society.  T_hey _can have a kid together.

He can express his hopes that the woman will carry the child to term, but that's the only "say" in it and it doesn't mean she has to agree or go along with it just because HE wants to be a daddy.  She is the one playing host to another organism. . .it depends on her body for its survival.  Even in a "healthy" pregnancy, there is a constant risk that things can go terribly wrong, so it is entirely up to her to decide that she does not want to be an incubator or, eventually, a mother.

It surprises me how many people get deep into relationships without ever bringing up the subject of having children, thoughts on abortion or parental rights or any of those things.  They wait until it's an actual issue. . .like a positive pregnancy test. . .before it's ever discussed.  To me, kids are never a compromise.  I know some couples who have tried the "I want kids, my partner doesn't, but it's okay because I'll do all the work" thing, and it's a recipe for failure, resentment, and eventually breaking up.


----------

