Abortion

[ShinyUmbreon189]

What's your guys's views on abortion. Are you pro choice or pro life?

Some sparks to get the discussion going:

Is abortion murder if the baby's in the womb?

If pro choice, in what circumstances do you feel abortion should be allowed?

Why are you pro choice or pro life?

 

[Jetfire]

Pro Life.
Is abortion murder if the baby's in the womb?
Yes. It's a living organism.

If pro choice, in what circumstances do you feel abortion should be allowed?
Although I am pro-life, I believe in exceptions such as if the victim was raped.

Why are you pro choice or pro life?
I am pro-life because the second you decide to have sexual intercourse, you're exposing yourself to the risk of being impregnated. The child was the result of your choice and it should be allowed to live.

 

[Her]

nathan's impact

Typical liberal stance on abortion, I suppose. Abortion should always be an option, regardless of how the fetus came to be. Ideological beliefs of any kind should not compromise a woman's mental and physical health, nor should they be made to bring a child into a world if they do not want to. The potential father's input should ideally be considered if he is known, or can be reached, but ultimately the final decision comes down to the potential mother. Legally restricting or controlling such an important decision because of your own moral law is not something I can abide by.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Harley Quinn.. How do you feel about unprotected sex? What's your stance on abortion if they knew the consequences but he busted a nut inside her anyways (not will it always cause pregnancy but there's a good chance)?

 

[Her]

Harley Quinn.. How do you feel about unprotected sex? What's your stance on abortion if they knew the consequences but he busted a nut inside her anyways (not will it always cause pregnancy but there's a good chance)?

Unprotected sex is fine. I don't believe in penalising a person for life because of that.
As I'm sure will be repeated ad nauseum throughout the thread, the focus should be put on a) modern, realistic sexual education and the availability of said info and b) contraceptives so that if things break, you want to remain doubly sure, any reason at all, you don't have to consider the process of the more gritty kind of abortion.

If people want to have unprotected sex, fine by them. Some people prefer the Au Naturale feel more or they might be drunk at the time or whatever the reason is, that's just how life works out sometimes. The emphasis is not on shaming them, but creating a system where they are more comprehending of possible results beforehand, and a safety net afterwards should they desire one.

 

[Psychic]

What's your guys's views on abortion. Are you pro choice or pro life?

Some sparks to get the discussion going:

1. Is abortion murder if the baby's in the womb?

2. If pro choice, in what circumstances do you feel abortion should be allowed?

3. Why are you pro choice or pro life?

1. This is a pretty biased way to start the conversation. The pro-choice stance isn't that "it's not murder if it's in the womb," and that's a pretty significant misrepresentation. :/ Rather, the pro-choice stance is generally "abortion isn't murder." For me personally, I don't consider a fetus to be a person deserving of rights equal or greater than the mother.

2. Pretty much any circumstance. It is not morally acceptable to force someone to carry something for 9 months, and then potentially be responsible for it for an additional 18 years without their consent. We know that having a child one isn't prepared to care for can have serious consequences on the parent/s, the child, and other children (since the majority of women who get abortions already have one or more children).

3. I believe every person should have the right to choose when to start or expand their family, and no person should be forced to do something by the state just because of other people's beliefs. The rights of adults to whom something is directly happening should always come before the perceived rights of a bundle of cells, or the meaning others give to those cells.

My grandfather is a recently-retired gynecologist, and he loved delivering babies for happy parents for many years. His work would have been very different if many of his patients had been forced to be there on the operating table, during an already difficult procedure, when they didn't want to be. That's not a world I would want to live in.

Harley Quinn.. How do you feel about unprotected sex? What's your stance on abortion if they knew the consequences but he busted a nut inside her anyways (not will it always cause pregnancy but there's a good chance)?

First of all, most people do use protection (but nothing works 100% of the time), and when they don't it's usually because they weren't educated about it, and often they're not educated about it because in many parts of the US the only sex education students receive is abstinence-only education. And research has shown time and time again that abstinence-only education leads to higher rates of STIs, STDs, HIV, and of course, pregnancy and abortion. The correlation is very obvious.

So first off, instead of blaming the people for not using contraception, blame the lack of sex ed. Secondly, this...doesn't actually change anything. Having and caring for a child should not be a punishment for sex, protected or not. The idea that we should punish people for being "irresponsible" by making them responsible for a human life is completely backwards.

~Psychic

 

[gimmepie]

gimme gets raged at in 3... 2... 1...

I'm not exactly pro-life or pro-choice. My views in general do lean more towards the pro-life side of things though. I acknowledge that in some (rare) cases, an abortion is at least reasonable to consider. These rare cases are if it puts the life of the mother at risk to give birth and, maybe, the rape scenario.

In general though, I dislike the thought of terminating any life. Abortion is not and should not be treated as a form of contraception. If you have unprotected sex, you are acknowledging the risk that you might get pregnant. If you use contraception, you need to realise you cannot guarantee it is infallible. Basically if you have sex (consensually) you are acknowledging that you might end up pregnant. If you don't want that baby, put it up for adoption. Nobody should die because you can't live with the repercussions of your decision.

Also, before a woman comments that a man has no right to discuss abortion, yes we do. Men are just as responsible for the creation of a child as the woman, and whilst ultimately you decide what you do with your body, our thoughts on the matter should not be discounted because we're as much a part of the issue as you are.

Okay, have at it. I know I'm in for a bumpy ride, we've been through this before.

 

[Neil Peart]

I am staunchly pro-choice. Abortion is not the business of the government. Period. The same people that clamor for less government intervention are the ones calling for stricter abortion laws and the end of funding to Planned Parenthood.

The argument always hinges on how we define a "person." I'm sure this will be very interesting, because I have a lot to say about that. For the pro-lifers here, how do you define a "person"?

I have to say this, though: if you're someone who thinks a pregnancy shouldn't be allowed to be terminated even in the event of the baby threatening the mother's life or a rape, you are not a very good person at all.

 

[Her]

I'm not exactly pro-life or pro-choice. My views in general do lean more towards the pro-life side of things though. I acknowledge that in some (rare) cases, an abortion is at least reasonable to consider. These rare cases are if it puts the life of the mother at risk to give birth and, maybe, the rape scenario.

What are the circumstances that allow for you to have ambiguity about pregnancies caused by rape?

 

[dad]

i'm pro-choice. while i cannot see myself aborting, i think that women should have the option to choose what happens to their own bodies. i don't like the idea of someone who will never know what it's like to be a woman and carry a child telling women that they do not have the option to abort. my body belongs to me and as a woman i should have the right to do what i please with it.

 

[gimmepie]

What are the circumstances that allow for you to have ambiguity about pregnancies caused by rape?

The individual's ability to cope with carrying a rape baby and the murkiness of the infants future. I think, for the most part, I feel that the rape scenario does validate abortion as an option, but I can't help but feel iffy about it nonetheless.

 

[Psychic]

If you have unprotected sex, you are acknowledging the risk that you might get pregnant. If you use contraception, you need to realise you cannot guarantee it is infallible. Basically if you have sex (consensually) you are acknowledging that you might end up pregnant. If you don't want that baby, put it up for adoption. Nobody should die because you can't live with the repercussions of your decision.

I find this fascinating. Let's talk about consent for a second.

Consent means being able to say yes or no to any single act. Ideally, consent is given for each activity. Additionally, we cannot assume consent. Just because someone consents to one thing does not mean they consent to another. If you consent to give a stranger a hand shake, that does not mean you are giving them consent to hug you. If you consent to eating my matzo ball soup, I cannot assume you are also consenting to eating my gefilte fish. I cannot force you to eat the gefilte fish just because you ate my soup. If I got mad at you for refusing to eat my gefilte fish after eating my soup, you would say I was being ridiculous and never eat at my house again.

When we talk about consent in terms of sex, consent is required for every sexual act. Same idea. If you consent to one activity, it cannot be assume you are consenting to additional acts. So for example, if you consent to oral sex, you are only consenting to oral sex. It cannot be assumed that just because you consented to oral sex, you also consented to vaginal intercourse. If you consented to vaginal intercourse, that does not mean you consented to anal intercourse.

Generally speaking, at no point during sex do all parties consent to having a baby and carrying it for 9 months. That just isn't a thing. Assuming that is like assuming someone who wants soup also wants fish, or someone who's agreed to oral sex also agreed to anal. There is one time that people having sex agree to having a baby, and that is when two people love each other very much, decide they want to have a baby, and have intercourse with the express intention of having a baby (and probably having some fun in the process). Aside from that specific situation, you cannot assume that people are consenting to having a baby if they never actually had a conversation consenting to have a baby.

Also, I point you to my above post where I discussed why a lot of people do not use contraception. I invite you to respond to it.

The individual's ability to cope with carrying a rape baby and the murkiness of the infants future. I think, for the most part, I feel that the rape scenario does validate abortion as an option, but I can't help but feel iffy about it nonetheless.

And how do we determine someone ability to cope with this? Considering the rape survivor knows themselves and what's best for them the most, wouldn't it just be safer to put that decision in their hands?

~Psychic

 

[Her]

The individual's ability to cope with carrying a rape baby and the murkiness of the infants future. I think, for the most part, I feel that the rape scenario does validate abortion as an option, but I can't help but feel iffy about it nonetheless.

I just don't see why a woman's individual circumstances should be held up to a legal/ethical microscope and decided by outside forces on whether she should be allowed to terminate the fetus. Even if the resulting child could be whisked away to a loving family and given all the luxuries it could possibly have, I would have zero blame for the woman deciding not to live those 9 months with the rape fetus beforehand if she chose that option. Protecting the mother is paramount to the potential child. And I don't think you would really blame her either, I simply have less ambiguity than you do.
I'm aware that we're using very different key terminology, by the way. It could be argued I am being rather detached about the terms I use and I don't mind that. I just don't view the organism as equivalent to 'life' until it is outside the womb, or at the very least, viable outside the womb.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

There is a very big difference between having sex and having a baby. Having sex is a choice, and therefore consent is implied, getting pregnant is a biological consequence of those actions. If you choose to have sex, you're making the choice to acknowledge the risk of said consequence occurring.

If I sniff some pepper, there's a chance I might sneeze, and if that sneeze is going to happen it is going to happen whether or not I like the idea or not.

As for why people may or may not use contraception, their reasoning is meaningless to me, they're still making that decision and in doing so acknowledging the risk of pregnancy.

And how do we determine someone ability to cope with this? Considering the rape survivor knows themselves and what's best for them the most, wouldn't it just be safer to put that decision in thetheir hands?

Hence, my slight ambiguity on the issue but general assumption that the rape scenario probably validates abortion as an option.

 

[Her]

I'd totally understand if a woman wanted to abort in a rape situation, however: Doesn't matter if the fetus is 4 weeks, or 8 months; bottom-line is that if you acknowledge the fetus as a person, and you deny them their right to live, well... You're basically killing them. Fetuses are human beings, if you outright deny them their right to live, you're killing them. Would it be different if you could go back in time and convice someone's mother to abort? Time is relative and what is now the present for us, is the past in other parts of the universe. Meaning that the fetus you're trying to abort could be as well an old person by now. It's just a matter of where you see it from.

Good thing I don't acknowledge fetuses as human beings, I guess.
And that doesn't make sense - time may be relative, but what is relative to me (and more importantly, the potential parent) at present time is that the fetus is just that, a fetus.

 

[Neil Peart]

Fetuses are human beings, if you outright deny them their right to live, you're killing them.

Well, isn't it great that fetuses aren't human beings, then?

 

[Psychic]

This doesn't refute anything. Everybody's aware of the possible outcomes for having sex, even if you use all kinds of protection there's still the possibility of getting pregnant. If you, knowing that, have sex: you acknowledged the risks and decided to do it anyway.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime ;)

By that logic, people knowing the chances of getting HIV from unprotected sex/breastfeeding deserve for them/their baby to get HIV, and shouldn't be given any help or resources. They shouldn't get access to Post-Exposure Prophylaxis and should have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Because they had it coming, I suppose.

There is a very big difference between having sex and having a baby. Having sex is a choice, and therefore consent is implied, getting pregnant is a biological consequence of those actions. If you choose to have sex, you're making the choice to acknowledge the risk of said consequence occurring.

If I sniff some pepper, there's a chance I might sneeze, and if that sneeze is going to happen it is going to happen whether or not I like the idea or not.

As for why people may or may not use contraception, their reasoning is meaningless to me, they're still making that decision and in doing so acknowledging the risk of pregnancy.

Except that we live in a world where pregnancy is something that we can and do plan. While we do not have the technology to stop a sneeze, we have many methods of contraception. The majority of people have every right to feel they can and should be able to have sex without getting pregnant, because we live in a world where people usually don't get pregnant from sexual intercourse anymore.

Regardless, to completely ignore the importance of consent here is ridiculous. We all agree that people shouldn't be forced to have sex without their consent, yet somehow we can discussed whether or not it is acceptable to force someone to carry a baby for 9 months without their consent. That makes no sense to me.

No, my point is that they're not acknowledging the risk of pregnancy because they don't always know that that's a risk. You can't say "they knew what they were getting into" if they literally did not know what they were getting into or how to not get into it. Sex ed is genuinely that bad, in the US especially.

Hence, my slight ambiguity on the issue but general assumption that the rape scenario probably validates abortion as an option.

Fair enough. I thought you were saying we should judge it on a case-by-case scenario, my bad if that's not the case.

~Psychic

 

[gimmepie]

By that logic, people knowing the chances of getting HIV from unprotected sex/breastfeeding deserve for them/their baby to get HIV, and shouldn't be given any help or resources. They shouldn't get access to Post-Exposure Prophylaxis and should have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Because they had it coming, I suppose.

Yes, let's compare a human child to an incurable disease. That's sensationalism and poor rationale. Still, I have a response for you. If you have unprotected sex, yes you're choosing to risk getting an STI/D of some description. Are you entitled to then treat that affliction, yes? If you contract HIV because your HIV positive mother decides to breast feed you, yes you should be entitled to whatever kind of treatment we have (and your mother should be investigated for child cruelty/abuse).

In the same way you can treat the "disease" of not wanting to be a parent. Put the kid up for adoption and let someone who actually wants to be a parent raise them.

Except that we live in a world where pregnancy is something that we can and do plan. While we do not have the technology to stop a sneeze, we have many methods of contraception. The majority of people have every right to feel they can and should be able to have sex without getting pregnant, because we live in a world where people usually don't get pregnant from sexual intercourse anymore.

Yes, you can plan pregnancy. Planned pregnancy is irrelevant to this discussion entirely because as a general rule you're not going to kill a baby that you're desperate to have. Yes contraception is a thing, but it also common knowledge that no form of contraception (save abstinence) is infallible and if you still choose to have sex knowing that, then you are acknowledging the risk and should deal with the consequences.

Regardless, to completely ignore the importance of consent here is ridiculous. We all agree that people shouldn't be forced to have sex without their consent, yet somehow we can discussed whether or not it is acceptable to force someone to carry a baby for 9 months without their consent. That makes no sense to me.

To equate this to consent is what's ridiculous. You can consent to the act, you don't get to choose if you "suffer" the biological repercussions of it. This is not an issue of consent, nor will it ever be. This is an issue of people who aren't educated, or who are just plain stupid, making decisions that might have consequences they aren't prepared to deal with.

No, my point is that they're not acknowledging the risk of pregnancy because they don't always know that that's a risk. You can't say "they knew what they were getting into" if they literally did not know what they were getting into or how to not get into it. Sex ed is genuinely that bad, in the US especially.

Sex ed might be that bad, but that doesn't change the fact that it is common knowledge that the pill doesn't always work or that condoms can break. You hear about that sort of thing on tv or the internet all the time. Not to mention that as human being we do have some degree of responsibility for our own education.

If you're twenty-five and don't understand the risks of sex, you're not a victim of the school system, you're an idiot.

Fair enough. I thought you were saying we should judge it on a case-by-case scenario, my bad if that's not the case.

Of course it should be handled on a case by case basis, but that's because each pregnant victim is ultimately the one with the decision. To suggest that we should treat all cases the same is ridiculous when some women will be prepared to carry that baby (although this is probably a pretty rare occurrence) and others will not.

 

[Her]

Doesn't it come off as more than a bit vindictive to force a pregnancy and possibly a child on someone for something as fleeting as sex? You can most certainly believe the fetus is alive, but your beliefs shouldn't restrict someone from making a choice based on their own beliefs.

 

[Neil Peart]

This doesn't relate at all with what I said. How can you compare a human being with an STD?

Denying someone their right to live is not the same as whatever you tried to say there. If you had sex knowing that there's a small chance of getting pregnant, but anyway did it, then you acknowledge the risk involved. You're gonna deny someone's right to live just to fit your mod cons? Like it or not, everybody's aware of the chance of getting pregnant; don't blame education, don't blame your parents, or anyone else. You're the one who took the chances, you did it and went wrong? Deal with it.

Again, a fetus isn't a "someone." You keep saying it's a person and refuse to provide any reasons for why you think a fetus is a human being.