Mother confronts woman with "I had an abortion" sh

Post Reply New Topic

you make an interesting point. i haven't ever seen anyone offer to support a mother and her child, at least until the child has completed university. i mean, if people are forcing a woman to bear a child, they should offer to pay up. they are moralising without thinking of the consequences- medical bills, education, food, clothing. they should really be setting up trust funds to support these children. otherwise their words are a bit empty. it seems like they care about ideas more than the actual people involved.

what about when the mother date rapes the father and the father does not want to have kids should the father be expected to raise the child. That is one of the few questoins worth asking about fathers rights.

does that have something to do with abortion?

Yeah, all humans are organisms, basic biology.



... what? Your point being? I was stating that the original "the majority thinks this" argument doesn't imply ethics. So you're agreeing with me?

Not only is that statement actually incorrect in the first place, but it even failed as an example of arguing for there sake of arguing, which is what you tried to do.




Wow, that added so much insight in this debate.



Oh, of course, you're right - dying doesn't limit your freedom in any way. Wise words.



Stopped reading when you played the Nazi comparison card.

It is living and human and so are my sperm. It does not make it a baby. Calling it baby is lexical warfare. So.

Fox News biology.

Even if it was true then the answer is not to ban abortion but to encourage it to happen as early as possible. Optimally, I would make Pregnancy tests come with Planned Parenthood pamphlets explaining reproductive rights and instructions to locate the latest one.

The relevancy of this statement is minus 4000. You are comparing abortion to slavery now? I guess that you fit the stereotype. Your care about life ends at birth.

I am not suggesting authorities to do anything. I am just saying that optimally it should be considered immoral to give to birth in those cases. Of course, immoral is not necessarily illegal.

It might kill a bunch of tissues, cells and bacteria. Since we worry that much about non-people dying...


Western society believes in no such thing as freedom to live. Else everyone would be entitled to free food and health care and we all would be commies. I consider that we have a duty to live. And the punishment is death.

But your freedoms end when other people's freedoms begin. Just because I had a right to live (For starters, no such live is given before birth, but let us ignore that) it would not mean that I can force you to donate me your organs or to risk dying for me.

It does benefit the thief too. If he needed food and shelter then prison will do that just as well.

If a father is the single parent. Then some things must have happened. The mother may be death or in prison / mental health institution or left, in which the father has full custody and the mother does not exert any decision power. Or maybe the single father was somehow able to adopt without a couple, but in that case he also has full custody...

The father though did not get pregnant, so he does not need the same length of maternity leave. He can't lactate either, so there is no excuse there. He must get a nanny or find a way to make money without a schedule else he is doomed.

I am not forgetting anything. It is not relevant though. It is still impossible to give any of the parents decision power different to 0% or 100%. So one parent will have to get full decision power. It is only fair it was the mother.

Sucks to be the father of a zygote that is about to die.... Except that really the mother is most likely not the father's last ever chance to have children. Also, all my sperm are potential children, yet I don't spend any tears on them. And if you don't want this to happen to you, I have an easy solution: To avoid sticking your penis into women that have different family plans than you.
----------
Oh, I read that someone brought the risk of getting date raped by a woman and then forced to maintain a child. There are also other possible scenarios. For example, both the woman and the father could be abducted by aliens and the aliens could impregnate the women with the man's sperm and then you are stuck with raising half-alien hybrids for the rest of your life. Another possible risk I heard of is Succubi...

:/

Yeah, right now I believe that the predominant motivation for most of people who are negatively focused on abortion is to use the issue as some kind of sledgehammer against feminism. I think their main problem is with feminism (or some straw man version of it) and modern women's sexuality in general. Not embryos or life. Arguing over whether embryos are life worthy of the same rights as a adult human is a red herring if what the person is really unsettled by is modern gender politics in general.

There is a large swathe of the population who aren't comfortable with abortion and wouldn't get one, but also don't really want the government to get into it or aren't particularly active against it. I'm not referring to them. I'm referring to the people who rant about abortion a lot and focus on it, but then it almost always bleeds over into the "men's rights" talking points, slut shaming, sometimes outright misogyny, and longing for traditional old fashioned gender roles. If they managed to ban abortion, they would just go after birth control and other feminist issues more. Abortion is the easy, low hanging fruit to try to attack feminism with because it's not hard to stir up sentimental emotional crap about it.

This isn't absolute and universal, but I do think it's a prevalent enough tendency to account for a large part of the debate.

i would tend to agree with that. religion seems to be playing a role in there as well, it seems. though i am not certain how strongly.

Religion does, but it tends to be those old male dominated sects like conservative branches of Christianity, Islam, etc. And they clearly have massive issues with women and feminism as well, so it's kind of the same thing. With few exceptions, these groups don't really believe in "sanctity of life" and have little hesitation proclaiming themselves judge, jury and executioner of living adults in whatever circumstance they see fit. They're like.. a woman wants an abortion? "OMG EVIL FEMINISTS, MURDER!" War against people from another religion in which multitudes will be slaughtered? "SIGN ME UP! LAUNCH THE NUKES!"

Although this is not my opinion the pro-life movement is against helping the Mother because that would be an endorsement of communism.

You are 100% correct.

Like Rush Limbaugh who calls Women evil and does not give one dime to help Women.

So call it a human being, and make the argument that this is not determinative of any question. You're fighting a pointless war, because the semantics that you are arguing about don't make any difference to the substance.

A sperm is one cell. A half developed baby is, what, a couple of trillion? Is that a serious comparison?





Nope, basic actions such as sucking it's thumb and kicking the womb occur as early as 12 weeks, complex decisions which are formed by working out cause and effect along with understanding of spacial awareness usually occurs at 16 weeks. (moving its hands in the direction of light as to block it out as mentioned below)

http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info ... ekly16.htm



I agree. 16 weeks is PLENTY OF TIME for a woman to test and arrange for abortion, anyone with half a brain knows having unprotected sex leads to a possibility of a baby.



No, just pointing out the irrelevance of the "the majority of people think this" argument. But, now you mention it, caiming a human to be owned by someones (i.e. the mother) is starting to ring a bell...



Are you serious? If that wasn't the case I wounldn't be against gun legalisation, war, bullying, any kind of abuse... how would it make any sense for anyone to care more about fetuses than everyone else? I sorry but I'm downright offended if you're suggesting my fundraising towards all these people and animals I apparently don''t care about is dishonest.



So you're saying that it's better for someone to loose their chance to life completely rather than have one that is marginally worse off? And, preempting you're "I don't consider it a person" argument, you shouldn't find either immoral.



"a bunch of tissues, cells and bacteria" - you talk as if it's a tumor. Both are arrangements of "a bunch of tissues, cells and bacteria", in fact I could well call you just ""a bunch of tissues, cells and bacteria". Out of the three the tumor is obviously the odd one out, though, unless you've ever seen a tumor move my itself and make up it's own judgement?



So let me get this straight - you believe humans just magically become alive the moment their head pops out of the vagina?



Again, preventing taking does not equate to enforcement of giving. Money is actually a pretty good example of this.



Oh, well that makes it alright then. You've somwhow managed to argue against the allowance of free choice AND justified theft at the same time. Well done.



I'm going to end the sexism debate here (though my view is that there is a lot of sexism both ways, except the male-focused sexism lies in the legal system whereas the female-focuses sexism lies in sociology).



Again, sperm are just single cells, life as an identy completely changes when trillions on cells get together to form a self-functioning organism. And as for the father having future chances, that depends on the mother, and the baby inside her is still a formation of both the mother an father, developing bother traits from the father's side and from the mother's. In any other field if something is half created by one person and half created by another, rights are split.

Some of what you say is wrong.

For example, a fetus moving in response to stimulus is not evidence of awareness. Unless you can demonstrate that the response to stimulus is mediated in the cerebral cortex, the much more likely explanation for responsive movement is reflex. Newborn infants have many more reflexes than children. As higher cerebral function develops after birth, these reflexes tend to fall into disuse (though interestingly, they still persist, and many adults can display neonatal reflexes after significant injury to their higher cerebral function). It is not unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that relfex responses are the first neurological development, and that sentience and sapience occur later in cerebral development.

But most of what you say is perfectly fair belief. You are free to believe that somewhere between conception and birth a fetus develops a package of rights that limits a woman's right. But I am equally free to believe that no right is crystalized until a legal person is created at the moment of birth. I am also free to believe that a fetus' interests only deviate from its mother's interests at the threshold of viability.

So, what discussion are we having here? Because a legal discussion, a political discussion, a medical-ethical discussion and a moral discussion will each have very different frameworks and will each have very different implications for applicability to third parties.

So what is the level on which you want to have this discussion? So far, this has just been flinging argument at the wall to see what sticks. If you are really going to make your case, set the arena first, and then let's confine ourselves to that. (We can even visit them in turn, if you like, in whatever order you like).

Let's set some boundaries to this discussion.

Finally something I can say an "Aha!" to in this thread. Spot on.

In the future children will choose their parents.