Let's Talk About: Abortion

[OMG!WTF!]

It would be really fun to also make it illegal for men to abandon kids. Since Birmingham has the second highest number of single parent households in the country; and since the overwhelming majority of single parent homes are led by moms, like about 65% compared to about 7% led by dads, that should send a chill down the spines of Alabamans. Not only would you have to pay child support, but you'd actually have to be there. You'd have to live in the house and go to all kid activities and school stuff and medical appointments etc. If you left for any reason, you go to jail. If you missed a pick up time at school, you go to jail. If you refuse to change a diaper, jail. If you set any kind of a negative example, jail. And if you had another kid by another woman and were logistically incapable of fulfilling your duties, you get the chair. If you leave the state and have another kid, 99 years upon return. Let the supreme court figure the rest out.



https://www.al.com/news/2018/11/birm...nts-in-us.html

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It would be really fun to also make it illegal for men to abandon kids. Since Birmingham has the second highest number of single parent households in the country; and since the overwhelming majority of single parent homes are led by moms, like about 65% compared to about 7% led by dads, that should send a chill down the spines of Alabamans. Not only would you have to pay child support, but you'd actually have to be there. You'd have to live in the house and go to all kid activities and school stuff and medical appointments etc. If you left for any reason, you go to jail. If you missed a pick up time at school, you go to jail. If you refuse to change a diaper, jail. If you set any kind of a negative example, jail. And if you had another kid by another woman and were logistically incapable of fulfilling your duties, you get the chair. If you leave the state and have another kid, 99 years upon return. Let the supreme court figure the rest out.



https://www.al.com/news/2018/11/birm...nts-in-us.html

No gender gap in views on whether abortion should be legal

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It would be really fun to also make it illegal for men to abandon kids.

My cousins wife is a successful marriage therapist, she claims a large percentage of men who leave do so because either the ex wife is impossible to deal with or the lop sided court system in this country that makes it incredibly difficult to have another relationship, house..etc. most of the time it's both. It's amazing to hear her rip her own gender and the courts for being unfair and claims she could save about 20% more family's if it wasn't for the way the system is set up.

Suicides are bad enough as it is once depression kicks into high gear after court and the fights, just imagine the rates if they can't escape the nightmare

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

My cousins wife is a successful marriage therapist, she claims a large percentage of men who leave do so because either the ex wife is impossible to deal with or the lop sided court system in this country that makes it incredibly difficult to have another relationship, house..etc. most of the time it's both

Yeah but it comes down to men choosing their partners better. Or alternatively keeping it in their pants. And also following the Bible more. If the man assumes the head of the household roll as the Bible commands, then there would be no problems. So...99 years.

[GirlySports]

New Era makes a great point above, it's about control.

The pro-life argument is a religious one but should not be a conservative one. The fact the religion and conservatism are in bed with each other is a problem. I'm conservative and this has never made sense to me.

Conservatives support private medicine but dont support an private abortion clinic which would profit. They dont want government involved in paying for kids but ban abortion so they there are more kids for the government to care for. Conservatives want the mom to be responsible for the actions but if the mom abandons the child or commits suicide then conservatives just shrug.

Conservatives should not be involved, period.

[troutman]

Men leave because of the court system? What a bizarre take.

"I love you honey, but the court system is driving us apart!"

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah but it comes down to men choosing their partners better.

Hold the phone, we get to choose? Does anyone have Elizabeth Olsen's contact information?!

... I know you probably didn't mean that to sound sexist but the suggestion that it's somehow the guy's fault for choosing poorly rather than a mutual decision made by both parties is pretty funny.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Hold the phone, we get to choose? Does anyone have Elizabeth Olsen's contact information?!

... I know you probably didn't mean that to sound sexist but the suggestion that it's somehow the guy's fault for choosing poorly rather than a mutual decision made by both parties is pretty funny.

It's pretty funny you didn't get that I'm making a comparison to the ridiculous arguments made by pro lifers.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

My cousins wife is a successful marriage therapist, she claims a large percentage of men who leave do so because either the ex wife is impossible to deal with or the lop sided court system in this country that makes it incredibly difficult to have another relationship, house..etc. most of the time it's both. It's amazing to hear her rip her own gender and the courts for being unfair and claims she could save about 20% more family's if it wasn't for the way the system is set up.

Suicides are bad enough as it is once depression kicks into high gear after court and the fights, just imagine the rates if they can't escape the nightmare

While completely unfair none of this has the slightest bearing on my moral responsibility to support my child, if I never saw my child again and my ex set the dogs on me if I approached the house (which she would have if she could) I am still the father of a child that has nothing to do with any of that and I am still responsible for putting food on the child's plate and a roof over his or her head.

I am also the horny idiot that choose to shag the crazy woman who is my ex, I could have got anyone pregnant but I choose her, if she turned out to be a maniac (which she did) that was my choice.

Truth is I, like most guys I know, liked that she was a maniac when it came to the sex and never looked beyond that.;

[GGG]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

While completely unfair none of this has the slightest bearing on my moral responsibility to support my child, if I never saw my child again and my ex set the dogs on me if I approached the house (which she would have if she could) I am still the father of a child that has nothing to do with any of that and I am still responsible for putting food on the child's plate and a roof over his or her head.

I am also the horny idiot that choose to shag the crazy woman who is my ex, I could have got anyone pregnant but I choose her, if she turned out to be a maniac (which she did) that was my choice.

Truth is I, like most guys I know, liked that she was a maniac when it came to the sex and never looked beyond that.;

Careful that sounds an awful lot like the worst of the pro-choice slut shaming arguments of if you didn’t want a kid don’t have sex.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Careful that sounds an awful lot like the worst of the pro-choice slut shaming arguments of if you didn’t want a kid don’t have sex.

You can have sex without having a kid and you can have a kid without saddling yourself with a bat**** crazy ex, but once you have had a kid, be you a man or a woman you have a responsibility to the kid regardless of anything that happens between you and the other parent.

I'm sick to the back teeth of listening to men excusing their abrogation of their parental responsibilities because their now ex partner is unpleasant.
The kid didn't do a thing, that's who you owe child support to, if the mother wastes the money so be it, you still pay.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Do the non-religious believe in souls?

No

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't really care for the debate. I am very happy that Canada has a low abortion rate and at the same time, no law regulating abortion. It's almost like it is a very complicated issue that has more to do on whether or not all you want is an abortion. I mean, that is part of it.

Safe, legal and rare, like Clinton said

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Hahaha no there isn't.

What kind of bull#### is this?

This has been taught in medical textbooks for many years. A new human life, a unique individual with unique DNA, begins at conception. Biologically speaking, this is not controversial. Now, if you're talking about viability, legal recognition of persons then I'd acknowledge the disagreement. Why is that the IVF specialist first attempts to create conception under lab conditions--it's the starting point of an new individual.

Originally Posted by New Era

This is good. This gives us a starting point for discussion. You wish to approach this from the human rights perspective, so let's look at the human rights perspective and what is considered the most comprehensive statement on human rights in history - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1 states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Two important things there. Humans are born. This entails the action of live birth. Until such time, the embryo is part of the host, or the mother and all rights belong to her. Second part is the component of reason and conscience. Humans do not have these faculties at birth and develop these capacities later on in their cognitive development. So there is some ambiguity here as to when a human being achieves some individual rights. I believe that human being is not a person until they have the faculties to make decisions on their own and are responsible for those actions. But looking at the declaration, human rights are not bestowed until the very earliest point of when an individual is born.

The Universal Declaration is itself a highly political statement with its own philosophical views and premises. It's arguments are fine if you accepts its premises. Obviously many people do. But part of the abortion debate precisely questions such. I and many other pro-lifers espouse a view of human rights that extend beyond the born to also include the life of the pre-born. You've suggest faculties, decision making and responsibilities as the pre-requisites for a human being to be given rights. The problem is, such requirements might not even even qualify one who is born. What about a person with a disability who lacks certain faculties and lack certain capabilities to make adequate decisions or take responsibility? To deny rights to the unborn merely because they have yet to fully develop (lacking your requisite characteristics) is simply age discrimination.

While this is wrong, it is at least another point of discussion. "Life" begins at conception. What that life is is wide open for discussion. In the early stages of development the zygote is not yet distinguishable from a lot of species at the same point. It is a lump of goo that has some coding in the cells. Yes, the blueprints to a human being are there, but blueprints do not make a pile of lumber of home. There are months of development to go before the components begin to look like something resembling the blueprint, let alone it being a sustainable entity.

I never understand this view. How can the life be anything but human? The gametes from the parents are human. Therefore, the zygote would have to be human. It's not as if the zygote is going to grow into a horse. As for "blue prints," the zygote is simply a human individual at its earliest developmental stages. Sure, it has yet to develop your requisite characteristics but again, please see previous argument.

Interestingly enough, cancer cells also meet this same standard. They have unique encoding too, so by your standard we should not be allowed to excise those cells and allow them to grow to the point where they kill the patient? Cancer cells are live cells and have the same rights by the standard you have set forth. No?

False equivalency. Cancer cells do not have the encoding of a unique individual human being. It is impossible for a cancer cell to eventually grow into an adult one day. They are simply cancer cells.

Someone didn't pass their Human Sexuality class! Conception does not take place in the "womb" or what is more commonly refereed to as the uterus. Fertilization takes place in the Fallopian tubes and the zygote must then travel to the uterus where implantation takes place. Considering that 66% of embryos do not develop properly and spontaneously abort, it nukes the idea of "if undisturbed."

Again, I'm not concerned with natural miscarriage but deliberate acts to kill the human life in the womb.

There is nothing to support your claim though. This is a philosophical argument more so than a pragmatic one. Science does not support your claim. US and Canadian law does not support your claim. International law does not support your claim, and neither does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I suspect you are making your claims on a theological belief more so than anything else, because it is a based on a "belief" more so than any fact.

The perspective of human rights that protects the life of all human individuals is philosophical, yes. But so are many moral arguments in general. As an aside, the relationship between science and morality is an interesting discussion in and of itself. Regarding the declaration and various laws, it's not inconceivable that such tools are imperfect. It was not long ago that African Americans were considered by law to be 3/5ths of a person. Slave owners often appealed to those laws to make their arguments as well.

I think we can agree on this point. Without the appropriate social safety net in place to assist women with being forced to carry a child to term, and then care for it until adulthood, we have no right to tell them what they can or cannot do with their bodies. Not unless you think the Handmaiden's Tale is blueprint for a good and functioning society.

Again, that view is fine if you believe there's only one body involved. From the pro-life view, there's a body within the mother's body that also deserves protection. Comments that allude to the Handmaiden's Tale do a disservice to the pro-choice argument. On one level it attacks the character of pro-lifers as those who are just women haters and does nothing to address the real substance of the arguments. I and many prolifers can sleep well at night knowing that my views have nothing to do at all with some anti-woman conspiracy. I've been involved with pro-life organizations in the past and the vast majority of leadership are women. Secondly, it's a slippery slope to suggest that abortion legislation would result in some anti-woman distopia. Quite a number of steps way beyond abortion would have to happen that it's ridiculous.

[GGG]

What should be done with left over IVF embryos?

Should we have funerals for the half of embryos that don’t implant?

Is miscarriage the leading cause of death among humans and therefore preventing miscarriages should be the largest health priority.

Should life insurance benefits be extended to fetus?

Should pregnant women be let out of prison because you are unlawfully detaining the fetus.

Why aren’t sperm and egg considered life. Aren’t these cells with the spilt strands the point where cells become different from the host.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

This has been taught in medical textbooks for many years. A new human life, a unique individual with unique DNA, begins at conception. Biologically speaking, this is not controversial. Now, if you're talking about viability, legal recognition of persons then I'd acknowledge the disagreement. Why is that the IVF specialist first attempts to create conception under lab conditions--it's the starting point of an new individual.

Emphasis added for emphasis. It is not a human being. It is a glop of cells that may or may not develop into something. Again, 66% of fertilizations - that moment you are referring to as "conception" - never implant or just spontaneously abort.

The Universal Declaration is itself a highly political statement with its own philosophical views and premises. It's arguments are fine if you accepts its premises. Obviously many people do. But part of the abortion debate precisely questions such. I and many other pro-lifers espouse a view of human rights that extend beyond the born to also include the life of the pre-born. You've suggest faculties, decision making and responsibilities as the pre-requisites for a human being to be given rights. The problem is, such requirements might not even even qualify one who is born. What about a person with a disability who lacks certain faculties and lack certain capabilities to make adequate decisions or take responsibility?

So all laws and declarations mean nothing unless YOU accept them? Is that your stance?

The ability to comprehend your place in your environment is pretty much a requirement for the granting of individual rights. Without that awareness an individual is not mentally competent to make decisions or be held accountable in the eyes of the law. The individual's rights are then protected or controlled by those of a benefactor. There is a reason why children cannot be prosecuted for certain crimes, nor granted rights of an adult - even when emancipated. So if a child does not have full rights, why should a glop of cells that has neither human form or the capacity to be aware of one's environment get that right and supersede the rights of the mother?

To deny rights to the unborn merely because they have yet to fully develop (lacking your requisite characteristics) is simply age discrimination.

This is the most ridiculous comment I've ever read on this forum. Seriously, this is a new level of ridiculousness.

I never understand this view. How can the life be anything but human? The gametes from the parents are human. Therefore, the zygote would have to be human. It's not as if the zygote is going to grow into a horse. As for "blue prints," the zygote is simply a human individual at its earliest developmental stages. Sure, it has yet to develop your requisite characteristics but again, please see previous argument.

Because the zygote is an incomplete clump of cells that is NOT human. Just because it has the encoding does not mean it is going to develop. Every one of our cells has our DNA encoding, but we don't determine all clumps of cells to be human.

False equivalency. Cancer cells do not have the encoding of a unique individual human being. It is impossible for a cancer cell to eventually grow into an adult one day. They are simply cancer cells.

Cancer cells have our entire encoding in them, but with a genetic mutation that creates an aggressive variation. The cells are our own, and have a variation in the code. This makes them unique. By your own rules, stated multiple times, that the unique encoding makes those cells a new unique entity and worthy of our protection. By your rules cancers should have the full weight of protection under the law and we should grant them personhood.

Again, your own words - a unique individual with unique DNA - says that we must protect this life as well, because these cells are live and are unique. Development is irrelevant. You've stated as much by saying that life begins at conception and completely ignoring the fact that 66% of fertilizations do not implant and will never develop. Your stance is that we have to afford human rights to a glop of cells at that moment because it met a certain standard which was "life" and "uniqueness." Cancers are live cells, have unique encoding, and will continue to divide, grown, and develop. Your rules, not mine.

Again, I'm not concerned with natural miscarriage but deliberate acts to kill the human life in the womb.

There we go. It has now come down to a moral argument. It is you enforcing your morality on others and demanding that they abide by what you believe! As I said earlier, this issue is not about children or human life, it's about a perception of morality and wanting to establish a moral standard that can be forced on everyone.

The perspective of human rights that protects the life of all human individuals is philosophical, yes. But so are many moral arguments in general. As an aside, the relationship between science and morality is an interesting discussion in and of itself. Regarding the declaration and various laws, it's not inconceivable that such tools are imperfect. It was not long ago that African Americans were considered by law to be 3/5ths of a person. Slave owners often appealed to those laws to make their arguments as well.

Again, whose morality do we have to follow? Why does it have to be yours? What makes you so morally superior that we should all just follow your lead? What makes your imperfect moral views such that they should be enforced on everyone? How about we set a standard where people can hold a variety of moral views and from that we establish a baseline which everyone will be expected to meet or exceed? Doesn't that make more sense? That was everyone can exercise that "god given" ability of free choice, and then let the chips of our eternal damnation fall where they may when we meet our maker - or become worm food, for us people who don't believe in stupid #### like a supreme being? Wouldn't that be more reasonable? The morality of one individual, or even one group, should never supersede that of the majority of society.

Again, that view is fine if you believe there's only one body involved. From the pro-life view, there's a body within the mother's body that also deserves protection.

A body within a body where the parasitic body requires sustenance from the host for its survival. This is the part that is lost on the pro-lifers. This is something growing inside someone else, and YOU have no right to tell someone what they can, or cannot, do with their body. PERIOD! Maybe we can start a movement to protect those live cancer cells and prevent the pro-lifers from doing anything that could possibly harm them? Would that make sense? You can't destroy that life because, well, its life! I don't care that the cancer will ultimately kill you, because I'm protecting innocent life.

Comments that allude to the Handmaiden's Tale do a disservice to the pro-choice argument. On one level it attacks the character of pro-lifers as those who are just women haters and does nothing to address the real substance of the arguments. I and many prolifers can sleep well at night knowing that my views have nothing to do at all with some anti-woman conspiracy. I've been involved with pro-life organizations in the past and the vast majority of leadership are women. Secondly, it's a slippery slope to suggest that abortion legislation would result in some anti-woman distopia. Quite a number of steps way beyond abortion would have to happen that it's ridiculous.

No, not really. If women can't have control over their bodies, what is the next logical step? You are demanding that women lose control over the most personal of things to them, and that is pretty scary to me. I find some things that people do to themselves as abhorrent, but I would never deprive them the right to do something to themselves of their choosing. I'm not a fan self-mutilation, but it is not my place to say that it is wrong for that person, or make it illegal.

Why is it that people can't keep their nose out of other people's private business? If your next door neighbor got knocked up and elected to have an abortion, would it impact your life? If she never told you, you wouldn't know, and it would have ZERO impact on your life. So why do you care? This is why fences make good neighbors. You keep your ####ed up morality away from my life, and I'll keep my ####ed up morality away from your life. We can still have beers and barbeques as good neighbors, but stay the hell out of my bedroom, my finances, my medical concerns, and my spirituality. If you don't like my morality than I can guarantee you I sure as hell won't like yours either. So keep that crap to yourself and let people live their lives as they see fit.

[GGG]

The argument of it doesn’t affect you so get out is not valid. At some point whether in the womb or just outside it a life becomes a life and needs protecting. A person killing their two year old doesn’t really affect you either but no one is going to support that.

You are just applying your morality of when that point occurs.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by GGG

The argument of it doesn’t affect you so get out is not valid. At some point whether in the womb or just outside it a life becomes a life and needs protecting. A person killing their two year old doesn’t really affect you either but no one is going to support that.

You are just applying your morality of when that point occurs.

Agreed on this, it is the stupidest and most small minded of the arguments in here.

It is a complicated issue, with no way to really validate right and wrong other than a persons individual philosophy and morality. There are many good arguments both ways. But to say it isn’t your business, who cares it doesn’t affect you, or you don’t get to have a moral opinion if you are a male, it is just a terrible argument.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

New Era makes a great point above, it's about control.

The pro-life argument is a religious one but should not be a conservative one. The fact the religion and conservatism are in bed with each other is a problem. I'm conservative and this has never made sense to me.

Conservatives support private medicine but dont support an private abortion clinic which would profit. They dont want government involved in paying for kids but ban abortion so they there are more kids for the government to care for. Conservatives want the mom to be responsible for the actions but if the mom abandons the child or commits suicide then conservatives just shrug.

Conservatives should not be involved, period.

To some it may be about control.

To many of old white men pushing through the legislation it may be about control.

But if pro-choicers have created a pedestal to sit on because they think anyone who is pro-life JUST wants to control the woman, or her right to personal choice, then I'm sorry, they are solely mistaken.

You can't possibly sit there and reduce ALL pro-life arguments to just wanting to take choice and freedom away from the woman.

Its troubling, really because in terms of our freedom and liberty afforded to us under the constitution, the right to life is inherently more important, and that argument is simply being ignored because somehow in this whole mess, freedom, and personal choice have become more important than the right to live, or even humanity in general.

If you believe that if abortion is restricted to 24 weeks then in no time flat it'll be moved to 18 weeks, 12 weeks, or 6 weeks, fine. That is your right, and there is good evidence to suggest that restricting it at all is not really the solution to lowering abortion rates overall. But don't simply ignore the argument because you think everything is about control. It can't possibly JUST be about control considering how much of the pro-life movement is made up of women.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The argument of it doesn’t affect you so get out is not valid.

And why doesn't it? Why do YOU get to say what I do with my body or in the course of my life? If I want to participate in high risk activities, that's on me. You have no right to say that I can't juggle chainsaws and kittens at the same time. What happens is on me, not on you. Why is it that some people just feel obligated to regulate the things that others do because they don't like it?

At some point whether in the womb or just outside it a life becomes a life and needs protecting. A person killing their two year old doesn’t really affect you either but no one is going to support that.

And you have no right to saw what a woman does with her womb. PERIOD. If you do, I get a say in what you do with your testes because the sperm that is generated there could ultimately become a person. No more jerking off for you! Gotta protect those possible babies!

A two year old, or even a new born baby, is a little bit different from a gop of cells that does not resemble human life in any shape or form. Again, we should be focusing in on what determines a human life and the sustainability of that life. Allow science to determine when an embryo becomes viable of sustaining itself without the sustenance or nutrients from the mother/host. Because if you start down that road, anything created in a petri dish is considered life and worthy of protection. IMO, human life doesn't start until the fetus can survive outside the womb without technological intervention. Once that happens, welcome to humanity. Oh, you still have no rights under the law, but carry on.

You are just applying your morality of when that point occurs.

Yeah, that's the point. Keep your morality to yourself and allow the individual the right to do what they want with their own body as they see fit.