The hypocrisy of abortion not '' being murder ''

[Deleted]

the baby only gets to be born if the female wants it to, therefore it is the choice that makes the baby, not the sex.

This 10/10

[Machismo]

The bold part is simply untrue, the baby only gets to be born if the female wants it to, therefore it is the choice that makes the baby, not the sex.



But you do have to make that choice, and not acting is making a choice. You know what will happen if you do not act, that is making a decision.

Here's a better scenario. Two people each have one part of a poison mixture. They are inert by themselves, but deadly when combined. They both pour it into a glass of wine, and place it on a tray to be served to their target. Once it's on the tray, only one of the people has the ability to stop the wine from being consumed. If that person chooses to not stop the poisoning, are they the only one at fault? Or, are they both guilty of murder?

[Rotted]

You really don't even have to consider the pregnancy. Giving someone a chemical for them to unknowingly ingest that can harm them is literally poisoning them and can be considered battery.

This, furthermore, hes not trained, she could of been allergic to a compound or anything, the docs might have given her a different one

Furthermore, at the end of the day it's the womans choice to carry or abort. No one elses, he took away that right

You also need to take into emotional distress, not only of losing a potential child, but the trust and love in that relationship (If its a relationship) has been shattered and to some people thats taking a mental beating,

In regards to the fetus, it is alive and he did kill him or her. Yes I do believe at that point its alive, but yes I still believe its the mothers choice based on her current and near future situations to decide if she should carry it or not. My point as to why I think its alive? Its not a bunch of cells, it has physical shape which can be identified as a human. Theres works all the way back from 1973 that records CNS development from 10-22 weeks. I'd guess not self aware. You can check this out on google scholar from abstracts alone if you dont have access.

For more simpler reading, lots of websites sum up research (albeit some are bias so take with pinch of salt), take this for example

The most dramatic development this week: reflexes. Your baby's fingers will soon begin to open and close, his toes will curl, his eye muscles will clench, and his mouth will make sucking movements. In fact, if you prod your abdomen, your baby will squirm in response, although you won't be able to feel it.
His intestines, which have grown so fast that they protrude into the umbilical cord, will start to move into his abdominal cavity about now, and his kidneys will begin excreting urine into his bladder.

Meanwhile, nerve cells are multiplying rapidly, and synapses are forming furiously in your baby's brain. His face looks unquestionably human: His eyes have moved from the sides to the front of his head, and his ears are right where they should be. From crown to rump, your baby-to-be is just over 2 inches long (about the size of a lime) and weighs half an ounce

Tell me, had someone snapped and decided to punch a woman repeatedly in the stomach to cause an abortion, would you consider 7 years justified? If so, then 7 years it not justified in your example, it should be more. What your guy did (as in the one your talking about) is cold, manipulative and preplanned, it was a motive. Where as someone who would beat a woman into abortion could be argued it was a result of constant arguments, financial trouble, drugs, alcohol, a disability - not excuses, but reasons as to why they might snap in a split second and lose control. This guy is worse than any of that.

So yes I'd say 7 years is justified, and I'd probably say he got off light

[PizzaSHARK]

That makes zero sense at all. It is emotional pain, not physical pain, so who's body does what is meaningless.

lol, you think abortions don't involve physical pain?

[Teleros]

Where's the logic here?

Look, you're probably some kind of cis-gendered racist white male, so you need to check your privilege and STFU when your betters tell you to. It's just so triggering nowadays with all these oppressive racist-sexist-transphobic patriarchal scumbags literally goose-stepping around now that Literally Hitler is in the White House. I think I need to go back to my safe space.

...

Yeah, sorry. There aren't any consistent logical arguments, so have some boilerplate leftie drivel instead :P .

[Machismo]

Look, you're probably some kind of cis-gendered racist white male, so you need to check your privilege and STFU when your betters tell you to. It's just so triggering nowadays with all these oppressive racist-sexist-transphobic patriarchal scumbags literally goose-stepping around now that Literally Hitler is in the White House. I think I need to go back to my safe space.

...

Yeah, sorry. There aren't any consistent logical arguments, so have some boilerplate leftie drivel instead :P .

Then please answer this for me:

Two people each have one part of a poison mixture. They are inert by themselves, but deadly when combined. They both pour it into a glass of wine, and place it on a tray to be served to their target. Once it's on the tray, only one of the people has the ability to stop the wine from being consumed. If that person chooses to not stop the poisoning, are they the only one at fault? Or, are they both guilty of murder?

[Deleted]

lol, you think abortions don't involve physical pain?

This is the same group of people that can't figure out that a man's feelings are entirely different to a literal biological connection.

[AeneasBK]

Why am I not surprised to find MehMeh nad Pateuvasiliu at the forefront of this very fascinating and original discussion.

[PizzaSHARK]

That was not what this was about, it was about emotional suffering and how males are never compensated for their emotional suffering caused by abortions that they didn't want.

I'm not saying that this should be a thing, but on the other hand, he should not be punished harsher for it either. What he did should be punished, but he should not be punished more harshly because of the emotional suffering that the woman had. Because, if you allow this, then males do have a good reason to sue females that got an abortion against their wishes, as they suffer emotionally the same.

Get over it. Abortions are not and cannot ever be an equal thing - there is more risk, more burden, on the woman. She, by law, receives rights that the man does not.

If this is not something you're comfortable with - too fucking bad. Get snipped, don't have sex. You are otherwise implicitly agreeing to this necessarily uneven arrangement. Nothing is allowed to override the woman's bodily autonomy - so get over it. Or don't have sex.

[Deleted]

Barring any further action, the baby is inevitable. Not getting an abortion did not create the baby, sexual intercourse did. If I shoot a gun at a wall, that wall is going to get hit, unless something else stops it. A person choosing to not stand in the way of the bullet is not responsible for the wall getting hit, the person shooting the gun is the one responsible for the wall getting hit. In this case, two people were doing the "shooting."

One does not actually need to make the choice. There are actually people who never even knew such a choice was possible, and this has been the case throughout the existence of humanity. Some people do not even know about abortions. What will happen if a person does not act, is that the course of events laid out by a previous action, will come to fruition.

But you do make a choice by not acting when you know what that not acting will result in.

If you are driving a ship (not sure if driving is the proper word but you know what i mean) and you need to go to shore. You are floating just about at the right speed and at the right angle to get to the shore. By not steering or throttling the engine you are taking no action, but it is a decision you make.

Throughout history there have been abortions, and really, maybe except for some bushmen in south America everyone knows that there is a thing called abortion. But i think we can safely assume that we are talking about the first world here, western civilization, and here everyone knows about it.

[PizzaSHARK]

Look, you're probably some kind of cis-gendered racist white male, so you need to check your privilege and STFU when your betters tell you to. It's just so triggering nowadays with all these oppressive racist-sexist-transphobic patriarchal scumbags literally goose-stepping around now that Literally Hitler is in the White House. I think I need to go back to my safe space.

...

Yeah, sorry. There aren't any consistent logical arguments, so have some boilerplate leftie drivel instead :P .

I'm so sorry that Reddit banned your safe space, but we don't really offer such things here. Please go elsewhere.

[Machismo]

But you do make a choice by not acting when you know what that not acting will result in.

If you are driving a ship (not sure if driving is the proper word but you know what i mean) and you need to go to shore. You are floating just about at the right speed and at the right angle to get to the shore. By not steering or throttling the engine you are taking no action, but it is a decision you make.

Throughout history there have been abortions, and really, maybe except for some bushmen in south America everyone knows that there is a thing called abortion. But i think we can safely assume that we are talking about the first world here, western civilization, and here everyone knows about it.

Two people each have one part of a poison mixture. They are inert by themselves, but deadly when combined. They both pour it into a glass of wine, and place it on a tray to be served to their target. Once it's on the tray, only one of the people has the ability to stop the wine from being consumed. If that person chooses to not stop the poisoning, are they the only one at fault? Or, are they both guilty of murder?

[Deleted]

Get over it. Abortions are not and cannot ever be an equal thing - there is more risk, more burden, on the woman. She, by law, receives rights that the man does not.

If this is not something you're comfortable with - too fucking bad. Get snipped, don't have sex. You are otherwise implicitly agreeing to this necessarily uneven arrangement. Nothing is allowed to override the woman's bodily autonomy - so get over it. Or don't have sex.

Oooh look, another reply that really has no place in a discussion.

[Total Crica]

Takes two to have sex, takes two to get pregnant, takes two to chose if there will be a baby or not.

Except, it doesn't.

It takes two to have sex.

If one of the two having sex doesn't want a child AND THEY STATE THIS BEFORE HAVING SEX, then they should not have to pay for one, regardless of a child being born after they have sex is what men want when they ask for equality about children.

However, this will cause MANY marriages to fail if the wife is not the one who doesn't want a child and the husband has sex with her anyway.

The state has no interest in failing marriages but they DO have an interest in parents of children footing the bill, therefore they are NOT going to ensure a husband doesn't have to pay for their children.

I still don't know how to solve this, since a child that is born has to be paid for by someone and if the woman can't afford to do it on her own then what?

The entire state pays for it EXCEPT the father?

No society is going to say OK to that, ever.

Therefore, the best option men who don't want children have at this time, due to nature, is to NEVER have sex with a woman who wants children.

[Raelbo]

Probably you could make a case out of it. If your wife/gf gets pregnant and aborts it, against your wishes, try to sue her for your emotional pain - i would support you.

That really depends on the facts of the individual case.

By default men should not be able to sue for emotional pain if a woman he got pregnant chose to abort. There would have to be some sort of extenuating circumstances to justify such action.

For example: Many religious wedding ceremonies will include contractual commitments by both parties regarding children. Like in the Catholic church the couple is required to acknowledge that they will "accept children willingly from God".

[Machismo]

Oooh look, another reply that really has no place in a discussion.

It has everything to do with this discussion. You have people (you) not wanting to take responsibility for an action, and whining about the consequences of that action.

If you don't like that women have control over their own bodies, then don't risk impregnating one.

[alzoron]

Abstinency?

You might be surprised to find out there have been males raped that still had to pay child support.

No, I'm not surprised and left that .01% there for the same reason antibacterial products do. Sometimes shit happens.

[Machismo]

It takes two to have sex. If one of the two having sex doesn't want a child AND THEY STATE THIS BEFORE HAVING SEX, then they should not have to pay for one, regardless of a child being born after they have sex is what men want when they ask for equality about children. However, this will cause MANY marriages to fail if the wife is not the one who doesn't want a child and the husband has sex with her anyway. The state has no interest in failing marriages but they DO have an interest in parents of children footing the bill, therefore they are NOT going to ensure a husband doesn't have to pay for their children. I still don't know how to solve this, since a child that is born has to be paid for by someone and if the woman can't afford to do it on her own then what? The entire state pays for it EXCEPT the father? No society is going to say OK to that, ever.

They have legally-binding contracts that do just that.

[Deleted]

Two people each have one part of a poison mixture. They are inert by themselves, but deadly when combined. They both pour it into a glass of wine, and place it on a tray to be served to their target. Once it's on the tray, only one of the people has the ability to stop the wine from being consumed. If that person chooses to not stop the poisoning, are they the only one at fault? Or, are they both guilty of murder?

The one carrying out the actual murder will be punished more harshly then the one only putting in one part of the poison (but both will probably be convicted of murder), unless the one putting in that one compound is ordering the murder and compensating the guy giving the wine to do it.

[Raelbo]

Get over it. Abortions are not and cannot ever be an equal thing - there is more risk, more burden, on the woman. She, by law, receives rights that the man does not.

If this is not something you're comfortable with - too fucking bad. Get snipped, don't have sex. You are otherwise implicitly agreeing to this necessarily uneven arrangement. Nothing is allowed to override the woman's bodily autonomy - so get over it. Or don't have sex.

Brilliant comment!