The hypocrisy of abortion not '' being murder ''

[Phlegethon]

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.

There are ways for women to not get pregnant as there are for men.

Use them.

[Machismo]

Well if your solution is "males just not having sex" then that is exactly what we should say to females, right!? And if females just should not have sex then they won't get pregnant then there is no need for abortions now is there, because, she can only get pregnant when she had sex.

That is what is called anti abortion rhetoric.

Absolutely, females shouldn't have sex if they cannot deal with the consequences of their actions. Either that, or use birth control, do anal.. you get the picture.

There is not a need for abortions, there is a want for them. It's a service, one that is legal, and is not mandatory. Things that are not needed can still be utilized. I don't need to get a back massage every month, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't get one.

Are you mad that abortions are legal, that only women can get them, or that men cannot force women to have one?

[Halyon]

I know a lot of progressives who like to always look at the science behind Climate Change, but have no clue of the Science behind late term abortions. It's some really messed up shit.

...nobody is in favor of late term abortion dude...and those who are, are mostly shunned by the rest of the pro-choice community.

[Raelbo]

And that is a fallacy, if you do not want to read this then please feel free to leave the discussion. But claiming that the rules are the rules because they are the rules is a fallacy.

True, but that being said there is a reason the rules exist and it is up to you to build a case of why those reasons are flawed. Maybe if you started to think about why those rules exist as they are, they might start to realise the fallacies upon which your own arguments are built.

[Dug]

And that is a fallacy, if you do not want to read this then please feel free to leave the discussion. But claiming that the rules are the rules because they are the rules is a fallacy.

Alright but reality is still reality lol

[Raelbo]

You don't think seven years is an appropriate sentence for a premeditated assault that causes two of a woman's organs to shut down? I do. Hopefully, so does the presiding judge.

Seven years is totally and absolutely disgustingly inappropriate. They should be pushing for 15 at least...

[Jeezy911]

...nobody is in favor of late term abortion dude...and those who are, are mostly shunned by the rest of the pro-choice community.

Like Elizabeth Warren, the next Democratic Nominee?

[Deleted]

You do realise that this is tantamount to saying that a pregnancy can happen without sex. My mind boggles.

No its not, you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion.

A male does have a say in the process. He gets to choose where to stick his dick. I thought this was common knowledge.

So, anti abortion rhetoric, gotcha

But seriously now, I get what you are actually trying to say, but I do still genuinely disagree. While you're correct that the woman has a power of veto, you fail to acknowledge that she only has this because the man consents to it. He does this when he engages in intercourse. Not only is this the way the law is, but it is the way the law should be (which you seem to want to debate) because it is the only reasonable approach.

The man didn't consent to anything else then sex, again, if sex is the same as becoming a parent then there would be no need for abortions to begin with. It is anti abortion rhetoric.

Nothing is stopping a man from talking to a woman before intercourse and establishing the ground rules. That is where he has his say. True, once he has made his sperm deposit, he gets no further say, but that is still his choice he made, fully informed, when he chose to have sex.

Yes, it is called "the law", if a woman feels like it no contract matters, the male just doesn't have a say.

True, but irrelevant. You were trying to strawman the argument by implying that a woman choosing not to abort was the same as forcing religion upon someone else and I called you on it.

No i said that that could be a worst case scenario, and that is true. If you have a child because you can't abort according to your religion, the male has to abide by this. Ergo he becomes father because of religious reasons of others, granted, it might not be forcing someone to believe. But it does use religion as a reason to force someone to do something they really do not want to do.

Are you serious? You do realise that the entire concept of a democracy is based on this principle. When you vote for someone you share in the responsibility for everything they do, provided of course that it is not inconsistent with the election manifesto. If you vote for someone without first finding out what their manifesto is, you don't get to say it's not your fault when they go ahead and do it and you don't like it.

A democracy isn't made up off one person, its made out off everyone, so sorry but that doesn't even come close. There simply is no other situation where another person can tell you what to do with your life or how to live it.

It is not when you willingly give them that power. By choosing to have sex with a woman you are giving her that power. Just because it happens automatically when you choose to do nothing, doesn't mean you had no say, it simply means you chose not to.

Yes, I get that this is inconvenient for you, I mean you want to have sex and you don't want the responsibility. I totally understand that. So you have created your own narrative to justify why that should be ok. Here's a hint. It's not.

I didn't give her that power, she has that power regardless of what i do, that is not something that you seem to get. And this is of course bound together with some anti abortion rhetoric, you do realize that i can make this exact same case against abortion, right??

- - - Updated - - -

True, but that being said there is a reason the rules exist and it is up to you to build a case of why those reasons are flawed. Maybe if you started to think about why those rules exist as they are, they might start to realise the fallacies upon which your own arguments are built.

And i was, but to state that my reasoning is flawed because the rules are not like that is an appeal to authority. And feel free to point out my fallacies, there aren't any, i hold people responsible for their own actions and their own decisions, plain and simple.

[thatmikeguy]

Seven years is totally and absolutely disgustingly inappropriate. They should be pushing for 15 at least...

BS, should be the same as what it is.. Murder.

[Machismo]

No its not, you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion.



So, anti abortion rhetoric, gotcha



The man didn't consent to anything else then sex, again, if sex is the same as becoming a parent then there would be no need for abortions to begin with. It is anti abortion rhetoric.



Yes, it is called "the law", if a woman feels like it no contract matters, the male just doesn't have a say.



No i said that that could be a worst case scenario, and that is true. If you have a child because you can't abort according to your religion, the male has to abide by this. Ergo he becomes father because of religious reasons of others, granted, it might not be forcing someone to believe. But it does use religion as a reason to force someone to do something they really do not want to do.




A democracy isn't made up off one person, its made out off everyone, so sorry but that doesn't even come close. There simply is no other situation where another person can tell you what to do with your life or how to live it.




I didn't give her that power, she has that power regardless of what i do, that is not something that you seem to get. And this is of course bound together with some anti abortion rhetoric, you do realize that i can make this exact same case against abortion, right??

There are literally tens of thousands of laws that state that another person is allowed to tell you how to live your life. That's what laws are.

[thatmikeguy]

I don't care what moralfags say, I support abortion and stand your ground laws.

Don't tread on my personal life.

I don't care what amoral people say.

-Edit-

Actually, if I think about it. I do really care what amoral people say and do. Nothing survives enough amoral ideology.

[Deleted]

Absolutely, females shouldn't have sex if they cannot deal with the consequences of their actions. Either that, or use birth control, do anal.. you get the picture.

There is not a need for abortions, there is a want for them. It's a service, one that is legal, and is not mandatory. Things that are not needed can still be utilized. I don't need to get a back massage every month, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't get one.

Are you mad that abortions are legal, that only women can get them, or that men cannot force women to have one?

To really believe that abortions are not needed is putting your head in the sand, they are needed, because without them there would be even more humans that are not taken care off properly.

And mad is a big word, but i do think that everyone should be able to choose if they want to become a parent or not. This is not something that should be done on a whim, like sex often is. I believe that if you can have a choice on becoming a parent then there would be alot less children that are not taken care off because it simply was the simplest thing to do at the time.

[Machismo]

I don't care what amoral people say.

Now that we have covered subjective beliefs on both sides, let's do our best to not force those beliefs onto others.

[Deleted]

There are literally tens of thousands of laws that state that another person is allowed to tell you how to live your life. That's what laws are.

Those are laws that we created, those laws are a set thing, a womans feelings towards something is not. There simply is no other case where a single person can decide your faith in life like that.

[Machismo]

To really believe that abortions are not needed is putting your head in the sand, they are needed, because without them there would be even more humans that are not take care off properly.

And mad is a big word, but i do think that everyone should be able to choose if they want to become a parent or not. This is not something that should be done on a whim, like sex often is. I believe that if you can have a choice on becoming a parent then there would be alot less children that are not taken care off because it simply was the simplest thing to do at the time.

Then make that choice by limiting your chances of becoming a parent, and even going so far as signing a contract to relieve you of parental rights. If you want to support making a contract with a girl, that says you will not be participating in any way of the life of any possible offspring, and she agrees to it, then good for you. I will support that fully. Personally, I recommend that you get a vasectomy.

Abortion is not needed, it is wanted. One can exist just fine without having an abortion, therefore, it is not needed. If abortions disappeared tomorrow, humanity would still continue to exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Those are laws that we created, those laws are a set thing, a womans feelings towards something is not. There simply is no other case where a single person can decide your faith in life like that.

Tell that to every judge and police officer in this country.

[Deleted]

Then make that choice by limiting your chances of becoming a parent, and even going so far as signing a contract to relieve you of parental rights.

Abortion is not needed, it is wanted. One can exist just fine without having an abortion, therefore, it is not needed. If abortions disappeared tomorrow, humanity would still continue to exist.

- - - Updated - - -



Tell that to every judge, police officer, and government official in this country.

Im not looking for advise, im discussing a problem we have in the law. To get back to this law, this is something we all make up, that judge you are pointing out is just like that policeman just enforcing the rules we all abide by, that is nothing like the whole pregnancy thing. You are really bad at making analogies.

[Machismo]

Im not looking for advise, im discussing a problem we have in the law. To get back to this law, this is something we all make up, that judge you are pointing out is just like that policeman just enforcing the rules we all abide by, that is nothing like the whole pregnancy thing. You are really bad at making analogies.

I'm doing just fine. You said there is no other case where a single person has control over our "faith." I simply provided examples where that is exactly what happens.

So, what exactly do you want? Do you not want the male to be responsible for a child he does not want, or do you want the male to be able to force a woman to get an abortion? If the prior is the case, then there are actual contracts that one can sign that do exactly that. I highly recommend you do it, since you clearly do not want children. Mind you, this does you no good after the fact, since you already made the mistake, and have a consequence for your action. Do it first, get that contract signed, and I will support you fully. Do it afterwards, and you are just trying to avoid responsibility for what has already happened. If that's the case, you are just pissed that someone else is not fixing your previous fuck up.

If it's the latter, then you can basically get bent, because there is a shit ton of precedent stating that a person has control over his or her own body.

[Deleted]

OK, call it infanticide.

The problem is that the authoritarian solutions right-wing nutjobs come out with make the problem worse. People will find backstreet abortionists. In countries where a full ban is in place the abortion rate can go up.

An alternative solution would be a comprehenisve social program to assist young mothers either keep their child or take it to term and give it up for adoption.

When you consider the total disinterest in the latter, very effective solution, you see why many of us who aren't keen on the abortion industry don't support the anti-abortion lobby. They are fascist scum that want to control women through physical force and authoritarianism rather than people who sincerely want to protect the rights of the unborn.

[Deleted]

I'm doing just fine. You said there is no other case where a single person has control over our "faith." I simply provided examples where that is exactly what happens.

So, what exactly do you want? Do you not want the male to be responsible for a child he does not want, or do you want the male to be able to force a woman to get an abortion? If the prior is the case, then there are actual contracts that one can sign that do exactly that. I highly recommend you do it, since you clearly do not want children. Mind you, this does you no good after the fact, since you already made the mistake, and have a consequence for your action. Do it first, get that contract signed, and I will support you fully. Do it afterwards, and you are just trying to avoid responsibility for what has already happened. If that's the case, you are just pissed that someone else is not fixing your previous fuck up.

If it's the latter, then you can basically get bent, because there is a shit ton of precedent stating that a person has control over his or her own body.

No, you tried to give an example but you fail horribly because the only things you can point out are cases where we as a society have made rules. Those people enforcing those rules are also set by those rules, and can only act by those rules. They do not have your faith in their hands, you have, you did something wrong and that is why those people get to judge you. But this has nothing in common with pregnancy and how that unfolds.

Again, not looking for advise here, so why insist on giving unwanted advise?? This isn't about my life in any way, im merely pointing out the flaws in our law when concerning parenthood.

[Deleted]

I'll even add more:

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 (pouring the glass of wine gave them an orgasm that they both enjoyed very much), and place it on a tray to be served to their target. The tray has a dozen glasses, but only one will be served. 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?

You are welcome.

In the end, you are pissed that someone else may choose not to unfuck your fuck up.

And now i will change it.

Boy had green vile, woman had red vial. Both separatly harmless but toxic when combined. Accidently and unconsciously to both of them they mixed them. 3rd person came by and drank it. Poison wasnt so toxic to kill him right away but will do in several weeks. After 2 weeks girl founded out that 3rd person drank that poison and confronted boy what to do. Boy told her to give the man an aintidote to cure him because only she had it. Girl DECIDED not to. Boy was trying to save the man but still that man died.

Which main fault was that poor guy died?