The hypocrisy of abortion not '' being murder ''

[Steve French]

Not when you are using contraception. Then the expected result is to not become pregnant from sex. There is a risk you might, but that risk is as low as you getting into an auto accident when you drive.

Actually, contraception isn't 100% effective(9 out of 100 women get pregnant while on the pill for instance), there's always the chance it could fail to prevent a pregnancy. The only "completely effective"(rating given to types of birth control that means 100% effective) birth control is abstinence. Not willing to accept the risk? Keep it in your pants.

[Elegiac]

Untrue. All current forms of contraception can fail even with perfect usage. The failure rate is so low, however, that people don't expect it to happen.

So you're saying that people cannot be negligent and fail to use contraception either correctly or at all?

[MatadorMedia]

It is interfering with the woman's bodily autonomy.

This, obviously. You can't just fuck up other citizen's bodies. Why is this thread so long?

[Elegiac]

Actually, contraception isn't 100% effective, there's always the chance it could fail to prevent a pregnancy. The only "completely effective"(rating given to types of birth control that means 100% effective) birth control is abstinence. Not willing to accept the risk? Keep it in your pants.

This a totally reasonable and not at all stupid position to take regarding human sexuality.

Please do tell us how effectively abstinence works in the abstinence-only sex ed states.

[Total Crica]

Actually, contraception isn't 100% effective, there's always the chance it could fail to prevent a pregnancy. The only "completely effective"(rating given to types of birth control that means 100% effective) birth control is abstinence. Not willing to accept the risk? Keep it in your pants.

No need to do that when I can abort if my husband gets me preggers due to contraception failure.

So you're saying that people cannot be negligent and fail to use contraception either correctly or at all?

No. Why do you think I said that when I clearly said that even if they use it perfectly, it can still fail?

[May90]

This, obviously. You can't just fuck up other citizen's bodies. Why is this thread so long?

It's a usual "women are privileged" rant, under the disguise of a serious question. These threads can go for ages.

[BannedForViews]

Not this again

Wherever you read this, I'd stop trusting as a credible source.

On 24 August 2012 Breivik was adjudged sane and sentenced to containment—a special form of a prison sentence that can be extended indefinitely again and again—with an approximate time frame of 21 years and a minimum time of 10 years, the maximum penalty in Norway.

You're right, my bad. 21 years. He killed 77 people and got a maximum of 21 years. Clearly my recollection of a new story i haven't followed in 5 years was WAY off.

[Atrea]

On 24 August 2012 Breivik was adjudged sane and sentenced to containment—a special form of a prison sentence that can be extended indefinitely again and again—with an approximate time frame of 21 years and a minimum time of 10 years, the maximum penalty in Norway.

You're right, my bad. 21 years. He killed 77 people and got a maximum of 21 years. Clearly my recollection of a new story i haven't followed in 5 years was WAY off.

Your own post (italicized portion) states that there is no maximum.

It's like you can't even read what you literally just wrote.

[s_bushido]

On 24 August 2012 Breivik was adjudged sane and sentenced to containment—a special form of a prison sentence that can be extended indefinitely again and again—with an approximate time frame of 21 years and a minimum time of 10 years, the maximum penalty in Norway.

You're right, my bad. 21 years. He killed 77 people and got a maximum of 21 years. Clearly my recollection of a new story i haven't followed in 5 years was WAY off.

in·def·i·nite·ly
/ˌinˈdef(ə)nətlē/
adverb
-for an unlimited or unspecified period of time.

[Steve French]

No need to do that when I can abort if my husband gets me preggers due to contraception failure.

Hey if you enjoy having your unborn child ripped to pieces in the "safety" of your womb and thrown in the trash, go for it, it's perfectly legal. That doesn't stop me from thinking you're a monster for exalting such an act.

[Raleina]

According to your logic i can go around feeding pregnant women abortion pills while they are not watching their drinks. Seems that according to you nothing is wrong with terminating pregnancy without the consent of the women. So what you say is everyone can go around and do this unpunished.

You all heard this insane lump of cells, if yous ee a pregnant woman walking in the street and you dont like it go ahead and force feed them some abortion pills.....

There is something wrong with OP. If you can't see how wrong it is to abort a pregnancy without the aproval of the mother i highly suggest you seek some help before you start choking kittens

[s_bushido]

This thread is pretty old at this point, but did we ever establish whether or not the OP knows the difference between consensual sex and rape?

[Extremity]

This example if obviously an extreme and you can't really use it as a way to sway people one way or another in the abortion debate. I'm all for a woman's right to choose, I don't think it's murder, but even still that guy was a huge piece of shit, that was a terrible thing to do, and he should be totally fucked for doing it.

As for it being murder... as long as it's done responsibly and reasonably early, I don't consider it murder any more than I consider clipping my toenails murder. If a woman was getting an abortion at 6 months then yes, I would probably consider that murder. At 6 weeks? No.

This thread is pretty old at this point, but did we ever establish whether or not the OP knows the difference between consensual sex and rape?

There's only one way to find out...






Patiently await his reply.

[Deleted]

No, they relinquished full parental rights.

- - - Updated - - -



We are dealing with completely separate actions. They both chose the action which led to the pregnancy. If no other action is taken, then the result is a baby. Choosing to not get an abortion is not taking an action, which means that the consequence remains exactly the same.

As for why she gets to make that decision, it's because it is her body. As part of a free country, she has the freedom to control her own body.

- - - Updated - - -



So, you want to have a say over how other people control their bodies? Does that mean you want other people to have control over your body? If you are going to force her to keep the baby, then does that mean they get to force you to endure the same amount of pain as a pregnancy and labor?

I am using logical consistency. However, there's two different issues we are discussing, and you guys want to link them together.

You are demanding a bureaucratic intervention, so I'm not sure why you are whining about a person using a contract to protect himself.

Having sex brings the inherent risk of pregnancy. If you don't know that, then you need to do some studying. One does consent to parenthood when one risks becoming a parent. I'm not sure why you keep whining about "anti-abortion rhetoric," when I'm not trying to make abortion illegal.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not telling people to not have sex. I'm saying that people should be held accountable for their actions. if someone does not want to have children, then abstinence is one of many options they should think about.

Oh look another strawman! How lovely...

Look man, the only thing you have been doing consistently is making fallacies, not logic, logic is nowhere to be found in your posts. There aren't 2 seperate issues, no matter how much you would want it to be two separate issues.

[Flarelaine]

This, obviously. You can't just fuck up other citizen's bodies. Why is this thread so long?

Because these thread always invite the usual suspects ranting about how they should have the right to escape being trapped into parenthood by scheming females.

As if they were in danger of an intimate relationship with that attitude.

[Cyanu]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10105953.html

''A man who induced his ex-girlfriend’s miscarriage in her twelfth week of pregnancy by tricking her into taking abortion pills he had slipped into a smoothie, claims his actions were “the only way out”.

''


So it's fine to abort, because, you know, the fetus isn't a person. No harm done there, just a bunch of cells.


But when a guy gives a woman abortion pills, the prosecutors push for 7 years of jail?

Now I'm not saying that what this dude did is cool, hormone pills fuck up your body and all that.

But 7 years? Holy hell I could beat someone up real good and I wouldn't get anywhere near that.


Emotional pain?

When women abort a child a man would want, he can't sue for emotional pain. What's the difference?


So by all means, tell me how, if a fetus is not a person and has no rights, giving a pregnant woman abortion pills is any different ( in the eyes of the law ) than giving a non pregnant woman abortion pills.

You're unwittingly giving someone substances they did not consent to. Definitely, no problem with that. Crime, shit move.

But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get years in prison for that.

The pregnant woman is treated differently, despite the fetus having no rights.

Where's the logic here?

I found a case of poisoning where the dude nearly died and the crazy bitch that poisoned him got a measly 10 years. How can those situations compare?

despite gender equality and all we have to accept a simple truth: the baby is in the woman's body, therefore as long as she's pregnant she has increased responsibilities and increased rights

what this guy did combines everything wrong with the matter: he both killed the bay and violated her right to decide what she wants to do with her body, while it's questionable whether the pills he gave her can be just taken without consulting a doctor, risking her life as well, so he fully deserves the penalty

abortion is a boarderline case of morality, from one side is the woman's right to do what she wants with her body, the fact that for an abortion to be considered the child is unwanted and therefore is guaranteed to grow up as 'the accident' probably with a family that cannot provide for it (if it even has a father) and the fact that the baby never had the opportunity to develop a personality

BUT it is still a baby and it will die

the thing is that making abortions illegal is something that has been tried by regimes like Ceausescu's Romania, the result was disgusting: poor women who stayed accidentally pregnant were staging accidents or trying bloody 'homemade' surgeries, while doctors in 'private' charged a ton for such services

of course Romania back then was a dictatorship and people could not travel freely, in countries that people can move freely the ban on abortions is pointless: you ban it in US they'll do it in Canada, you ban it in Canada they'll do it in Europe and so on

so i don't see any solution, if someone does not want a child you can't force it to her, banning abortions is like closing your eyes when someone does something you don't like, he's still doing it

[May90]

I remember the first time I heard about the "problem" of abortion. I was around 15 y/o, I think, and I read about some debate in my country's parliament about it. I was like, "WTF, is this really something adult dudes and gals argue about? Maybe I'm just too young and don't understand something fundamental." Then I heard "abortion is a murder", and decided, "Nope, as usual, adults fooling around some made-up nonsense".

Then, over a decade later, I see a thread like this, where a person seriously compares a voluntary abortion with an abortion forced through trickery... And I don't know what to think any more. Whyyyyy, humanity, y u do dis to me? :/

[Soeroah]

The logic is that the woman is meant to carry the baby for nine months while the man lives life as normal. People generally have a right to determine what happens to their own body. Together, that means the woman usually has the right to decide whether or not to have a baby over the man.

Especially when it comes down to medically-aided abortion and slipping a fucking drug in her coffee without her knowing.

[Raelbo]

No it is not, feel free how to point out that you using anti abortion rhetoric is me committing a fallacy...

1) You have not demonstrated how I am using "anti-abortion rhetoric". You have failed on 2 counts, firstly not defining what it even is, nor explaining how I am using it
2) Because you have failed in #1 your use of that argument is basically just a deflection from the actual topic.

Again, anti abortion rhetoric..

What does this even mean? It's not an argument. Again, at best it's a weak attempt at a strawman (ie you fail to engage the discussion at hand instead trying to represent it as something else you believe you can attack more easily)

Yes you did, and no, that is not a strawman..

Grow up. You don't prove a point by engaging in "yes you did", "no I didn't" idiocy. Quote where I claimed that "having sex = becoming a parent". I never did yet you are trying to argue that I did and then trying to defeat me by arguing against your made up argument that you have misrepresented mine as. That my fine young friend is the very definition of strawmanning.

No it is anti abortion rhetoric, "if a woman doesn't want a man to leave then she should only have sex with man who do have children"

Again, stop using that term "Anti abortion rhetoric" because I don't think it means what you think it means. But yes, I agree with the statement that "if a woman doesn't want a man to leave then she should only have sex with man do want to have children". Why you are lecturing me about such a statement I don't know because

1) I never argued otherwise
2) It doesn't strengthen your own argument

Just like woman are.....

Ahh, and here you show your true colours. You've convinced yourself that women don't have to accept responsibility when they fall pregnant accidentally. It's a fallacy. Women, due to biology, are ALWAYS forced to worry about pregnancy and take responsibility when it happens accidentally, whether that means getting an abortion or becoming a parent.

My issue with someone like you is that want men to not have to share in that worry. But you want to have all the fun. That's a fucking double standard. Just because nature doesn't force you, as a man, to accept responsibility for accidental pregnancy doesn't mean that society should let you off the hook as well.

And that is still anti abortion rhetoric. You seem to be not capable of understanding what anti abortion rhetoric is.

Clearly I don't understand what you mean by it. I get the feeling that in your mind it is a special catch phrase that means "MehMeh wins". It's a term you use to avoid engaging in the actual points being made. Kind of like a strawman argument!

PS: Maybe you need to explain what what you think it is so that at least I can tell you where your thinking is addled.

Of course you won't accept that argument, because it would mean that you are wrong yet again. But it still stands, they are nothing alike.

No, I don't accept your argument because basically you haven't made one. An argument requires valid reasoning. I explained what part of your reasoning is false. You simply dismiss my conclusion without any reasoning.

You also do not seem to understand what a strawman is. Because that is exactly what happens, some other person is telling you that you are becoming a parent, and they have no choice in the matter. That is not a strawman that i created, it is the current status quo.

Dude. Get a grip. You need to substantiate your argument. And you can't, because you're factually incorrect. No person on this planet can just out of the blue tell me that I am becoming a parent. It can only happen as a consequence of something I have done by choice. You cannot just ignore that choice and argue that a choice by the mother to abort could void that consequence. What gives you the right to expect her to make that choice?

Here's an analogy: You want to buy a house. You go to a bank, they agree to give you a mortgage, you sign on the dotted line without bothering to read the fine print. 1 month later they send you a statement expecting you to pay your installment which you notice includes a big amount of interest at a rate you don't like. You also see that you are going to billed like this for 20 years. You then complain that it's unfair that they are extorting all this money from you.

Good luck with that..

I listed a bunch of things that demonstrate the principle. Clearly you are being unreasonable, as you have this entire discussion. Your opinion buddy is driven by your own narcisstic desire to have consequenceless sex and you will clearly ignore any facts, reason or logic that contradict that desire.

And here I will use an argument of authority (and inb4 you shout FALLACY!!!1!, an argument of authority is not a fallacy when the authority quoted are, in fact, the authority on the subject).

We're at an impasse because you refuse to acknowledge the reasoning behind my argument. You cannot seemingly point to where my reasoning is wrong, but you do insist that my conclusions are wrong. Why you think that makes your argument superior to mine is mindbogging, but it is what it is. So, as a sanity check, this is where it is useful to go and look at what the actual authorities on the topic have to say on the matter:

The judiciaries in almost every single country in which people are governed by the rule of reason (as opposed to dictatorships) disagree with your way of thinking. They are the real authorities when it comes to understanding the difference between selfish individually motivated rules and fair rules. Why would the world's leading minds on the topic agree with me if I am spouting a bunch of rubbish as you insist? You and I may disagree, but the only way you could be correct is if we assume that you are smarter than all those legal experts. And that my friend is statistically very, very unlikely.

[Deleted]

Before sex is what I said. Legal contract.

That won't fly in The Netherlands. A father is legally and financially responsible for the child he fathered until 18 and partially up to 21. The only exceptions:
1. Official sperm donor, going through regulated procedures.
2. Someone else has recognized the child as his, thereby taking over that responsibility.