The hypocrisy of abortion not '' being murder ''

[Machismo]

Did i ever say that pregnancy is without risk? Or did i say that abortion is without a risk? No i did not....

It takes nothing away from what i've said, one takes the risk to become a parent, the other takes the risk to have a choice to become a parent.

So you admit, that the man is risking becoming a parent by having sex. And since you clearly want to hold people responsible for the decisions they make, then he's responsible when he becomes a parent. Perfect.

[Deleted]

So you admit, that the man is risking becoming a parent by having sex. And since you clearly want to hold people responsible for the decisions they make, then he's responsible when he becomes a parent. Perfect.

Oh so now being dense is the solution to your problem, must be a nice world you live in..
But let me burst your bubble with my consistency, yes if the male made the choice to become a parent then he should be responsible for becoming a parent. BUT, he did not make the choice to become a parent, he had sex.
And for the 9th time, having sex isn't the same as consenting to parenthood for half of the sexes.
But im done handing out free educations.

[Raelbo]

Did i ever say that pregnancy is without risk? Or did i say that abortion is without a risk? No i did not....

Glad you cleared that up. Care to explain why a male should not be responsible for the risks he takes?

It takes nothing away from what i've said, one takes the risk to become a parent, the other takes the risk to have a choice to become a parent.

When they have sex, the risk they take of becoming a parent is equal. The difference is that the woman will know up front while the man might not (and only if he chooses not to find out).

Furthermore, you're being disingenuous here by ignoring the myriad of other risks that are taken, and how they are significantly greater for the woman (especially if she chooses not to abort, but even if she does). For example:
1) The woman risks damage to her reproductive system
2) The woman risks landing up raising a child alone (you can't force a father to take on his fair share of the work involved in raising a child, only the financial burden)
3) The woman risks having a bunch of undesirable changes to her body (you'd know all about this if you actually had a clue about parenthood instead of your clear high school debate team "theory")
4) The woman risks death or disability (yes, it's not common but it can still happen. A close friend of mine lost her life due to massive organ damage she suffered during a pregnancy. My cousin was in intensive care for 2 weeks with septecemia).
5) The woman risks massively impeding her career
6) The woman risks giving up all the freedoms a mother sacrifices (significantly more than a father does)

etc etc etc etc etc

And yet you will sit there and whine about the financial risk to the father which is, at worst, the same as that of the woman?

[Machismo]

Oh so now being dense is the solution to your problem, must be a nice world you live in..
But let me burst your bubble with my consistency, yes if the male made the choice to become a parent then he should be responsible for becoming a parent. BUT, he did not make the choice to become a parent, he had sex.
And for the 9th time, having sex isn't the same as consenting to parenthood for half of the sexes.
But im done handing out free educations.

You said that the man risks becoming a parent, you flat out fucking said it. He knew the risk, he took the risk, he should be held responsible for the consequences of his actions that he knew about. You literally just argued against yourself, and lost.

[Raelbo]

You said that the man risks becoming a parent, you flat out fucking said it. He knew the risk, he took the risk, he should be held responsible for the consequences of his actions that he knew about. You literally just argued against yourself, and lost.

I'm calling it now...

Still 30 pages of MehMeh saying "But no!" to anything cogent raised?

[Total Crica]

You said that the man risks becoming a parent, you flat out fucking said it. He knew the risk, he took the risk, he should be held responsible for the consequences of his actions that he knew about. You literally just argued against yourself, and lost.

He is saying he wants men to have the SAME risk as a woman - the risk of CHOOSING to be a parent or not BEFORE a child is born while still being able to have sex when they want to.

He already knows how to get this same risk, however, by petitioning a bill for men to register for sperm donor status before sex. =P

[Mehrunes]

I think you've decided what my "narrative" is and as such you're failing to actually read what I am trying to say.

The point of this comment was to demonstrate the fallacy that the choice to not abort is the only thing that determines whether a baby will be born, thus robbing the father of any say in the matter. And quite frankly, to argue otherwise is preposterous.

Pure logic dictates: To make a baby: (A) two people must have intercourse AND (B) the mother must fall pregnant AND (C) the mother must decide to not abort.

So in mathematical notation: Baby = A and B and C

The father has full control over A and also the ability to massively affect B. Yet you and others like would want to argue that it all rests with C? Like I say, logically, mathematically your assertion is false. ALL THREE elements have to happen for a baby to come into existence.

Considering how I merely replied to a post of yours that negated C altogether just because of the mother's opinions on abortion and corrected how that's false, your attempt to paint my argument on how it all rests on C is based on jack shit. Color me surprised.

From a mathematical perspective, what I was arguing is that if you cannot confirm that C is false before A or B happen, and you have no control over B, then rationally, the only way to avoid becoming a parent is to either not have sex, or take a gamble on B. And if you take a gamble on B, then don't get upset if 9 months later your child is born.

Yes, the post that didn't mention any variation of "don't have sex" and instead said "So if the mother is someone who is against having an abortion the baby is the result of getting pregnant." was totes legit about not having sex if you don't want children. Please...

That is not a fair comment mate and totally uncalled for. I get why you're saying it though. Because if I can present a reasonable compromise then it threatens your viewpoint.

We're discussing what is fair when it comes to the issue of accidental pregnancy. At least I am trying to argue on that basis - to find a fair compromise. Your history has demonstrated time and time again that you're far more interested in arguing for what suits you best. Which is fine if your opponent is arguing for what is best for him/her and you're prepared to accept a compromise. It's not fine when you fail to realise when your opponent is arguing for the actual compromise, or when you insist on getting all your demands.

How is it unfair? None of the comments in that chain prior to yours mentioned anything about the couple discussing it or not. You introduced that tangent, narrowing the topic down. Yes, the discussion was about accidental pregnancy. Except having a discussion about not wanting children does not prevent accidental pregnancy. These two aren't mutually exclusive. If anything, a pregnancy occurring after it is even more unplanned. As such your narrowing down to just cases where there was no such a discussion is dishonest. There's no going around that. And please, I presented multiple different variants I think would be acceptable when requested and multiple options of funding the costs of rising a child in case the mother may struggle on her own. So kindly, fuck off with your outright lies.

True. But what you consistently fail to acknowledge is the consequences of using it.

When and how did I consistently fail to acknowledge the consequences of using abortion? Examples, please. And I wasn't even making a larger point on abortion per se. I was arguing against the point that inaction isn't a form of action and creates no consequences which Machismo repeated again and again. You know, something contrary to what you yourself argued earlier in the thread. Would you look at that, something we agree on, yet instead of leaving it at that, you had to let your partisanship go in the way and felt the need to conjure up some dogshit just so you could attack my argument somehow, causing your stance to have the consistency of diarrhea. I'm utterly shocked by this turn of events. But apparently me making a comment predicting exactly that earlier was "unfair".

You also fail to acknowledge that just as all women have the right an abortion, so too should they have the right to not feel forced into an abortion.

Abortion is entirely their right, they cannot be forced into it. And the law doesn't exactly cover one's feels all that much. Even in duress, which wouldn't really apply here anyway. And to prevent your shitty straw-mans like the one below that would inevitably follow, I am fully aware that the way system is set up may create some financial pressure on a woman. Which, lo and behold, I argued for some reform of the welfare system that should predate any changes in regards to parental rights and any right to cease them. Or better yet, basic income (well, arguably also a form of welfare) set sufficiently enough to allow single parenthood since I believe we will need basic income eventually anyway. You know, to alleviate that pressure and remove it from equation. I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Yes, yes I KNOW. YOU don't believe abortion is a big deal. It's like getting a mole removed. And you are fully entitled to hold that opinion...when it comes to your spawn. But you are not allowed to project that value onto the rest of society any more than society is allowed to project their values onto you. And no that does not mean you should be exempt from financial responsibility for your children. It just means you are not obliged to be happy about it.

Be a dear and quote me on that.

[Machismo]

He is saying he wants men to have the SAME risk as a woman - the risk of CHOOSING to be a parent or not BEFORE a child is born while still being able to have sex when they want to.

He already knows how to get this same risk, however, by petitioning a bill for men to register for sperm donor status before sex. =P

No, he seems to want to not have to do it at all.

I'm all for preparing for such an eventuality before sex.

[Raelbo]

Considering how I merely replied to a post of yours that negated C altogether just because of the mother's opinions on abortion and corrected how that's false, your attempt to paint my argument on how it all rests on C is based on jack shit. Color me surprised.

Please consider my post (that you replied to) in context. The person to whom I replied (and shares a very similar name to yours, so please forgive me if I end up conflating your similar arguments and accidentally attribute something he said to you) was trying to argue that it all rests on C. The objective of my statement was not to infer that C is negated altogether, but rather to demonstrate how C cannot take precedence over A. It's a logical AND function and returns false if either condition is not met.

How is it unfair?

You are pre-empting my response to be something that:

a) you have no evidence I would say
b) it's a response that is idiotic

Effectively you're criticising me on something I have not said.

Yes, the discussion was about accidental pregnancy. Except having a discussion about not wanting children does not prevent accidental pregnancy. These two aren't mutually exclusive. If anything, a pregnancy occurring after it is even more unplanned.

Where exactly did I say that having the discussion would prevent accidental pregnancy?

To be clear: Having a discussion about what will happen in the event of accidental pregnancy helps the man to know up front what his risk is and make an informed decision about whether to engage in sex or not. Furthermore, if the man is unwilling to have such a discussion, he should assume the worst. It's not rational to take a risk on the assumption that she will do what is most convenient for him. One should plan for the worst and hope for the best. Not the other way around (unless one is an idiot).

you had to let your partisanship go in the way and felt the need to conjure up some dogshit just so you could attack my argument somehow, causing your stance to have the consistency of diarrhea. I'm utterly shocked by this turn of events. But apparently me making a comment predicting exactly that earlier was "unfair".

Having read the rest of your post, I have to apologise. I think I have conflated your opinion with MeHMeH - and considering the similarity with your name, I hope you understand that it's an honest error.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he seems to want to not have to do it at all.

I'm all for preparing for such an eventuality before sex.

Aye. Which is pretty much the difference between an adult and a child. Which is why our society doesn't really approve of kids having sex. Not that it works since by the time kids are old enough to engage in sex they believe, wrongly, that they know it all. And not that adults really know it all either, we've just stopped thinking we do.

[Espe]

Remember when conservative fucktards used to be the party of personal responbility? Pepperidge farm remembers

That was always a lie the screamed from the mountaintops but never followed through with.

[Extremity]

I agree with you 100% when we're talking about a mother choosing to abort her child. However when someone else, without her consent, decides to kill her foetus then that is crime approaching the level of heinousness of murder.

Firstly it's obviously a heinous act. Anyone with an ounce of empathy will agree. But for people who insist that human emotion should not be a consideration, it is also logically provable.

Fundamental to the laws that allow abortion is the concept that without a host, a foetus cannot survive. Ergo it cannot be regarded as justifying full human rights until it would reasonably be able to survive outside of the womb. In essence the primary thing that differentiates a foetus from being a small person is that dependence on the willingness of the mother to serve as it's host. So, following this logic, if a mother is committed to carrying her pregnancy to term, then it's reasonably certain that the expected outcome will be a baby, and as such, killing such a foetus is no different in effect to waiting several months and killing it after it is born.

And honestly, the only rational reason that people even oppose Foetal Homicide Laws which seek to treat an assault on a known-to-be-pregnant woman resulting in the loss of the pregnancy as a crime on the same level as murder, is the fear of a slippery slope in which a normal abortion might become punishable.

To my mind though it really is very simple. Purposefully causing a woman to lose her pregnancy against her wishes is a heinous act that deserves the same punishment meted out for murder of a baby.

Yeah, I'm not debating that at all. Regardless of my general stance on abortion, in a situation like this it should be considered murder regardless of how long the pregnancy has elapsed. Whether it's two weeks or one, effectively assaulting a woman and forcing a miscarriage/abortion against her will under ANY circumstances should most certainly be considered murder and carry an extreme punishment.

[LaserChild9]

Nope, because once a woman is pregnant, her choice is all that matters.

If she wants to remain pregnant, the man is screwed if he did not opt out before sex.

I'm going to have to assume that you are a woman or a massive feminist, either way, women wanted equal rights but now you want the superior rights? The right to make a choice with all the info but you expect men to make a choice based on possibilities? If a woman gets the choice to choose, why can't the man choose to abstain, her decision is nothing to do with his. When a woman wants to abort men have to deal with it so if she wants to keep the baby, she should have to deal with it alone.

No, he had options. He could have taken care of his child. I don't know about the specific laws of Norway, but most countries have laws that allow for a man to relinquish parental rights. It's usually a contract that is agreed upon.

You have quite literally just stated the opposite of what you are saying and agreed with me here! You are saying he could have just relinquished his parental rights instead of forcing an abortion, but everywhere else you are saying that unless a contract was signed beforehand he has to just deal with it. Also on this subject, find me proof of these laws, because to my knowledge they do not exist which is the whole point of my argument, they SHOULD exist but they don't.

That's why I recommend getting a contract signed ahead of time, to cover one's ass. If you want to whine and say that contracts can't be done, then I will fight along side you to get the contracts done. However, I will not support you in your cause to unilaterally absolve a person of the consequences of his actions. Otherwise, the exact same argument could be made for a drunk driver who killed a pedestrian..

The opt out period should happen BEFORE she ever gets pregnant.

Otherwise, someone could opt out of responsibility for any number of unexpected consequences. Hey, you kill someone while you are drinking and driving... time to opt out of responsibility for that one. Nope.

But if you sign a contract before you hit them its all ok right? Did you even consider what you were saying here?

The man had a choice. The best choice, is to sign a contract ahead of sexual intercourse, where the man relinquishes all parental rights and financial liability. Like all contracts, it is agreed upon by two entities. I highly recommend people consider them, if they absolutely know they do not want to be a parent. That way, both people are entering into the agreement willingly and knowingly.

Signing a contract before sex is dumb for all the reasons I listed in my previous post which you seem to have avoided addressing, it is literally the dumbest idea ever.

He had choices, he just didn't like the choices he had. He didn't want to take responsibility for his actions.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree, before sex. It's the intelligent thing to do. If someone is that concerned about being a parent, then having a contract with a sexual partner is highly recommended.

All you are doing is spewing the same shit over and over again, its like you aren't even reading opposing arguments. So you are saying that once pregnancy occurs, regardless of the situation or whether it was an accident or deception on the woman's part, a woman has the right to decide she wants a child and the man has to pay for it? If the woman chooses to keep the baby, that's fine, but its not fair or just that she should be able to force the guy to be a part of it, she should think about what she can afford before she chooses to keep it, if she can't that should be her problem. Nobody is saying that she should not have the right to choose, but she should do so at her own expense.

In the article I linked (which I assume neither of you read because you have both completely ignored it) the guy was in a relationship with a girl, from the beginning he said he didn't want kids and she told him she couldn't have them. Suddenly she is pregnant and he has to pay to raise a child he made clear he did not want and was under the impression his girlfriend could not have. What if his girlfriend was lying? Is that fair? That's not his fault, why should he spend the rest of his life paying? Your idea of right and wrong in this situation protects the woman in all circumstances, whether self inflicted, accidental or planned with deception, and it punishes the guy in every circumstance with no exceptions.

[Machismo]

I'm going to have to assume that you are a woman or a massive feminist, either way, women wanted equal rights but now you want the superior rights? The right to make a choice with all the info but you expect men to make a choice based on possibilities? If a woman gets the choice to choose, why can't the man choose to abstain, her decision is nothing to do with his. When a woman wants to abort men have to deal with it so if she wants to keep the baby, she should have to deal with it alone.



You have quite literally just stated the opposite of what you are saying and agreed with me here! You are saying he could have just relinquished his parental rights instead of forcing an abortion, but everywhere else you are saying that unless a contract was signed beforehand he has to just deal with it. Also on this subject, find me proof of these laws, because to my knowledge they do not exist which is the whole point of my argument, they SHOULD exist but they don't.



But if you sign a contract before you hit them its all ok right? Did you even consider what you were saying here?



Signing a contract before sex is dumb for all the reasons I listed in my previous post which you seem to have avoided addressing, it is literally the dumbest idea ever.



All you are doing is spewing the same shit over and over again, its like you aren't even reading opposing arguments. So you are saying that once pregnancy occurs, regardless of the situation or whether it was an accident or deception on the woman's part, a woman has the right to decide she wants a child and the man has to pay for it? If the woman chooses to keep the baby, that's fine, but its not fair or just that she should be able to force the guy to be a part of it, she should think about what she can afford before she chooses to keep it, if she can't that should be her problem. Nobody is saying that she should not have the right to choose, but she should do so at her own expense.

In the article I linked (which I assume neither of you read because you have both completely ignored it) the guy was in a relationship with a girl, from the beginning he said he didn't want kids and she told him she couldn't have them. Suddenly she is pregnant and he has to pay to raise a child he made clear he did not want and was under the impression his girlfriend could not have. What if his girlfriend was lying? Is that fair? That's not his fault, why should he spend the rest of his life paying? Your idea of right and wrong in this situation protects the woman in all circumstances, whether self inflicted, accidental or planned with deception, and it punishes the guy in every circumstance with no exceptions.

I'm saying that he should relinquish parental rights BEFORE he knocks a girl up. It should be an agreed-upon contract between two private entities.Problem solved. If you sign a contract with someone before you do anything, then your ass is covered.

People need to be responsible for their own actions, it really is that simple.

[Miztickow]

I read the first 2 pages and have come to the conclusion that the OP is a massive troll. I think it's best to not engage here.

[LaserChild9]

I'm saying that he should relinquish parental rights BEFORE he knocks a girl up. It should be an agreed-upon contract between two private entities.Problem solved.

But again, you ignored a lot of my points, what if its spontaneous thing? Or a One night stand? No woman is going to carry around or keep a contract that is detrimental to her, which it would be as if she chose to keep it she would do so with no financial help from him. It would need to be her that signs a contract to acknowledge his refusal to be a parent and that she could not pursue monetary compensation from him. But again, contracts are not a viable idea, this is not a fucking business deal, it's sex, its passionate and can be spontaneous, its not carried out in a board room full of suits.

Also, does that mean its ok to drink drive as long as I relinquish all responsibility for my actions before I get in the car?

[Total Crica]

But again, you ignored a lot of my points, what if its spontaneous thing? Or a One night stand? No woman is going to carry around or keep a contract that is detrimental to her, which it would be as if she chose to keep it she would do so with no financial help from him. It would need to be her that signs a contract to acknowledge his refusal to be a parent and that she could not pursue monetary compensation from him. But again, contracts are not a viable idea, this is not a fucking business deal, it's sex, its passionate and can be spontaneous, its not carried out in a board room full of suits.

Also, does that mean its ok to drink drive as long as I relinquish all responsibility for my actions before I get in the car?

It could be a registry you sign up for, just like the "organ donor" registry we have.

As long as a man's name is on that registry, (lets call it "child-free registry" for now) then any woman who has sex with that man can not pin him with child support if she decides to carry a child of his to term.

Same goes for women who sign up for this registry.

Any man who has sex with a woman who is on this registry can not complain if she decides to abort any child he impregnates her with.

Drinking and driving harms the born.

No one who is already born is harmed by being on this registry and having sex with each other.

[Machismo]

But again, you ignored a lot of my points, what if its spontaneous thing? Or a One night stand? No woman is going to carry around or keep a contract that is detrimental to her, which it would be as if she chose to keep it she would do so with no financial help from him. It would need to be her that signs a contract to acknowledge his refusal to be a parent and that she could not pursue monetary compensation from him. But again, contracts are not a viable idea, this is not a fucking business deal, it's sex, its passionate and can be spontaneous, its not carried out in a board room full of suits.

Also, does that mean its ok to drink drive as long as I relinquish all responsibility for my actions before I get in the car?

If it's spontaneous or a one-night stand, then the man and woman are responsible for the consequences of their actions. At the end of the day, you want to find a way for the man to not be held accountable for his actions.

As for your last sentence, that seems to be exactly what you are trying to support... not being held accountable for the consequences of your actions.

[LaserChild9]

It could be a registry you sign up for, just like the "organ donor" registry we have.

As long as a man's name is on that registry, (lets call it "child-free registry" for now) then any woman who has sex with that man can not pin him with child support if she decides to carry a child of his to term.

Same goes for women who sign up for this registry.

Any man who has sex with a woman who is on this registry can not complain if she decides to abort any child he impregnates her with.

Drinking and driving harms the born.

No one who is already born is harmed by being on this registry and having sex with each other.

And this registry I agree with, everybody has the right to their own life and can control how plays out, its fair for everyone and its not intrusive.

- - - Updated - - -

If it's spontaneous or a one-night stand, then the man and woman are responsible for the consequences of their actions. At the end of the day, you want to find a way for the man to not be held accountable for his actions.

As for your last sentence, that seems to be exactly what you are trying to support... not being held accountable for the consequences of your actions.

No, you were the one comparing things to killing someone while drink driving, I was just pointing out your comparison is a joke and completely irrelevant.

A woman has a way out (abortion), and she does not need permission use it, why cant a man have one? You can argue that its her body but if I leave my phone in your house, it's still my phone and you cant sell it or destroy just because you don't want it there anymore. The way you are arguing, you want women to have a way out, but if they choose not to, you also want them to have an easy life living with a decision they made that may cripple a guy on a low income.

[Machismo]

And this registry I agree with, everybody has the right to their own life and can control how plays out, its fair for everyone and its not intrusive.

- - - Updated - - -



No, you were the one comparing things to killing someone while drink driving, I was just pointing out your comparison is a joke and completely irrelevant.

A woman has a way out (abortion), and she does not need permission use it, why cant a man have one? You can argue that its her body but if I leave my phone in your house, it's still my phone and you cant sell it or destroy just because you don't want it there anymore. The way you are arguing, you want women to have a way out, but if they choose not to, you also want them to have an easy life living with a decision they made that may cripple a guy on a low income.

The way I'm arguing, I want people to be responsible for their own actions. I have offered numerous "ways out" for men.

You are the one who wants men to not be responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

As for a registry, I'm all for it. If both people are on the registry, then they agree that the woman will take full responsibility for any children she has. I believe that makes it a contract. Now, if you are going to say that only the man need be on that registry, then you are simply absolving them of their responsibilities, and it's tantamount to signing up to be able to kill someone while driving drunk, and get away with it. If both the man and woman agree to the terms, then they can do whatever the fuck they want.

[Leadsop]

If you don't want a baby, stay out of bed with the chick, or suit up before you do.

It isn't that complicated.

For poisoning the woman and killing the baby, he should get a hell of a lot more than 7 years.