The hypocrisy of abortion not '' being murder ''

[Pantalaimon]

Bottom line.

Do you think people should be responsible for the consequences of their action?

If yes, then both people are responsible for the consequences of having sex. Pregnancy and children is a possible consequence, so they are both responsible

It won't help to argue this point. We live in a society that is very much about individuals having escapes from their actions, believing that if they try to create loopholes to bypass consequence that they are free to do what they like (such as a sexually active pair of people who choose not to use one, or better yet two, forms of contraception trying to exterminate the formation of a fetus if they get pregnant).

People are trash and want to maintain any all forms of their lifestyles without consequence or inconvenience (which is logically impossible to achieve).

[Total Crica]

It's funny, first you tried to use rape which is a major minority of rape cases, now you're using pregnancy complications that happen not so often... you're really reaching here, you're desperately trying to justify the killing of an innocent human being. An overwhelming majority of rape cases happen because it's convenient to the mother, so your argument is very weak.

I don't have to justify anything - the choice to risk my health and well-being for anyone is mine and belongs to no one else, by right, and this right extends to all people.

YOU are the one trying to justify removing this right from pregnant women, to which I am calling you out for.

You are advocating forcing a pregnant woman to risk her health and well-being in order to bring a child to term by banning/removing her choice to abort.

You are advocating that a woman's health and well-being is no longer her's to decide to risk or not the moment she becomes pregnant by banning/removing her choice to abort.

You are advocating that a pregnant woman's rights to bodily autonomy can be infringed upon simply because YOU deem they should be by banning/removing her choice to abort.

You are advocating treating pregnant women as breeding chattel, which IS slavery, by banning/removing her choice to abort.

definition : slavery

the state of a person who is a chattel of another

Your entire position on this matter is uneducated as to the topic you are discussing since you are not privy to all pregnant women's medical cases and histories, as well as coming from a completely medically unqualified position to give any medical advice to pregnant women due to you not being a doctor that specializes in and is caring for their personal medical situations, and is HIGHLY oppressive to pregnant women due to you wishing to force YOUR own personal desires on pregnant women and demand they risk their health and well-being in order to bring a child to term.

[Valstorm Warsong]

I don't have to justify anything - the choice to risk my health and well-being for anyone is mine and belongs to no one else, by right, and this right extends to all people.

Not asking anyone to risk there life, women are designed to give birth, and in the rare case in which a mother life is threatened, the doctor can try to save both mother and baby. If a woman don't like this, then they shouldn't get pregnant.

YOU are the one trying to justify removing this right from pregnant women, to which I am calling you out for.

You are advocating forcing a pregnant woman to risk her health and well-being in order to bring a child to term by banning/removing her choice to abort.

You are advocating that a woman's health and well-being is no longer her's to decide to risk or not the moment she becomes pregnant by banning/removing her choice to abort.

You are advocating that a pregnant woman's rights to bodily autonomy can be infringed upon simply because YOU deem they should be by banning/removing her choice to abort.

You are advocating treating pregnant women as breeding chattel, which IS slavery, by banning/removing her choice to abort.

definition : slavery

the state of a person who is a chattel of another

Your entire position on this matter is uneducated as to the topic you are discussing since you are not privy to all pregnant women's medical cases and histories, as well as coming from a completely medically unqualified position to give any medical advice to pregnant women due to you not being a doctor that specializes in and is caring for their personal medical situations, and is HIGHLY oppressive to pregnant women due to you wishing to force YOUR own personal desires on pregnant women and demand they risk their health and well-being in order to bring a child to term.

This is an emotional argument, and doesn't justify murdering a child. Women do not have abortions because they think there life will be threatened, I don't need to be a medical professional to know this. They do it because it's convenient to them. You're the one who needs to get educated about abortion, science is on my side, the fetus is a human being.

[Halyon]

Not asking anyone to risk there life, women are designed to give birth, and in the rare case in which a mother life is threatened, the doctor can try to save both mother and baby. If a woman don't like this, then they shouldn't get pregnant.

This is an emotional argument, and doesn't justify murdering a child. Women do not have abortions because they think there life will be threatened, I don't need to be a medical professional to know this. They do it because it's convenient to them. You're the one who needs to get educated about abortion, science is on my side, the fetus is a human being.

http://blog.dictionary.com/their-there-theyre/ Please. Learn. How to word! Dayum! It's not hard!

Anyway. Having your life on the line is not neccessarily being at the risk of death, it can also mean their way of life. Regardless, their reasons doesn't matter to anyone but her, she's allowed an abortion.

So...all those slaves way back when in 'muricah were just liberated because they were just getting so emotional over all the beatings, killings, rapes, forced births to birth more slaves, caging, chaining, substandard treatment, religious indoctrination, segregation etc etc etc... Yeah, the tears just made the fields to salty to grow crops in, had to stop'em whining for some good ol' silence for once amirite?

Treating another human as nothing but cattle is not an emotional argument.

But no, you don't have to be any professional in medicine to have a stupid opinion on the subject.

Of course, 'merely' forcing pregnancies completed isn't as bad as the slaves of yore, but let's not take a baby step towards it again...

[Total Crica]

This is an emotional argument.

Not one of my points were an appeal to emotion but they all did point out your ignorance in the private medical cases and histories of pregnant women to which you are not privy and your desire to force pregnant women to risk their health and well-being based on your choices and not their own.

Your attempts at justifying removing the right of pregnant women to choose to risk their health and well-being or not are all appeals to emotion.

[Notshauna]

This is an emotional argument, and doesn't justify murdering a child. Women do not have abortions because they think there life will be threatened, I don't need to be a medical professional to know this. They do it because it's convenient to them. You're the one who needs to get educated about abortion, science is on my side, the fetus is a human being.

What you are making is an emotional argument. You are trying to construe an unthinking and unfeeling mass of cells as a child to try and make people feel like they should protect it. You are actively stepping on the rights of someone who is inarguably a person for something that lacks any of the criteria for personhood, which simply it's ethically unjustifiable.

[LaserChild9]

"The risk" is something is done incorrectly. You roll your ankle, you aren't positioning your foot correctly, you thought there was a step where there wasn't, you thought there WASN'T a step where there was. You didn't and couldn't have known this would be the case, which is where the imperfection comes into play.

If it's done correctly you will never fall. Is it always done correctly? No, and in many cases it's not anyone's fault that it was done incorrectly. Accidental pregnancy is not one of those cases.

I'm not sure what this argument is all about to be completely honest, the only thing I do know is it is completely incorrect. People fall over every day, I would assume that number is up in the millions considering how many people walk every day. There is no correct or perfect way to to walk, you are ignoring external factors such as terrain, you are ignoring things like leg length, speed, the weight of the person, injuries, you are assuming that there is a perfect way to walk because everybody is exactly the same and walks on the same surface all the time which is just not true. There is no perfect or correct way to walk, what works for one person may not work for another, there are effective ways to walk which vary from person to person but accidents can and do happen.

"His rights" cannot and will never supercede her rights, meaning if she says no, we end up at an impasse as HE cannot say "But wait, yes" without superceding her rights. (Unless you somehow find a way to transfer the baby to the man's body and allow him to carry it to term.)

But it's ok for her to supersede his rights when she chooses to keep the baby and he has to pay regardless. For this argument to work you need to explain why women are more important than men.

She DOES live with her mistake - Psychological trauma equal to if not greater than the man's own psychological trauma, seeing as she's the one who actually gets the proceedure done. What gets done is never undone, and both of them are forced to live with it.

No, I'm sorry, but you cant say that she feels more than the man, I don't disagree it is a traumatic experience for a woman but you can't say the man does not have any feelings. The man literally has no control and has to stand by while his future child is aborted, if you don't think that is traumatic then you really don't understand people. I know women that have had abortions and are fine with it, they knew that they were not ready for a child and they made the decision to abort. Sure some women will feel conflicted about this, but at the end of the day you can't say that every woman will be and that men just dont care.

Your opinion is based on a very confusing worldview in which a man suffers more than a woman, which has never and likely never will be the case.

This statement is just absurd. Men are just as likely to suffer as much as women in the case of an abortion.

It is quite possible that men experience the same range of emotions following abortion as do women, but because of differences in the psychology of the sexes, they have difficulty putting their emotions into words

The above quote is taken from and actual study: http://www.deveber.org/text/chapters/Chap16.pdf Page 12.

A Fifth of Callers to Abortion Grief Australia’s Help Line are Men.

Taken from a document by abortion grief australia: https://www.abortiongrief.asn.au/doc...ion-trauma.pdf

While the residual effects of abortion for women are now widely recognized, the effects on the men remain untold. This 1996 article by Vincent M. Rue and Cynthia Tellefsen explain the emotional, psychological and relational effects abortion has on the fathers of the unborn.

Taken from an article on the effects of abortion on men from: http://www.catholicculture.org/cultu...ew.cfm?id=8089.

If you are going to spout utter nonsense on an internet forum you need to realise that IT IS ON THE INTERNET! I found all those links to studies which show that abortion has just as big an impact on men as it does on women by simply googling 'is abortion as traumatic for a man as a woman'. My advice to you is to stop spouting your fucking alternative facts because we can actually fact check them the moment we read them!

I get it, you are all for women's rights and the evil nasty bad men have none, but you do women everywhere a disservice by using nonsense arguments with no evidence whatsoever. I have provided you with proof that men are affected just as much as women by abortions so your argument is now null and void unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

[LaserChild9]

I feel like I have to bold the points that you are ignoring so that you notice them, so pay attention.

She is not superseding his rights. None of his rights are being infringed upon.

He's expected to pay for a child he helped create because yes, he helped create it. If he was going to not want a child, that's a conversation he should have had with his partner before intercourse, yes, even in the case of accidental pregnancy as it should really be talked about before any intercourse takes place.

So she has a right to decide not to be a parent but his right to not be a parent just never existed?

At no point did I say "the man has no feelings."

I stated the woman has MORE feelings about the situation regardless of how many feelings the man has, because the woman is in the EXACT SAME POSITION, but ALSO has to get invasive surgery done. It's really not an arguable point that men suffer more from abortion.

No, you are trying to compare 2 incomparable emotional states. Yes the woman has to have an invasive procedure, but the guy has to just accept that his child will never be born because of someone else's decision and he could do nothing to prevent it. If I tie you up, hold a gun to your child's head and pull the trigger, then punch your wife in the face at the same time, is she more distraught than you?

"Some women don't care" just like "Most men don't care." Just because SOME men might care about having THIS SPECIFIC child, (as if he couldn't go find someone else to have a child with, I mean really...) doesn't mean women have to be forced to carry children to term.



See above. This statement is false.

Yeah, so you have avoided even acknowledging all the studies and articles that I linked to you, they were clearly there, clearly real and you ignored them. Ignoring facts does not make you right. I have already stated several times that a woman should not ever be forced to carry a child, but please if you only respond to one thing just answer the following question. Why does the woman need to have THIS SPECIFIC child? If the man can go have one with someone else, so can she instead of leeching off of an unwilling guy for the next 18 years of his life. If you are going to make these arguments, before you post them just ask yourself if your argument applies to both sides, because if so, it is irrelevant.

I would also like to see a response to the studies that I linked in my previous post because your lack of acknowledgement just implies that you have no answer to them and if you have no answer you are just avoiding admitting that you are wrong.

[vindicatorx]

Where's the logic here?

It's illegal to give someone medication without their knowledge. Unless it was an over the counter morning after pill the medication is also a prescribed medication which is also illegal. Pretty simple logic to me.

[Total Crica]

So she has a right to decide not to be a parent but his right to not be a parent just never existed?

I am all for men legally opting out of fatherhood during the time women can legally opt out of motherhood.

But you are barking up the wrong tree right now.

People pushing laws that treat women as breeding chattel (which means the ability for women AND men to opt out of parenthood before a child is brought to term would no longer be the choice of the parents and solely the choice of those who are NOT the parents) are the ones threatening men's ability to legally opt out of fatherhood before a child is brought to term, not the current laws that state men can ask women to sign legal contracts before sex that state he gives up all parental rights to any child, including not paying child support to them, if she decides to carry any child to term that results from their sexual encounters.

[LaserChild9]

I am all for men legally opting out of fatherhood during the time women can legally opt out of motherhood.

But you are barking up the wrong tree right now.

People pushing laws that treat women as breeding chattel (which means the ability for women AND men to opt out of parenthood before a child is brought to term would no longer be the choice of the parents and solely the choice of those who are NOT the parents) are the ones threatening men's ability to legally opt out of fatherhood before a child is brought to term, not the current laws that state men can ask women to sign legal contracts before sex that state he gives up all parental rights to any child, including not paying child support to them, if she decides to carry any child to term that results from their sexual encounters.

Men have to ask women to sign contracts? So the woman can still refuse? The man is still screwed. The woman does not have to ask anyone permission for an abortion, she gets 24 weeks of time in which she can make her decision and act on it. It's only fair that in that 24 weeks the guy gets to decide if he wants to be a parent too. I'm not saying he can force an abortion, just that he can opt out of any responsibility towards the child, financial or otherwise. A woman's choice is her own and any consequences of that choice including the costs involved should fall squarely on her shoulders.

[Alydael]

You totally misunderstand sir.

It is not hypocrisy.

The Dem/libs have said it is not murder, therefore (to all their followers), it is not. The gods have spoken......

Common sense, throw that out the window and get with their agenda- before they start calling you names, protesting and boycotting you. As you can see, they are very "tolerant."

[Total Crica]

So the woman can still refuse?

Just like the man can refuse to have sex with her and take her to court if she rapes him/steals his semen and pops out his child which will ensure he doesn't have to pay for it.

[LaserChild9]

Just like the man can refuse to have sex with her and take her to court if she rapes him/steals his semen and pops out his child which will ensure he doesn't have to pay for it.

Again you ignore the actual situation and deflect to a completely irrelevant point, which is a woman can abort without permission but a man is not allowed to relinquish his responsibilities in any situation without permission. If a woman wants a child and a man does not, why should the man have to pay for it? It is her decision, therefore her responsibility. I'm not asking for woman to be punished, I'm not asking for them to be forced into keeping a baby they don't want, I'm just saying that any decision she makes should be based on whether or not she can afford it, not whether or not her one night stand can be forced to pay for it.

[Total Crica]

you ignore the actual situation

That is the actual situation. Or are you saying the man can't refuse?

[Noxx79]

Again you ignore the actual situation and deflect to a completely irrelevant point, which is a woman can abort without permission but a man is not allowed to relinquish his responsibilities in any situation without permission. If a woman wants a child and a man does not, why should the man have to pay for it? It is her decision, therefore her responsibility. I'm not asking for woman to be punished, I'm not asking for them to be forced into keeping a baby they don't want, I'm just saying that any decision she makes should be based on whether or not she can afford it, not whether or not her one night stand can be forced to pay for it.

Men can have al the abortions they want when they get pregnant.

[Deleted]

before start I apologize for my english, i'm not a native speaker.
I haven't red all the posts but a majority of it. As a man I just can't believe a lot of you guys.
First of all you considere a bunch of cells (even if they become a human being later they are just cells) equaly as someone. Abortion, when legal, is allowed until a few weeks for a reason, so talking about "cold blood murder" is quite harsh.
I won't talk about rape, lie to get to and end or whatever way to get a woman pregnant against her will. In some contries if a woman is raped and got pregnant the man just have to mary her and he faces nothing legaly. I put you in the same basket if at least your mind doesn't change in those situations.....
About the real question, let's face it in a different manner, let's pretent men can carry childs :
What if during sex there were a chance that you get pregnant ?
During the next 9 months you know you'll be :
- sick, a lot
- all your sens and perception will change, hormons on a rollercoaster
- spending a shit ton of money in doctor and stuff
- changing your body, won't reconize it
- feel a little baby moving inside
- risking losing your job
- the list is still going but i think you see what i mean
And someone has the power to force you into this, to control your own body
BUT, beside money (normaly), you will be facing that ALONE (let's be honest if someone force you to carry a child you won't have breakfeast with him).

Pretty obvious but try to figure how you'll be emotionnaly.

Personnaly I don't want to have anyone forcing me into that so naturally I won't force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want.....

[Betelgeuse]

Calling them pro life is true in only the very narrowest sense of the word. Most of those folks also tend to be in favor of the death penalty, support wars in foreign lands and dont care about a national healthcare system that could save and improve lives. Ita better to call them pro birth.

That would be why I call them anti-abortionists. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against abortion or killing in general. But you sure as hell can't be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty or anti-war or even anti-killing. Abortion is killing a baby before it gets a chance. Kill away! But don't let me hear you are against any other form of killing due to its "immorality".