Pro-lifer argument: "what if your parents decided to abort you?!"

[Doctor Amadeus]

Correct me if I'm wrong(I know little on this because I'm a pro-as long as it doesn't effect me do whatever you wanter), but to function as alive you need some degree of brain activity and a certain degree of organ development?

Some degree yes, but mostly it's based on gestation and the reality that certain development is required for life in any measurable way to be completed, the ability to life outside of the host (Mom) is also a factor.

After a certain point of development (time) being used an overall factor legally. But there are margins even for time after that where there still not enough development to assign any real expectations.

The law already exist that the chance of that kind of development is extremely low.

[Hilhen7]

I don't think that's the argument being made, more that it's no different than men who are forced to pay child support when they're not interested in having the child. Both adults consented to have sex, they both consented to not using protection, she decided to keep the child, he didn't want the child, that isn't his responsibility, the same way that he can't force her to abort, she shouldn't be able to force him to pay when she consented to the entire process.

It's not really her forcing you but society because otherwise the taxpayers would have to.

[Linkedblade]

A newborn is not an independent individual.
A child is not an independent individual.
A seriosuly ill/injured is not an independent individual.
A mentally ill person is not an independent individual.
Some elderly are not independent individuals.
Most of people in this thread are not independent individuals. They either parasite on their parents or the state.

Wrong on all counts. Independent meaning not physically attached to their mother. Not independent in the tax/financial definition.

[Thirza]

A newborn is not an independent individual.
A child is not an independent individual.
A seriosuly ill/injured is not an independent individual.
A mentally ill person is not an independent individual.
Some elderly are not independent individuals.
Most of people in this thread are not independent individuals. They either parasite on their parents or the state.

A fetus is not an individual at all, it doesn't have the biological machinery in its skull to be one.

Your argument and the argument of all pro lifers is just straight up insane because it is as rational as claiming a scab is an individual.

[Bodonius]

Im pro-choice both for women and men, if the woman want to keep the kid you as a man should be allowed to do a economic abortion if you feel you dont want to take care of a child. Equal rights for everyone!

[Has lost its way]

They aren't though. They are interlaced here. That article is brought up to show how inconsistent people like that are. You can't ban abortions based on the "sanctity of life" and then have so many other instances of not giving a fuck. There are plenty of examples where privacy and autonomy rank above the sanctity of life, and organ donation is one of them.

Trying to act like you can't understand why these two issues are linked is disingenuous.

The person refusing to donate their organs is morally a terrible person.

If they are how does that change the morality of abortion if the two are linked? I don't believe they are personally but you are the one posing the argument.

[jackofwind]

When would that be, exactly?

Zygotes and early-stage fetuses don't have consciousness.

[Hilhen7]

Im pro-choice both for women and men, if the woman want to keep the kid you as a man should be allowed to do a economic abortion if you feel you dont want to take care of a child. Equal rights for everyone!

Then you would have to limit the mans option to the period where the fetus can still be aborted, and have it in writing.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Here is what they use to argue there case:

1 You shall have no other Gods but me.
2 You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
3 You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4 You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
5 Respect your father and mother.
6 You must not commit murder.
7 You must not commit adultery.
8 You must not steal.
9 You must not give false evidence against your neighbor.
10 You must not be envious of your neighbor's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.

But the funny thing is to accomplish it they steal the right to choose. They misuse the name of the lord. They made a political party an idol. They don't respect their mother or fathers if they choose to do this. They give false evidence against their neighbor, and they are envious of their neighbors goods, house, or things that belong to them. Hell some of them even commit murder for it.

The genius of the right never stops to amuse me.

[Rendark]

I love that Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. You can get one at any stage.

[Has lost its way]

An abortion is the end of a pregnancy before birth. Miscarriages are abortions, too. Spontaneous abortion, rather than induced.

It has nothing to do with "taking a life". In your own words, they "let the fetus die".

Are argument will boil down to two different beliefs neither of us will agree on. You see a life once it has taken consciousness. I see one that will take consciousness as a life.

Our difference isn't a scientific one but rather a philosophical one. At what point is a life a life. To me it is when if left to itself it would developed into a child. Yours I would say is safe to say is once it becomes at some level self aware.

The best we can hope for in such a debate is to agree to disagree.

[Bodonius]

Then you would have to limit the mans option to the period where the fetus can still be aborted, and have it in writing.

Yes, same timeperiod as the woman are allowed to make a abortion and in writing.

[Elkfingers]

I don't think that's the argument being made, more that it's no different than men who are forced to pay child support when they're not interested in having the child. Both adults consented to have sex, they both consented to not using protection, she decided to keep the child, he didn't want the child, that isn't his responsibility, the same way that he can't force her to abort, she shouldn't be able to force him to pay when she consented to the entire process.

Isn't that more just about what we can control though? As a guy, I'm always super careful because I understand that there is a risk, and that's the point - you don't have to be actively trying to get a girl pregnant to underdtand that a risk exists. If you have sex, you implicitly accept that risk and as such are in turn accepting responsibility for the outcome.

If they both consent, protection or no they are now both responsible for the possibility that a baby could be the result. It's not even a question. It just folows that if you risk a pregnancy even if that risk is vanishingly small, you are still responsible if that's what happens. It's like if you were climbing a cliff face and taking precautions but still fell and got injured, you would be responsible because you put yourself in a situation where that result was possible.

So both are responsible. As to whether the man forcing to woman to abort is equivalent to a woman keeping the child...they're not. Keeping the child doesn't violate the man's bodily autonomy, so they're fundamentally different moral cases.

[Zyky]

It's not really her forcing you but society because otherwise the taxpayers would have to.

I don't see why they would have to. The government is just too lenient with funding(there's too many people who don't deserve it, that get it), this would fall under that category, she's able to work, go work and pay for the child you decided to keep, if not then the kid ends up in foster care. It should never be an unconsenting adults responsibility to be forced into a situation that they don't want to be a part of. Be that consensual sex producing a child that the man doesn't want to keep or a woman wanting an abortion. Honestly I feel this situation is so double-sided which is why I stay out of it. It's ok if she wants to keep it, but he doesn't, but it's not ok if he wants to keep it and she doesn't. Women want equal rights, but obviously not at the same time. They want to nitpick what they want, which is the problem with feminism in a nutshell.

I strongly believe in equal rights, but they have to be equal and not "she's a woman and gets special treatment and certain things don't apply to her" 'equal'.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't that more just about what we can control though? As a guy, I'm always super careful because I understand that there is a risk, and that's the point - you don't have to be actively trying to get a girl pregnant to undertand that a risk exists. If you have sex, you implicitly accept that risk and as such are in turn accepting responsibility for the outcome.

If they both consent, protection or no they are now both responsible for the possibility that a baby could be the result. It's not even a question. It just folows that if you risk a pregnancy even if that risk is vanishingly small, you are still responsible if that's what happens. It's like if you were climbing a cliff face and taking precautions but still fell and got injured, you would be responsible because you put yourself in a situation where that result was possible.

So both are responsible. As to whether the man forcing to woman to abort is equivalent to a woman keeping the child...they're not. Keeping the child doesn't violate the man's bodily autonomy, so they're fundamentally different moral cases.

Read above, it's just wrong though because it's 100% on the woman in this situation because she can have an abortion because she doesn't want the child even if the man wants the child, but the man is screwed backwards to Sunday if she wants to keep it and he doesn't. It's just a double-edged fucked up sword.

[Malkiah]

I don't think that's the argument being made, more that it's no different than men who are forced to pay child support when they're not interested in having the child. Both adults consented to have sex, they both consented to not using protection, she decided to keep the child, he didn't want the child, that isn't his responsibility, the same way that he can't force her to abort, she shouldn't be able to force him to pay when she consented to the entire process.

the problem with this argument is that if the woman can't financially support the child, society will step in and do it because you can't just let children starve in a 1st world country.
(ironically, "pro life" advocates endorse this scenario)

so since the thing must be supported, you can have that be collective via taxes, or individual via the one biologically responsible.

so there is a viable social interest in child support.
there is no viable social interest in forcing births in women, that's a purely religious position based in the cultural need to punish them for having sex.

[Mrkew]

Wrong on all counts. Independent meaning not physically attached to their mother. Not independent in the tax/financial definition.

All the examples except for the last one are of physical dependency. People who cannot live without someone else taking care of them.

[Hilhen7]

I don't see why they would have to. The government is just too lenient with funding(there's too many people who don't deserve it, that get it), this would fall under that category, she's able to work, go work and pay for the child you decided to keep, if not then the kid ends up in foster care. It should never be an unconsenting adults responsibility to be forced into a situation that they don't want to be a part of. Be that consensual sex producing a child that the man doesn't want to keep or a woman wanting an abortion. Honestly I feel this situation is so double-sided which is why I stay out of it. It's ok if she wants to keep it, but he doesn't, but it's not ok if he wants to keep it and she doesn't. Women want equal rights, but obviously not at the same time. They want to nitpick what they want, which is the problem with feminism in a nutshell.

I strongly believe in equal rights, but they have to be equal and not "she's a woman and gets special treatment and certain things don't apply to her" 'equal'.

The women has a limited time to make the decision to keep the fetus or not. The man has no such limit in determining if they want to stay in that relationship. If the women is depending on the man while making that decision and he leaves sometime after the decision is already made it really makes the situation difficult.

So because someone decides they no longer want to be responsible the child has to be sent to foster care and suffer? Where is the fairness in that? Did the child consent to be abandoned and sent into foster care?

See the issue changes once the child is born, because now there is a 3rd individual...

[bullseyed]

I'm pro-life myself. I'm not necessarily saying abortion should be banned though. It's a complicated issue. And the only reason I'd say to keep it legal is because women who want to kill their unborn children will do so whether it's legal or not, so this way it can at least be somewhat safe (well, for the mother at least, not for the baby in any case). I, however, do believe abortion should be limited to the first trimester, except in the case of non-viable pregnancies or risk to the mother.

A woman does have the right to do what she wants with her body, but I also would have my right to end a relationship or marriage with my wife/gf if she kills my unborn child for non-medical reasons as well. I wouldn't stay with a woman who'd do that.

Just like how it is legal to bite people's fingers off. If your finger is in my mouth, my body, my choice.

[Doctor Amadeus]

nope, in US at least, you cannot have organs removed from your body, unless you specifically consented to be an organ donor. body is NOT a property of someone else, not even dead body, its kinda the whole thing.

moreover - you have to prove that person was not of sound mind. if you don't DNR? stands. its what makes it so important. family can keep you on ventilator if you didn't leave it behind, but once it exists? it overrides family wishes.

last but not least - and this is something else that bugs me about pro-life arguments. aside from the whole - not every woman who is looking for abortion actualy chose to get pregnant. sometimes protection fails. sometimes its rape. etc etc. but... the point Im getting it WHY are we putting all of responsibility for pregnancy on a woman, when it takes sperm to fertilize an egg? she didn't get pregnant on her own. so why are we controlling what women do with their own bodies exactly and ONLY women?

however. regardless of the circumstances of a pregnancy, it is STILL. HER. BODY. and forcing her to carry a fetus to term? is paramount to slavery.

Well I am in the U.S and once you die, you no longer have any rights, you become property of whichever individual that responsibility falls. As I said again DNR is a valid only insofar as that happened under lawful circumstance. For example if you tried to kill yourself, the doctors are going to revive you if they can.


As for protections failing, obviously it takes to to make a situation for a pregnancy to occur, and I am more than OK conceding the rights of the woman over any man in this circumstance, HOWEVER to that degree I also say the woman has the greater responsibility to NOT get pregnant.

I also believe it should be legal and covered under insurance giving a woman ALL access to the ways of preventing a pregnancy. But when you have sex, you take risks, and THIS as an adult is one of those risks.


I am also not a fan of irresponsible and stupid people having sex to begin with, if the biological realities are too much for someone to handle, then maybe sex shouldn't be on the table. But if it is, these are the harsh realities of the world we live in.

NO, I do not think a woman should be forced to give birth as revenge or punishment either. I am not required to like it, but as long as the science says it isn't a viable human being. I will continue to support a womans right to choose.

But I am Strongly against it being a prudent form of birth control or healthy.

[Zyky]

The women has a limited time to make the decision to keep the child or not. The man has no such limit in determining if they want to stay in that relationship. If the women is depending on the man while making that decision and he leaves sometime after the decision is already made it really makes the situation difficult.

I agree in situations like that, he should be responsible or if he leaves after the child is born. But the problem is, so many women do this shit to get rich men in their pockets. Even women sometimes wait to tell the man until it's too late to have the abortion, it's a messy thing, but there has to be some outline laws to also protect men here.