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

[Hilhen7]

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.

The issue is the laws tend to protect the child rather then the parents. So it's really not an issue of him vs her, but rather what's good for the child after it's born.

[crewskater]

It might not be about controlling women, but that doesn't change the fact that banning abortion takes a woman's right to bodily autonomy away - that aspect of what she does with her body is being controlled.

By the way, provided that the abortion takes place before the foetus is sentient, it doesn't matter what the reason is. Any equiviocation on that point is once again choosing your (flawed) moral reasoning over a woman's right to make choices about her own body.

I'm pro-choice btw but with the exception that men should be allowed to give up their financial responsibility to a child. I'm simply correctly pro-choicers when they say it's about controlling women when that's a ridiculous statement.

[Elkfingers]

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 wants the child even if the man want 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.

That's the price we pay for letting people have rights over their own bodies though. I agree that it sucks if you want a child and they don't, or if you don't but have to pay child support but there are good reasons why that's the case.

You don't have to carry a pregnancy for 9 months, and it's not like pregnancies don't also come with some pretty major risks to a woman's health and even life. Imagine how fucked it would be if you didn't want a child but then had to go through with the pregnancy, which would affect your mental and physical health, you career, and your life in general. Definitely not doing that as a society - that's barbaric.

On the other side of things, if you're a guy then you know that your cock shoots fucking millions of babies into things. Babies cost money, especially if they grow up into adults which come into frequent contact with public services and put a strain on governmental budgets. If you have a gun which fires babies into people, take responsibilty when you fire it because that's literally what it does. You can't just not pay the costs associated with accidental pregnancies, becuase those same costs just end up getting shifted elsewhere.

I'm pro-choice btw but with the exception that men should be allowed to give up their financial responsibility to a child. I'm simply correctly pro-choicers when they say it's about controlling women when that's a ridiculous statement.

Fair enough, but as above - men are responsible for the kids they have. There are costs and you can't just decide not to pay them,

[Nurasu]

A lot of people in here are under the impression that an abortion is simple or something; it's insanely inconvenient when compared to standard contraception. Just because it's legal doesn't mean people are preferring it over condoms or pills.

Anyway, if we are going to force women to carry a baby to term, we should also force fathers into at least partial custody of the child. I think that would kill a lot of the push for this.

As for the religious, abortions are the most efficient means of evangelizing that exists. Their argument against it never made sense to me.

[Surfd]

You have a lacking of understanding fertilization if you need to ask that question.

No, not really. A fertilized Egg is not a person. It has the potential to be a person if it should be carried to full term, but it is not a person. A sperm has the exact same potential to be a person, it just needs one extra step in the process. So why make the distinction?

But hey, since you REALLY want to hang on the Fertilized Egg angle, then I guess every mother who has ever been pregnant is a serial killer. Or did you miss out on the inconvenient fact of biology that while in general only one Fertilized egg (occaionally a few more in the case of twins or triplets etc) implants into the mother, the body NATURALLY flushes out every remaining Fertilized egg? Every pregnant mother's body naturally disposes of god only knows how many "potential" people. Should we punish them for that too?

[Themerlin]

Meiosis in males should be illegal.

Especially now.

[The Stormbringer]

There certainly are pro-life arguments, but they're not anti-abortion arguments. I don't see these people opening their doors to adopt all of the kids that people either don't want to, can't afford to, or simply can't raise. You think that having loads of kids just fucking loose about society isn't damaging?

There were, in fact, studies that showed access to abortion had actively helped society, albeit 20-30 years after the fact. How, you ask? By reducing the number of people who grew up in homes where they were unwanted, unloved, or unable to be cared for. There were less delinquents and criminals around because people who would've been born into situations that would've screwed their lives up, who weren't around/hadn't been born. Funny how that happens!

[Endus]

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.

Given that your argument is based on fantastical assumptions without basis in reality, and pseudo-religious if not overtly-religious fascism, no.

We can hope that your viewpoint is stifled and prevented from harming others, because that's all it serves to do. Which is why the USA is the only developed nation on the planet where people backing that kind of view get any real tread, any more.

I'm well aware nothing I say can convince you. Your position demands abandoning reason, for faith and imagination. I'm seeking to convince others.

[Santti]

What if I was aborted?

Well, then I would have never existed. I basically had no brain at the time, so no consciousness or awareness of any kind. I've yet to develop anything close to a personhood, so abortion wouldn't have inconvenienced me any more than myself perishing in a sock as a sperm cell.

I find these "what if" arguments being pointless and tiresome. Make better arguments, if you have any that aren't rooted in religion.

[crewskater]

That's the price we pay for letting people have rights over their own bodies though. I agree that it sucks if you want a child and they don't, or if you don't but have to pay child support but there are good reasons why that's the case.

You don't have to carry a pregnancy for 9 months, and it's not like pregnancies don't also come with some pretty major risks to a woman's health and even life. Imagine how fucked it would be if you didn't want a child but then had to go through with the pregnancy, which would affect your mental and physical health, you career, and your life in general. Definitely not doing that as a society - that's barbaric.

On the other side of things, if you're a guy then you know that your cock shoots fucking millions of babies into things. Babies cost money, especially if they grow up into adults which come into frequent contact with public services and put a strain on governmental budgets. If you have a gun which fires babies into people, take responsibilty when you fire it because that's literally what it does. You can't just not pay the costs associated with accidental pregnancies, becuase those same costs just end up getting shifted elsewhere.



Fair enough, but as above - men are responsible for the kids they have. There are costs and you can't just decide not to pay them,

That's literally the same argument pro-lifers make....smh. "If you don't want a child then don't have sex" -- we've come full circle. If a woman has a "get out of jail free" card then so should men. Bringing up this double standard changes the entire outlook on this topic. Sorry but a woman being pregnant for 9 months doesn't justify 18 years of child support. Forcing a woman into motherhood is bad and so if forcing a man into fatherhood.

[The Stormbringer]

What if I was aborted?

Well, then I would have never existed. I basically had no brain at the time, so no consciousness or awareness of any kind. I've yet to develop anything close to a personhood, so abortion wouldn't have inconvenienced me any more than myself perishing in a sock as a sperm cell.

I find these "what if" arguments being pointless and tiresome. Make better arguments, if you have any that aren't rooted in religion.

It actually makes less sense if your argument is rooted in religion, because usually religious people of varying religions will say the soul already exists and it's just waiting to be born. If your current parents aren't the ones that give life to you, another set of parents will.

[Zyky]

The issue is the laws tend to protect the child rather then the parents. So it's really not an issue of him vs her, but rather what's good for the child after it's born.

Yet you almost never see a court give custody to the father over the mother. You rarely see a mother forced to pay child support.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

The "anti abortion" people aren't 'Pro Life' people, they are 'Pro Birth'. There are over 100.000 children in the USA alone who are looking for new families, that's 25% of the 400.000 foster children that are in the US (under the age of 18/21 depending on state).
If you then look world wide? Millions and millions of children who needs families, if these 'Pro Life' people cared so much about the well being of children then they'd work to help them. But they're not, are they?

[meandean1216]

I would be ok with it. My life sucks

[schwank05]

So if she wanted to get a divorce, you'd say no?

Yes, as I see there as no good reason to get a Divorce.

[Nurasu]

LMFAO he actually made that argument right after my post XD

please explain Mother Teresa. She didnt help kids? You people are broken records with nothing honest to say.

See below:

The best of you hardly represents the majority of you.

[Elkfingers]

That's literally the same argument pro-lifers make....smh. "If you don't want a child then don't have sex" -- we've come full circle. If a woman has a "get out of jail free" card then so should men. Bringing up this double standard changes the entire outlook on this topic. Sorry but a woman being pregnant for 9 months doesn't justify 18 years of child support. Forcing a woman into motherhood is bad and so if forcing a man into fatherhood.

It's not a double standard. They're not equivalent moral cases, so you can't treat it as some sort of tit-for-tat scenario.

Besides just because it's the same type of argument, the context is fundamentally different. It's not the same argument just because the reasoning is the same. The arugment is in fact 'if you don't want to risk a pregnancy then do't have sex', which is totally reasonable.

[josykay]

I wish, they had done this. Would have spared me a lot of struggle. Now I am still alive, still miserable, still unhappy, still sad. Still outcast, still sturggeling... still hoping to die. Sorry. But life just is not for me. I have only one. Yes. But is it too much already.

[zhero]

My response to that argument: what if I wish that they did?

My reply: "Its not too late, its still legal"

[s_bushido]

LMFAO he actually made that argument right after my post XD

please explain Mother Teresa. She didnt help kids? You people are broken records with nothing honest to say.

Mother Teresa? The woman who made people live in squalor and suffering -despite having access to enough money provide them with proper (and at the very least sanitary) living/healthcare conditions- because of her religious conviction that suffering was Christ-like? That Mother Teresa?