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

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Ah, no. Actually he should just be able to opt out of parenthood and not be stuck to a kid he never wanted 18 years down the line because a condom broke or whatever and the woman decided to keep it.

He would be hurting that child and child support is there to address that. In the case of a broken condom I'd be fine with the state stepping in but only a condom + IUD. Any randomo who didn't use protection can go fuck themselves. Children from fatherless homes perform worse and have low iqs on average. The well being of the child over petty bullshit honestly.

I'd be fine with subsidization but both parents needs to get over there petty bullshit outside of really fucked up issue like one being a criminal or a sexual predator. They're hurting the child not helping in that case.

I don't want to pay so a bum can have shit quality children while never contributing.

[MikeBogina]

Because when you break it down, the difference between a foetus and a baby is simply the mother's will to allow the pregnancy to proceed to term. A foetus cannot become a baby on its own. It requires assistance from the mother. If a pregnant woman has declared that she is unwilling to proceed with the pregnancy, then that foetus has no real claim that it would have become a baby. But once a pregnant mother has made a choice that she is willing to give the foetus what it needs, then the claim becomes legitimate.

foetus... what??

A foetus cannot become a baby on its own. It requires assistance from the mother.

Neither can a mother perform an abortion on her own. She requires the assistance from the abortionist. I mean she could give herself a miscarriage, but so can many "Foetus" survive outside the womb after a certain period of the pregnancy.

Imagine this scenario: Someone needs a new kidney. They will die if they don't get one. It just so happens that you have been identified as a compatible donor. If you don't give them your kidney, they will die. Does that make you a murderer if you choose not to donate?

Not even close to a similar scenario, like apples and giraffes...

Except that if you afford a foetus the status of "person" then surely they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as other people, including the right to life.

Well I don't think being a person entitles anyone the right to live to be honest, but I see no difference in the life of a baby months away from birth, than someone who is in kindergarten or college, or some guy working 40 hrs a week.

The moment that the baby's brain is developed to point of thinking, dreaming and such... that is a person. That is a human.

Your position is therefore untenable. Either the foetus is a "person", in which case abortion = murder = a crime, or the foetus is not a "person" and abortion is acceptable.

What position? I'm for abortion, however I think the person who has it done(outside of rape, birth control failure, etc...) should acknowledge that what they are doing is the killing of another person.
I also think that if someone breaks into your home, you have everyright to blow their head off... You still killed a person, but I support that you did it.

edit: The exception of course is as I said above: once the mother commits to having the baby, then a foetus can, and should be considered a person, even if it would not otherwise.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and disagree with that and say that a person is a person the moment their brain is developed inside the womb and they have thoughts and dreams.
Many mothers go through pregnancies against their will, does that mean that the baby even once born is still not a person, because the mother never gave consent for them to live?

- - - Updated - - -

An argument you rarely see get mentioned is that abortion is good for population control. Controversial, but true nonetheless.

It's one I make all the time. I'm in full support of abortions and sterilizations to lower the population.

[Endus]

No, quite literally, it's just you dismissing things on a pedantic basis, like "abortion isn't a way to avoid parental responsibilities because there is no baby to be a parent to." It's a horribly mediocre dismissal.

What you said was factually wrong.

If someone keeps insisting that 2+2=5, it might be "pedantic" to keep reminding them it's actually 4, but that's the first step that has to be made.

Again, pedantry.

You and I both understand that when a child is aborted and that prospective life is ended, it also ends any possibility of parental obligations towards that child, since that child cannot be born. It may not be the main option of avoiding parental obligations, but it is one due to the sheer fact that you can keep the baby that would need to be supported from being born in the first place.

Furthermore, you can't just say "false basis" and handwave it. That's the kind of bullshit I gave criticized a previous poster for. Are you really trying to engage in the debating equivalent of "I know what that word means.. I just.. don't feel like explaining it to you."

Try again. Try harder this time, if you can. Please.

There is no child, there are no parental obligations, and if the abortion is successful, there never will be. It's an imaginary future you made up, and there is no reason I should have to accept it as a basis for argument.

This may be "pedantic", but if you won't stop making shit up, we're never going to get anywhere.

[Druidzorz]

There is no argument for pro lifers >.>

[Freighter]

Ah, no. Actually he should just be able to opt out of parenthood and not be stuck to a kid he never wanted 18 years down the line because a condom broke or whatever and the woman decided to keep it.

You can opt out of becoming a parent by not having sex in the first place.

[Thirza]

You can opt out of becoming a parent by not having sex in the first place.

You are like a walking propaganda poster.

[Aurrora]

This... actually kind of makes sense to me assuming the father provides in writing he doesn't want it prior to the typical 20ish week abortion cut off. And I still think there should be government assistance for single parents in such instances. Has nothing to do with a woman's right to abortion though.

There would need to be some onus on the woman to inform the father of the pregnancy prior to that point, or it should just be opt-in instead of opt-out.

If that's the case, then the woman should be able to have the kid, and have the option of being financially responsible, or not. That would mean she could deliver the baby, and turn to the doctors and say, "Nope, it's not mine... it's all his."

They already have this option, they're called Safe Haven laws, unless you're specifically looking for the ability to drop a financial baby bomb on their ex.

[Mormolyce]

What if my parents hadn't had sex on that exact day?

Yeah only a few people left with any morals.

I can see how you'd get that impression if you spend a lot of time around the religious right.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, no. Actually he should just be able to opt out of parenthood and not be stuck to a kid he never wanted 18 years down the line because a condom broke or whatever and the woman decided to keep it.

Why should taxpayers have to pick up the slack for that guy? Someone has to pay for the kid, it's his, so he's partially responsible.

While it's in her body, it's her decision. Sucks if a condom broke but it's kind of too bad, a guy not wanting to pay for his kid to eat doesn't override a woman's right to her own body.

I'd 100% support his right to abort if it was in HIS body... but you know, luckily for us guys it's women who have to go through childbirth.

- - - Updated - - -

Because when you break it down, the difference between a foetus and a baby is simply the mother's will to allow the pregnancy to proceed to term. A foetus cannot become a baby on its own. It requires assistance from the mother. If a pregnant woman has declared that she is unwilling to proceed with the pregnancy, then that foetus has no real claim that it would have become a baby. But once a pregnant mother has made a choice that she is willing to give the foetus what it needs, then the claim becomes legitimate.

Please tell me this is satire, holy shit.

[Aurrora]

Any death where another person is intimately involved in the circumstances of that death is investigated as a potential homicide. If a baby dies in its crib, there's going to be a cause of death established, to rule out foul play and negligence.

So yes; that's exactly what would have to happen. That's the necessary corollary, here.

A death is only investigated when it is deemed suspicious, miscarriage happens often enough that it alone is not evidence of foul play. Do I need to find cases of homicides that went uninvestigated because their deaths were deemed non-suspicious for you?

Rather the fact that since we all agree the idea is pretty distasteful, it argues strongly that even pro-lifers don't really see a fetus as the same thing as a born child.

Or it's simply acknowledging the impracticality of it since some women have carried a baby to term without even realizing it.

Dude, several of your provided definitions included the phrase "quick child". Which is more archaic than "born alive".

The phrase 'quick child' is only being used to refer to a stage of fetal development, it's not using archaic medical ideas to determine what defines a human being.

In the United States, you're wrong. It's birth. Already provided that legal definition for you. Most other countries use a comparable definition.

I expected better of you.
Using the legality of a thing to justify it's continued legality isn't an argument, several people in this thread have already pointed out what that would entail.

Because it hasn't been born yet.

Now, I'll agree that's a pat answer, but I'm going to point something out to you now. None of this even matters. The entire "personhood" debate is entirely irrelevant and meaningless. At best, it suggests that a fetus should be removed intact and otherwise unharmed, in an abortion. It argues, at best, for a restriction on abortion techniques, not any restriction on abortion rights.

In the question of whether a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, fetal personhood is a completely irrelevant question.

It's absolutely relevant, that you're being squirrelly about when an unborn child should be deemed developed enough to be considered a person is evidence that you know why that is.

So if the technology and technique existed to safely remove a fetus and place it in an artificial womb would support banning techniques of abortion that terminate the unborn child?

[Bryntrollian]

The world would be a better place.

[Freighter]

You are like a walking propaganda poster.

I'm sorry you think reality is propaganda. If you don't want to risk having a kid, don't have sex. That's the only way to be sure you won't have a kid. It's just laughable when men whine about not wanting to take responsibility for their own decisions.

[InTheEnd]

Pro-Lifers should have to pay an additional tax that covers the cost of raising an unwanted baby.

[TwistedSkull]

Pro-Lifers should have to pay an additional tax that covers the cost of raising an unwanted baby.

This is quite spot on.

[Machismo]

There would need to be some onus on the woman to inform the father of the pregnancy prior to that point, or it should just be opt-in instead of opt-out.



They already have this option, they're called Safe Haven laws, unless you're specifically looking for the ability to drop a financial baby bomb on their ex.

He's asking for only one of the parents to be able to drop it on the other, so make it reciprocal. If he's allowed to dump responsibility in her lap, let her be able to dump it in his lap.

[ParanoiD84]

I wouldnt know so who cares.

Also i was lucky as mom had miscarriage before me, else he or she would enjoy life instead of me.

[Machismo]

I'm sorry you think reality is propaganda. If you don't want to risk having a kid, don't have sex. That's the only way to be sure you won't have a kid. It's just laughable when men whine about not wanting to take responsibility for their own decisions.

Well, there's always abortion and the morning after pill. They are things.

[Warning]

I'm sorry you think reality is propaganda. If you don't want to risk having a kid, don't have sex. That's the only way to be sure you won't have a kid. It's just laughable when men whine about not wanting to take responsibility for their own decisions.

This argument seems flimsy as hell. Do you apply it in other situations of unintended consequences inherent to almost any decision taken?

1. You don't get hospital treatment for being run over because it was your decision to cross the street. If you don't want to risk it don't cross the street.

2. You get no refunds when the barber cuts off your ear because it was your choice to sit down in that chair.

3. Soldiers suddenly surrounded in enemy territory get no extraction, it was their choice to be there.

4. Dentist pulled the wrong tooth? No recourse, just the risk of going to the dentist.

5. Fall out of a Disney park ride? Leave those broken bones to mend on their own, you chose that ride!

6. No wearing hardhelmets or gloves at the site, you're choosing to do construction work just accept the risks.

When your goal is to do one thing, it's okay to want to mitigate potential unwanted results that may arise.

[BlackBoss]

Less "Pro-lifer" more "big government anti-choice". I wouldn't get an abortion, so I consider myself pro-life, but i'm not against someone else making that choice because that's none of my goddamn business. Pro-Life is so much a misnomer nowadays because usually those same people are the ones who support wars, defunding social programs and are pro-death penalty.

[Freighter]

This argument seems flimsy as hell. Do you apply it in other situations of unintended consequences inherent to almost any decision taken?

1. You don't get hospital treatment for being run over because it was your decision to cross the street. If you don't want to risk it don't cross the street.

2. You get no refunds when the barber cuts off your ear because it was your choice to sit down in that chair.

3. Soldiers suddenly surrounded in enemy territory get no extraction, it was their choice to be there.

4. Dentist pulled the wrong tooth? No recourse, just the risk of going to the dentist.

5. Fall out of a Disney park ride? Leave those broken bones to mend on their own, you chose that ride!

6. No wearing hardhelmets or gloves at the site, you're choosing to do construction work just accept the risks.

When your goal is to do one thing, it's okay to want to mitigate potential unwanted results that may arise.

None of those are anything like having sex.

[Donald Hellscream]

Thats a fucking flawed line of reasoning, if my parents had decided to abort me I'd never know so its completely illogical to make that argument as though it makes any sense.