I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

Pro choice and I sympathize for the father in this situation. I have never understood why the decision is up to the mother and that if she chooses to keep it, he is bound to a lifetime of payments.

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, he has little or no choice in today's world.
I believe if a woman conceives and wants to keep it and the man is on the side of abortion/doesn't want to support the baby, there should be a civil understanding that he is without responsibility if she decides to keep it. Too often, women use this power to trap a man and then live off the payments that he works to earn.

Lightseeker77
Abortion would not be a choice for me, that being said, don't you all think that the double standard in this issue is absurd? A woman can and does decide on her own without the partners consent most of the times. He has no say in it, if she wants to abort, there is nothing holding her back. A man can plead and beg, perhaps because he is ready and willing to take on the responsability, that doesn't count. On top of that she will probably ask for him to pay for the procedure.

If she decides to keep the baby, the man has no choice but to pay for the next 18 yrs. There should be provisions in the law that allow for the partner to have a say in such an important matter. This will probably be a bit unpopular, but it's the way I see it.

A little outside the box, can a man press charges on awoman for stolen property if she gets pregnant without her partners consent? I am reffering to women that tell a guy "i'm on the pill" or better yet, the ones that go as far as removing semen from a condom. He didn't agree to that. But she will definitely make him pay. All men are not scumbags, and not all women are saints, just sayin'..

edit on 14-9-2013 by Lightseeker77 because: One more point

There is no double standard. The woman gets pregnant the man does not. This is not double standard. This is biology 101. The time for the male to have the pregnancy decision is BEFORE he drops his pants. He also has the option of wearing a condom or even getting a vasectomy. He made the decision when he dropped his drawers and chose not to use a condom. He also can insist that his partner use a spermicide and going so far as to apply it himself.

If he willingly engaged in sex, the answer is no, he willingly GAVE her the property. If HE took no precautions regardless of what she told him, he is a fool.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

libertytoall

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?

The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

The man is being charged with murder, not domestic violence. He took a life......fact.

He should be charged with whatever is appropriate for the crime against the woman. I assume we can agree on that much. I believe that Beyond that it should be a civil matter and just because there is a law, doesn't make the law correct.

The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your'e the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which you have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.

I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible thumper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

This doesn't even make sense. It's nothing but another women should be punished for having sex rant. The world has moved on from that emotional, illogical and hatefilled premise.

As someone who has struggled with infertility, the idea that someone would terminate a healthy pregnancy is heartbreaking.

As a mom, it is not something I think I could bear to do unless the fetus was seriously deformed, and even then it would be a hard call.

As a healthcare professional and someone with conservative family values, I think the laws should be tightened up significantly. Abortion should never be allowed later term. In fact, I think 16 weeks (20 at the very most) should be the absolute cut off. I don't believe that it is the woman's right to terminate after that point unless medically necessary. I also don't buy the argument that men shouldn't have a say. If the man is informed of an unplanned pregnancy early on, and the woman is intent on going through with it, I feel the man should be able to sign away his parental rights and financial obligation. If the woman doesn't want the pregnancy, and the man does, then she should, likewise, be able to sign over the child and all responsibilities to the man. If women who had unwanted pregnancies were encouraged$$$ to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption, it might just reduce the huge shortage of adoptable babies in this country and give otherwise unwanted children to families that desperately wanted them. There has to be a win-win somewhere in this unfortunate mess.

gottaknow
Pro choice and I sympathize for the father in this situation. I have never understood why the decision is up to the mother and that if she chooses to keep it, he is bound to a lifetime of payments.

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, he has little or no choice in today's world.
I believe if a woman conceives and wants to keep it and the man is on the side of abortion/doesn't want to support the baby, there should be a civil understanding that he is without responsibility if she decides to keep it. Too often, women use this power to trap a man and then live off the payments that he works to earn.

The male DOES have a choice... not have sex or personally take responsibility for the use of birth control. Rarely does the male take responsibility to protect himself, but he certainly howls when he has to deal with the result.

True the male often ends up paying child support, but again, it's his decision to whine rather than take responsibility - and look for more options - like 50 / 50 parenting. Try to get a single male to agree to that!

As far as living off of meager child support payments? ROFLMAO. Unless you're a billionaire, it does not happen. It's more misogynistic mythology spouted by the male who willingly threw away his responsibility in the situation.

rimjaja
As someone who has struggled with infertility, the idea that someone would terminate a healthy pregnancy is heartbreaking.

As a mom, it is not something I think I could bear to do unless the fetus was seriously deformed, and even then it would be a hard call.

As a healthcare professional and someone with conservative family values, I think the laws should be tightened up significantly. Abortion should never be allowed later term. In fact, I think 16 weeks (20 at the very most) should be the absolute cut off. I don't believe that it is the woman's right to terminate after that point unless medically necessary. I also don't buy the argument that men shouldn't have a say. If the man is informed of an unplanned pregnancy early on, and the woman is intent on going through with it, I feel the man should be able to sign away his parental rights and financial obligation. If the woman doesn't want the pregnancy, and the man does, then she should, likewise, be able to sign over the child and all responsibilities to the man. If women who had unwanted pregnancies were encouraged$$$ to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption, it might just reduce the huge shortage of adoptable babies in this country and give otherwise unwanted children to families that desperately wanted them. There has to be a win-win somewhere in this unfortunate mess.

Why should someone who does not agree with you be bound by your beliefs? Why do you feel you are entitled to make those decisions for others?

libertytoall

SearchLightsInc

libertytoall

The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which would have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.

I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible humper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Im sorry, who are you to tell someone else what is morally acceptable?
Im confused, i didnt realize we had nominated someone to educate us in morals. I must have missed voting day????

If I have to explain to you that killing something else is morally wrong I have nothing else to say to you.

The bible begs to differ with you, given that the good book gives specific instructions on how to induce abortion. God also likes to kill women and children over dirt, so clearing morality around killing is a moving target.

RealWoman
There is no double standard. The woman gets pregnant the man does not. This is not double standard. This is biology 101. The time for the male to have the pregnancy decision is BEFORE he drops his pants. He also has the option of wearing a condom or even getting a vasectomy. He made the decision when he dropped his drawers and chose not to use a condom. He also can insist that his partner use a spermicide and going so far as to apply it himself.

If he willingly engaged in sex, the answer is no, he willingly GAVE her the property. If HE took no precautions regardless of what she told him, he is a fool.

If it is important to her... then the time for the woman to make the "I expect help if I get pregnant" decision, and have the conversation with her partner, is BEFORE she drops her pants as well.

If she willingly engaged in sex and hasn't taken precautions for ensuring she is doing so with a partner who has agreed to continue being a partner in the case of a pregnancy... the she has the ONLY property she has a right to expectation of.

"It's my body". Yes it is... take responsibility for it. The same as I have to take were I to voluntarily allow myself to be injected with chemicals which are liable to cause a new life form to grow off of me.

If the man is expected to make the pregnancy decision before sex in every circumstance (something I do agree with) then the woman is expected to make the "what will I do if I get pregnant" decision before sex as well. If this means not having sex with someone because she can't rely on them... or going ahead and risking it... it's her choice... and it was her precautions or lack that will determine how it will go.

If there has been an agreement to support in case of pregnancy and then the man leaves... that is awful and should be dealt with. If there has been an agreement to prevent/abort and then she doesn't... that too should be dealt with.

It's the person's life... the person's body... the person's choice. Have sex with someone they can't rely on and expect the law with the guns/prison to force them to... or don't and wait until someone that can be relied upon comes along.

reply to post by RealWoman


If both parties have unprotected sex, then both parties took that chance, this is true. However, it's not solely up to the male to decide to use birth control and equally the woman's fault for not demanding that he does or take birth control of her own accord. Oh, and some women will poke holes in a condom.

Average child support payments were 430.00/mo in 2010. While that's not enough to fully support most people, it sure takes the edge off. it's often subsidized with part time work or government aid. Or more support from another unwilling dad.

I still say that upon learning of the conception, the man should have equal right to say he does not want to take part in the responsibility of raising that child. This alone, would make more women think twice before taking the chance. And maybe lower this insanely large population that we have. Adoption is always a consideration in the choice, so, there's that.

reply to post by BardingTheBard





LOL ... How can any woman know if a man is reliable, or not. It's not an

exact science being able to make that sort of judgement... lol


'SHOCK HORROR' its even been known for a 'married man' to dispense of his wife and

young child/children ...

libertytoall

Quadrivium

Tidnabnilims
reply to post by libertytoall

 

Thats not what my point is, you have not read my posts correctly, morality is what makes you look at it individually, my logical argument is futher up the thread, at no point did I say my logic was at the individual level.

Medically necessary abortions account for 17.5% of abortions per year, I also said this in the same post.

I will simplify, in the logic example, the unwanted living things are extra people, the environment is the planet, this one.

Logic is too cruel sometimes, fettering it with morality is part of what makes us human. That allows for things like my personal solution which I have mentioned twice which, while not being perfect, greatly reduces the problems of both sides while still allowing for choice via educated decisions.

Or you can keep trying to be black and white about it, good luck with that.

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: (no reason given)

ETA:-
Your friends made a choice, and it worked for them. Kudos and more power to them. Whats important is that they had that choice.

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: (no reason given)

Where does that kind of "logic" end though? You could also apply "your logic" to the mentally ill, the homeless, disabled, free loaders, or countless other groups. That kind of logic leads down a dark path. Would you prefer firing squads or gas chambers to rid the environment of the unwanted?

To me that's fairly simple. What ability do they have at providing for their children and themselves? If they are deemed to live below the financial means necessary to raise children they should be forced to give that child up for adoption. The only problem I see with this is mothers would stop caring if they smoke, drink, etc.. I mean women have already demonstrated their unwavering position that killing a baby is less important than an inconvenient 9 months. I have no doubt they would not give a flying sh^t about a baby in the womb while carrying it.

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

That has already been done it was done in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's. 1950's, and

1960's. There have been documentaries on TV showing 'old' women who had their children

taken from them at 2 weeks old, who had gone on to eventually marry and have

other children ... but never got over the pain of forcibly 'losing' their first born

eletheia
reply to post by BardingTheBard

 

LOL ... How can any woman know if a man is reliable, or not. It's not an

exact science being able to make that sort of judgement... lol


'SHOCK HORROR' its even been known for a 'married man' to dispense of his wife and

young child/children ...

How can any man know the woman won't stop taking the pill?

It's not about KNOWING they are reliable with some sort of money back guarantee (though that *is* kind of what our legal system is setup to do)... it's about taking precautions and actually talking about what you BOTH will do in case she gets pregnant BEFORE having sex and not having sex until you have both agreed. That way at least you have made the reasonable efforts. No different than a man putting on a condom is considered "reasonable effort".

Think of having this conversation before dropping pants as a condom for the woman's life and future. If it fails, it fails... but at least you tried. If you didn't even put one on though... you can't be surprised if you wind up with a partner with a hole in them.

If they have agreed to help support in case of pregnancy and then fail to follow through, then yes that is a problem... but it's a problem in ANY circumstance where a person agrees to do something and then doesn't.

But if the female hasn't even had the conversation, especially in *this* day and age of independent self sufficient women (it's *her* body remember... it's *her* responsibility and it's *her* choice)... and instead she just assumes the man automatically will support any child without having even discussed it... is simply playing with fire.

The man, if he is smart, will also have that discussion even though it's not his body. It is his life. Otherwise he too is playing with fire... it's simply a fire that won't burn his body directly.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


It's highly unlikely that a woman who has tricked a man into impregnating her is going to seek an abortion. If you're upset that life isn't fair, I don't know what to tell you. Find a better circle of friends?

reply to post by windword

I don't understand how your reply relates? I've not even thought about a woman requesting an abortion after tricking man... much less written about it?

EDIT: Ahh... perhaps this will clarify? My comment about the woman stopping taking the pill was reminding the poster I was replying to that the "uncertainty" is equal in both directions regarding knowing whether the other is going to screw you over.

My entire participation in this thread has been making exactly your statement regarding taking responsibility for who you surround yourself by and thus the sort of effects they can have on your life. That life isn't fair, and thus it is vital for a woman who expects to be supported in case of pregnancy to discuss that ahead of time before having sex. That is her responsibility to herself most of all... but also to the other person.

No different than a man choosing to wear a condom before having sex.

reply to post by BardingTheBard

I don't understand how your remark relates? I've not even thought about a woman requesting an abortion after tricking man... much less written about it?

Right, that's why I don't understand you're bringing up your discontent with women who trick men into pregnancy in a thread about abortion.

My entire participation in this thread has been making exactly your statement regarding taking responsibility for who you surround yourself by and thus the sort of effects they can have on your life. That life isn't fair, and thus it is vital for a woman who expects to be supported in case of pregnancy to discuss that ahead of time before having sex. No different than a man choosing to wear a condom before having sex.

If a man doesn't want to be father, he should take precautions. But accident happens and over 50% of abortions are due to birth control failure.

windword
Right, that's why I don't understand you're bringing up your discontent with women who trick men into pregnancy in a thread about abortion.

I'm not expressing discontent. Recognizing the existence. I made an edit to the post just above that might help clarify why the subject matter was brought up? Especially in context of the full post and the nature of the post it is in reply to?

windword
If a man doesn't want to be father, he should take precautions. But accident happens and over 50% of abortions are due to birth control failure.

I don't disagree. Do you think I do?

I'm saying that a woman who *expects* to be supported in case of pregnancy ALSO should take precautions.

reply to post by BardingTheBard



The opening statement of your post states:-

If it's important to her ... then is the time for the woman to make the "I expect

help if I get pregnant decision and have the conversation with her partner BEFORE

she drops her pants as well"


Lol ...Lol ... How many people do you know who have never gone back on

their word? ... So many promises made in 'the heat of passion,

reply to post by eletheia


LOL! That reminds of this!

Let me look at the issue of illogic again. It seems as though I wasn't understood.

A blue circle can't be a red pyramid. Anything that is "X" can't be "not X." That's Step 1. Now, some syllogisms for Step 2.

P. 1 Intentionally killing an innocent human is murder.
P. 2 A foetus is an innocent human.
---------------------------------------------
C. Intentionally killing a foetus (abortion) is murder.

I don't think anyone argues with Premise 1, the controversy is over Premise 2. The syllogism, as it stands, is the belief of pro-lifers. It is also the belief behind the Federal Law declaring that what the boyfriend did was murder and subject to a life sentence. It is also the belief of the woman in this case who was distraught at the loss of her baby, and every other mother who mourns over a miscarriage. Finally, had the boyfriend killed the baby with a tire iron, most, if not, all states could have charged him with some form of murder under state law.

The pro-choicers would say that premise 2 is wrong, and that a foetus is not an innocent human. Given that, it is not impossible for a woman to go into an abortion clinic, believing the foetus is not an innocent human, change her mind and decide it is, change her mind again, then again, then again.

The foetus is not changing it is still what it was when she walked into the clinic. She is saying that it is both an innocent human, and that it is not an innocent human, then it is, then it isn't. But it can't be both, that contradicts Step 1, a basic logical rule.

The pro-lifer's position may be seen as right or wrong, but it is logically consistent. The pro-choicer's position is not logically consistent.

An even worse result comes about if pro-choicers attempt to argue with Premise 1: "Intentionally killing an innocent human is murder." Can they then march with signs reading "Killing an innocent person is not murder?"

Yes, I disagree with abortion in all but an extremely rare set of circumstances. Some arguments for and against abortion have been mentioned in this thread. You've probably heard most of them. But what struck me in this case is that there is no logical case for supporting it, therefore it can't be attacked logically. It can only be pointed out that the pro-choicers' case is illogical.

eletheia
reply to post by BardingTheBard

 

The opening statement of your post states:-

If it's important to her ... then is the time for the woman to make the "I expect help if I get pregnant decision and have the conversation with her partner BEFORE she drops her pants as well"

Lol ...Lol ... How many people do you know who have never gone back on their word? ... So many promises made in 'the heat of passion,

Is it a wise precaution for a woman who expects/needs to be supported in case of pregnancy to make the effort to have reached an agreement with their partner about what they are going to do in case of pregnancy before dropping pants?

Is this not probably one of the most important responsibilities a woman has to her body and her life? To be very careful and intelligent about who she is allowing to possibly get her pregnant?

Yes, someone might go back on their word. It might be the male, it might be the female. If they are worried about consequences... then both sides need to ensure the precautions are being taken to avoid a pregnancy that isn't wanted... as well as the precautions being taken to account for what will happen if a pregnancy does occur.