Abortion

[Slyfox696]

by that logic sly, any ejaculation is abortion. only one little swimmer does the deed, the rest die. similarly lack of ejaculation is abortion as they die internally. but that's not really relevant to discussion

I agree.

That was my point from the beginning.

biologically speaking, sperm cannot reproduce so technically aren't alive.

Umm...modern medical science tends to disagree with you.

the whole argument basically boils down to when you believe life begins.

Agreed. But my point is that if one organism inside another person is alive and should not be killed, then why not another?

and in case i'm not clear - i don't feel abortion can be outlawed completely.

I don't feel it can be outlawed at all, simply because who is to decide which cases should be allowed and which ones should not?

 

[Uncle Sam]

Ejaculation is not abortion. Firstly, sperm aren't embryos, nor do any - really - stand any chance of life anyway. Secondly, by the same logic, sexual reproduction is in fact abortion, even when a baby is conceived. It'd be abortion on a genocidal scale.

I'm very much against abortion - this doesn't come from any spiritual beliefs either, because as many of you know I'm a heartless Atheist bastard. Well, not completely heartless, as it's really my morals that make me disagree with that. The facts are, whether a fetus is alive or not, it has the possibility to be born and to lead a life, like you and me already have and do. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm sure a good percentage of abortions are just careless morons who I wouldn't trust with a baby anyway but that's just not the point. Who are those people to even consider snuffing out a potential life? That's what infuriates me the most. Is abortion murder? No. Does that mean abortion is right? No.

However, like Sly has said, it's pretty much impractical to outlaw it. It's pretty much impractical to outlaw cigarettes too. Doesn't mean I have to agree that it's right.

 

[Slyfox696]

Ejaculation is not abortion. Firstly, sperm aren't embryos, nor do any - really - stand any chance of life anyway. Secondly, by the same logic, sexual reproduction is in fact abortion, even when a baby is conceived. It'd be abortion on a genocidal scale.

Sperm are still alive and can still create human life.

Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it, I'm just saying that I find it humorous how people want to talk about how a fertilized egg is life and how wrong it is to kill it, despite the fact that almost every guy kills millions of potential life every day.

I'm very much against abortion - this doesn't come from any spiritual beliefs either, because as many of you know I'm a heartless Atheist bastard. Well, not completely heartless, as it's really my morals that make me disagree with that. The facts are, whether a fetus is alive or not, it has the possibility to be born and to lead a life, like you and me already have and do. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm sure a good percentage of abortions are just careless morons who I wouldn't trust with a baby anyway but that's just not the point. Who are those people to even consider snuffing out a potential life? That's what infuriates me the most. Is abortion murder? No. Does that mean abortion is right? No.

I agree with most of this, with the exception of what people have abortions.

However, like Sly has said, it's pretty much impractical to outlaw it. It's pretty much impractical to outlaw cigarettes too. Doesn't mean I have to agree that it's right.

Well, it's not impractical to outlaw cigarettes at all. Because no one NEEDS a cigarette. But, sometimes, in order for quality of life of mother or child, an abortion may be highly useful.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Sperm are still alive and can still create human life.

In those terms then, sexual reproduction leads to abortion on a massive scale. I see your point, I just wanted to make sure mine wasn't ignored.

Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it, I'm just saying that I find it humorous how people want to talk about how a fertilized egg is life and how wrong it is to kill it, despite the fact that almost every guy kills millions of potential life every day.

I agree with most of this, with the exception of what people have abortions.

I suppose I was being a bit presumptuous, but my main experience in abortion was a girl who'd had three by the time she was even fifteen. World class slapper who openly laughed about it. Quite frankly, I felt like putting her head through a wall.

Well, it's not impractical to outlaw cigarettes at all. Because no one NEEDS a cigarette. But, sometimes, in order for quality of life of mother or child, an abortion may be highly useful.

The economical repercussions, as well as the legal ones, would surely be huge though? Not that great a comparison. I suppose, and I'm really going out on a limb here... you could, just maybe compare it to murder. I think we all agree murder's wrong, although the world's most powerful government still employs capital punishment. I've sort of lost my train of thought. Whoops.

 

[Slyfox696]

In those terms then, sexual reproduction leads to abortion on a massive scale. I see your point, I just wanted to make sure mine wasn't ignored.

I see your point, I'm just pointing out how limited the view is that abortion is killing a living thing.

I suppose I was being a bit presumptuous, but my main experience in abortion was a girl who'd had three by the time she was even fifteen. World class slapper who openly laughed about it. Quite frankly, I felt like putting her head through a wall.

There are many people who get abortions for the wrong reasons, but then again, you can look at it like this.

Would you rather have a child in this world to a carefree 15 year old mother who wanted nothing to do with it? Is that fair to the child to have such a miserable life, simply because some other people find abortion against their religious/moral beliefs? Because I find a life with no father and a mother that wants nothing to do with you much more of a torture than an abortion.

The economical repercussions, as well as the legal ones, would surely be huge though?

People would find other ways to spend their money though. If one thing is apparent, it's that no matter how much money you have, you're going to spend it. If not on cigarettes than on alcohol or games or music or cars...all of which serve an actual good purpose, even though there may be some negative side effects.

Cigarrettes serve no good purpose.

Not that great a comparison. I suppose, and I'm really going out on a limb here... you could, just maybe compare it to murder. I think we all agree murder's wrong, although the world's most powerful government still employs capital punishment. I've sort of lost my train of thought. Whoops.

Capital punishment is not murder.

 

[Father:_Polley]

Umm...modern medical science tends to disagree with you.

they are part of the reproduction process, but do not actively reproduce in and of themselves - one of the 7 criteria for 'life'. that was my point here

Agreed. But my point is that if one organism inside another person is alive and should not be killed, then why not another?

malaria protozoa are inside a person and i'm sure i'd like them killed. but that's just me being pedantic.
my main point is that there is an inherent difference between fully human embryological cells and half human sperm cells. if left by themselves, with the right conditions, one will grow and differentiate into a human form, the other will sit where it is in an inactive form

 

[Mighty NorCal]

figured Id reopen this can of worms....


One time a girl I had been having sex with called me up, and told me she was pregnant, and she was getting rid of it, and there was nothing I could do about it...according to Becca, its HER choice, so this scenario was perfectly alright.

Should not both people have a say about what will develop to be their child?? I think I should at least be able to have a say in if this girl is going to murder what is (or will become) MY CHILD. There should be some sort of double consent rule.

 

[Slyfox696]

figured Id reopen this can of worms....


One time a girl I had been having sex with called me up, and told me she was pregnant, and she was getting rid of it, and there was nothing I could do about it...according to Becca, its HER choice, so this scenario was perfectly alright.

Should not both people have a say about what will develop to be their child?? I think I should at least be able to have a say in if this girl is going to murder what is (or will become) MY CHILD. There should be some sort of double consent rule.

That's a tough call. I think the father should absolutely have rights to make that determination. However, it's also unfair to ask a woman spend nearly a year saddled with the pain of something she doesn't want and can easily get rid of.

That's really a tough call. Maybe future science will be able to remove the embryo and let it develop artificially, but right now there is no such science that i'm aware of that is cheap enough for most people to afford.

I would say that the woman should be very open to discussing it, but in the end, just given the circumstance, there's really not much a father can do.

And believe me, I'll be the first to call that completely unfair.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

See, I just dont know. I understand all that, but is a year of pain > ruining two lives???

ruining the Fathers life, who knows they wouldve had a child....ruining the childs life, well, becuase it isnt allowed to exist now. I just dont think that becuase you will have 9 months of high inconvienence, you can have absolute power to so highly and negatively impact two other peoples lives, one of which has no voice

 

[HBK-aholic]

figured Id reopen this can of worms....


One time a girl I had been having sex with called me up, and told me she was pregnant, and she was getting rid of it, and there was nothing I could do about it...according to Becca, its HER choice, so this scenario was perfectly alright.

Should not both people have a say about what will develop to be their child?? I think I should at least be able to have a say in if this girl is going to murder what is (or will become) MY CHILD. There should be some sort of double consent rule.

I wasn't really going to reply until I read my name in this, as I thought I'd said all I have to say, but obviously not.

If a woman doesn't consult the male I think she's completely immature and shouldn't be having sex anyway. Some women choose to not tell the man at all, which could be classed as worse depending on how you look at it.

The man should ALWAYS be consulted and the woman should take his views into consideration as he would be involved in this as well. However at the end of the day he isn't the one carrying it around for 9 months, then going through a labour. So it is her choice. If you wanted her to continue but she didn't want the pregnancy a man should have no legal rights over that woman. Just because she had sex with you doesn't mean she's giving you the right to control her body for the next year.

Furthermore, if you wanted her to have the child, would you have been the one who kept it 24/7? And seeings as she didn't want it in the first place would you be willing to be the only carer for the child, with the mother having no contact?

I don't think it's completly fair that the man would have no say, but I think it's a lot fairer than the alternative; a woman being forced into a pregnancy she didn't consent to.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I don't think it's completly fair that the man would have no say, but I think it's a lot fairer than the alternative; a woman being forced into a pregnancy she didn't consent to.

She consented to it the moment she let a penis go into her without a condom. It's up to both the male and the female to make sure that little soldier is wearing a helmet. It's not like a penis doesn't feel different with a condom on. A women can't claim ignorance.

 

[HBK-aholic]

See, I just dont know. I understand all that, but is a year of pain > ruining two lives???

ruining the Fathers life, who knows they wouldve had a child....ruining the childs life, well, becuase it isnt allowed to exist now. I just dont think that becuase you will have 9 months of high inconvienence, you can have absolute power to so highly and negatively impact two other peoples lives, one of which has no voice

At the same time, you should have no right to ruin a womans life, or having absolute power over telling a woman what to do with her body. You're really belittling pregnancy here, 9 months of high inconvenience is an understatement. It will affect the rest of her life and maybe she doesn't want any children even if it's only genetically hers.

She has to think about bringing a child into this world. It isn't just like popping one out and on to the next. Bringing a new life into this world is a huge thing and she may not want to do that.

 

[HBK-aholic]

She consented to it the moment she let a penis go into her without a condom. It's up to both the male and the female to make sure that little soldier is wearing a helmet. It's not like a penis doesn't feel different with a condom on. A women can't claim ignorance.

So every time a woman has sex she's consenting to pregnancy? No, she's consenting to sex and acknowledging the risk, but she still shouldn't be forced to continue a pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

I have no sympathy for the cases where it's as simple as they didn't use contraception; it's their fault. But she should still have the choice. And the thing is it's not always as easy as not using contraception.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

But she should still have the choice. And the thing is it's not always as easy as not using contraception.

I think it is. No condom? No pill? No sex. It's pretty simple to me. You don't have to have sex. You can contain that animal instinct. If you're stupid enough to get pregnant then you should do the term. If the child is unwanted after the birth then fair enough. I strongly believe that there is enough money and space knocking around that nice, safe, orphanages can be build to home all those unwanted children. If members of parliment get £10,000 grand a year for kitchens, then they can afford to build a nice home for unwanted children.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I think it is. No condom? No pill? No sex. It's pretty simple to me. You don't have to have sex. You can contain that animal instinct. If you're stupid enough to get pregnant then you should do the term. If the child is unwanted after the birth then fair enough. I strongly believe that there is enough money and space knocking around that nice, safe, orphanages can be build to home all those unwanted children. If members of parliment get £10,000 grand a year for kitchens, then they can afford to build a nice home for unwanted children.

Currently in England and Wales there are about 180,000 abortions a year. About 10,000 of these are for women coming from other parts of the world where abortion is not legal or is difficult to obtain, particularly Ireland. About 10,000 are carried out in Scotland.

Now tell me that the government can make homes for these children. Imagine how many that would be without abortion. Furthermore, why should I pay to look after these thousands of children, which ultimately is what we would have to do.

And it's naive to think unwanted pregnancy occurs only from people not using contraception. No contraception is 100% safe, but that doesn't mean people should have to refrain from sex. Then there's other issues regarding sexual assault and medical reasons for a woman wanting an abortion.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Now tell me that the government can make homes for these children. Imagine how many that would be without abortion. Furthermore, why should I pay to look after these thousands of children, which ultimately is what we would have to do. .

There's an immigration problem. If Britain wasn't so lax then that number would be half that. They need to take a leaf out of France's book and not allow anybody to claim asylum here.

I don't know if you have a job. But if you do they you're paying tax towards pointless things like public art, roads you'll never drive on, Olympic games that you'll never go to, food for the families of the people who run this country and so on.

What is more important. Hosting an event that won't benefit the people who are paying for it, or building orphanages that also won't benefit most people. But will be around for longer, are cheaper, and serve more of a purpose.

And it's naive to think unwanted pregnancy occurs only from people not using contraception. No contraception is 100% safe, but that doesn't mean people should have to refrain from sex. Then there's other issues regarding sexual assault and medical reasons for a woman wanting an abortion.

True. If the child will have no quality of life then I'm fine with abortion. But even if a condom tears or whatever then I still feel that the mother should still birth. It comes with playing the game.

 

[HBK-aholic]

There's an immigration problem. If Britain wasn't so lax then that number would be half that. They need to take a leaf out of France's book and not allow anybody to claim asylum here.

I completely agree with you here.

I don't know if you have a job. But if you do they you're paying tax towards pointless things like public art, roads you'll never drive on, Olympic games that you'll never go to, food for the families of the people who run this country and so on.

What is more important. Hosting an event that won't benefit the people who are paying for it, or building orphanages that also won't benefit most people. But will be around for longer, are cheaper, and serve more of a purpose.

Yeah I do have a job, and I hate the fact I'm paying for those things. But still I'd much rather pay for them than pay for all these children which weren't wanted in the first place. And especially if abortion was illegalized, which I would never want happening, then I'm paying for something which I fought against in the first place.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

So every time a woman has sex she's consenting to pregnancy? No, she's consenting to sex and acknowledging the risk, but she still shouldn't be forced to continue a pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

Unofficially, yes. Each time a Man and a Woman have sex, both need to realize the situation could arise. Its fine for a guy to wear a condom, but its just as easy for a Woman to A.) get on the pill, or B.) get the pregnancy shot that is 100% secure for like 3 monthes straight, in knowing she can not get pregnant.

The fact is, condoms can break. So while its easier at times to use condoms over going through the trouble of signing up for pills, or getting those shots.. in the long run, if you wanna have sex, you need to understand exactly what you're getting into.

Its not like sex should be looked at as.. "Oh, no worries, if I get pregnant I'll just kill it. Its not like its my life."

I'm understandable for abortion regarding rape victims. I'm NOT understandable, or accepting of idiot girls who were too stupid to realize the reaction and issues that sex can bring with it. If you're old enough to put a penis in you.. then you better be old enough to understand you might be pushing a child out of you.

I have no sympathy for the cases where it's as simple as they didn't use contraception; it's their fault. But she should still have the choice. And the thing is it's not always as easy as not using contraception.

You said it best with the bold part. If they were stupid enough to not play it smart, then they deserve what they get. And girls who decide to take the lame way out by killing the unborn child, merely because SHE was too stupid to remember to take a pill, get a shot, or buy a condom.. don't deserve any sympathy, or remorse. They should be blamed for their actions, and judged accordingly.

Rape is one thing. Accidents happen, even when protecting yourself. But if you don't take ANY measure, if you refuse to protect yourself in any way, then end up pregnant and try to play the "How'd that happen" card.. you deserve what you get, and if you attempt ending that child's life, just because of your own stupidity, then you deserve to be looked at as a horrible individual, and judged accordingly.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Unofficially, yes. Each time a Man and a Woman have sex, both need to realize the situation could arise. Its fine for a guy to wear a condom, but its just as easy for a Woman to A.) get on the pill, or B.) get the pregnancy shot that is 100% secure for like 3 monthes straight, in knowing she can not get pregnant.

This is incorrect, no contraceptive is 100% safe, and there's a chance of getting pregnant whenever you have sex.

The fact is, condoms can break. So while its easier at times to use condoms over going through the trouble of signing up for pills, or getting those shots.. in the long run, if you wanna have sex, you need to understand exactly what you're getting into.

Its not like sex should be looked at as.. "Oh, no worries, if I get pregnant I'll just kill it. Its not like its my life."

I agree with you, and if people don't understand these risks then they're too immature to be having sex at the end of the day. I know people my age who are less mature than me yet are having sex, and it just baffles me. But the problem is we cannot force people not to have sex, which is why the government needs to work hard at promoting safe sex, and sex education in schools.

I'm understandable for abortion regarding rape victims.

There's a problem with this in the fact you can't make abortion illegal apart from in the case of rape. It's inpractical and when you look at the effects it's devastating.

- It'd lead to an increase in false rape claims, something which is already growing steadily and needs to be stopped. Instead, you'd get thousands of girls who would shout rape in order to get an abortion when they had actually had consentual sex.

- This in turn would make it even harder for real people affected by rape to be believed, and it's due to the increase in fakes that it is so hard to get a conviction.

- Innocent mens lives would be ruined if the girls they had had consentual sex with shouted rape.

- Allowing abortion just in the case of rape suggests that pro-lifers are trying to punish women for having sex. They cannot do this in the case of rape, therefore have to allow it.

- If a woman was raped she would be forced to report it to the police, somethng many people think isn't right for them, just to get the abortion she should be entitled to anyway.

- Finally, it takes a lot longer than 9 months to get a conviction for rape, therefore the woman would have given birth by the time it had been decided if she was allowed an abortion.

I'm NOT understandable, or accepting of idiot girls who were too stupid to realize the reaction and issues that sex can bring with it. If you're old enough to put a penis in you.. then you better be old enough to understand you might be pushing a child out of you.

I agree, if you're not mature enough to acknowledge pregnancy can be a consequence of sex, then you're not mature enough to be having sex. As I said before though, we can't stop immature people having sex.

You said it best with the bold part. If they were stupid enough to not play it smart, then they deserve what they get. And girls who decide to take the lame way out by killing the unborn child, merely because SHE was too stupid to remember to take a pill, get a shot, or buy a condom.. don't deserve any sympathy, or remorse. They should be blamed for their actions, and judged accordingly.

Rape is one thing. Accidents happen, even when protecting yourself. But if you don't take ANY measure, if you refuse to protect yourself in any way, then end up pregnant and try to play the "How'd that happen" card.. you deserve what you get, and if you attempt ending that child's life, just because of your own stupidity, then you deserve to be looked at as a horrible individual, and judged accordingly.

I agree that people have to be really stupid in order to not use contraception in this day and age. I'm not sure if it's the same in America, but free condoms are everywhere, the pill is free, sexual health advice is free. There's no excuse not to use some sort of contraception.

But the thing is, you cannot outlaw abortion in only certain circumstances. It doesn't work like that. And I stick by what I've said countless times, no matter what the woman did, stupid or not to some people, her body is not just a breeding ground for the government to force her to have a baby, she is still a human, and deserves the choice of abortion if she feels it's necessary.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Yes, Becca I was totally willing to take the baby. I was going to take it the second it was born, and she wouldve never had to deal with me, or it, ever again. I was totally up for that, and was being completely honest in that offer. But she was deciding to advocate her "right as a woman" to just tell me that she was getting rid of it, and since she had her girl rights, there was nothing I could do about it, and that was that. I made every offer and attempt to take the child from her, and have her have NO further hassle becuase of it after its birth.

But the "rights" you so advocate, she had every option just to kill it, and tell me I had no say in the matter, and that what was going to be MY son or daughter, didnt get to live.

 

[Alex(Killer Of Dreams & Legends)]

I personally am neither for or aganist it .... from a religious point i'd say its murder and cruel but on the other hand if a single mother gets pregnut in a one night stand or gets raped she has a right to not have to carry the baby and put her body thru all the agony of carring a child that she is gonna put it up for adoption ....

and for the very religous people if you say the baby could have been the one to find a cure for cancer..... gods plan says that fetus was not supposed to live ..... i understand all the regular facts but what about the religious can someone explain those a bit for me

 

[HBK-aholic]

Yes, Becca I was totally willing to take the baby. I was going to take it the second it was born, and she wouldve never had to deal with me, or it, ever again. I was totally up for that, and was being completely honest in that offer.

Off-topic kind of, but I respect you for that, as most men wouldn't do such a thing.

But she was deciding to advocate her "right as a woman" to just tell me that she was getting rid of it, and since she had her girl rights, there was nothing I could do about it, and that was that. I made every offer and attempt to take the child from her, and have her have NO further hassle becuase of it after its birth.

But the "rights" you so advocate, she had every option just to kill it, and tell me I had no say in the matter, and that what was going to be MY son or daughter, didnt get to live.

They are her rights as a woman. I've admitted I don't think it's fair that she didn't take your views into consideration, and she seems quite immature in how she handled it. The decision to have an abortion shouldn't be taken lightly, and she should have discussed it with you. The problem is, at the end of the day it's her body, and until science comes up with a way for a man to carry an embryo, or for it to be removed from the woman and artificially grown into a child, there's nothing anyone should be able to do about it.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I dont see how its off topic?? you asked me those questions, as part of the debate, and I answered them for you no??? Simple enough.

And she shouldve thought of HER body BEFORE there was someone elses body growing inside of it. fairly simple as well. There needs to be a consent law, for the father, simular to a custody case. Im fairly sure the child wants to live. If the father wants it, and is able to take care of it, the woman shouldnt have the almighty power to tell me that my child doesnt get to live.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I personally am neither for or aganist it .... from a religious point i'd say its murder and cruel but on the other hand if a single mother gets pregnut in a one night stand or gets raped she has a right to not have to carry the baby and put her body thru all the agony of carring a child that she is gonna put it up for adoption ....

and for the very religous people if you say the baby could have been the one to find a cure for cancer..... gods plan says that fetus was not supposed to live ..... i understand all the regular facts but what about the religious can someone explain those a bit for me

I'm not a complete expert on religion, however I researched the topic of abortion for my Religious Education exam so I'll give it a go. All religions have different views on abortion, however some are quite similar.

Christianity
Some christians (usually Roman catholics and Evangelical protestants) believe that abortion is always wrong because they believe it is murder and against God's will. They believe that life begins at conception, and as God forbade murder, they feel abortion is murder and should be banned.

Other Christians (Protestants such as the Church of England) believe that abortion is wrong but must be allowed in certain circumstances as the lesser of two evils. They believe there would be too much suffering if abortion was banned.

Islam
Some Muslims think abortion should never be alive as they life is sacred and that life can only be given or taken by God.

Most Muslims believe abortion can only be allowed if th mothers life is at risk, as the sacred law Muslims follow says the mothers life must take priority.

Some Muslims allow abortions up to 120 days into the pregnancy. This is because thy believe this is the point the fetus recieves it's soul.

Judaism
Some Jewish people abortion is always wrong as they believe life is in Gods hands.

Some Jewish people believe women should be allowed an abortion in certain circumstances, such as risks to the mother as it is taught this way in their holy book.


Hope that helps

 

[X]

Apparently I'm the only person on this entire board who's ever heard of the novel concept of "pulling out".

Stay with me here, cause it might fly in the asinine logic that some people seem to be throwing out here. When a guy is about to cum? He pulls his dick out. Problem solved; you can not practice contraception and not get pregnant at the same time. Amazing huh?

Come on Jake, how many damn pornos have you seen in your life? 12, 13 thousand? Why am I the first one to mention this?

Oh and as for this male consent? Easy solution: Enact laws that require both parents to sign a legal document for the abortion. Easy solution.