an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[Formaldehyde]

I'm really not all that interested in debating what we might be able to do someday. I know you seems to be. I hope that we will be able do everything from Star Trek TNG and more, we'll have to take it as we go and hopefully the options available to us get better.

It's not exactly "Star Trek". I imagine that something like this could be done in a matter of a decade if resources were expended on it, and it could be done today with week-old or less embryos yet nobody is doing so.

<snip>...Many are infertile because the female is unable to carry the child.

Again, that really has nothing to do with it.

You seem to think that women pregnant with unwanted embryos and fetuses are being selfish to those who can't have children and who would supposedly take most, if not all, of the babies from millions of abortions performed each year. Not only is it only viable with a small portion of them which would actually be adopted, it is being unfair to the women who are pregnant. Have you ever thought to wonder why those who demand newborn babies are being so selfish when millions of other unwanted children have no parents in the US alone, much less in nearby foreign countries?

I might be willing to consider this logic, but only if you eliminate the legality of forced child support payments from men who have no interest in being fathers who happen to get a woman pregnant. Reproductive freedom should actually be reproductive freedom regardless of gender.

At least here we agree. I have always stipulated that men should be given a choice in these matters. They can either freely decide to help pay for child support, or they can instead pay one half the cost of an abortion. It should then be entirely up to the woman what she wishes to do.

You'd think they would be eager, given how loudly they rant about forcing their views on pregnant women and pro-choicers. But amazingly, whenever I (or anyone else) has asked these women if they'd be willing to step up and adopt a baby that another woman couldn't raise, the response has been DEAD SILENCE.

So they will NOT put their money OR their energies where their mouths are. I simply cannot respect a "pro-lifer" who thinks this stance means caring for a fetus only until it's born, and then shrugging the baby off if it's born into circumstances not conducive to staying alive.

I think it really shows that many aren't interested in the so-called sanctity of life at all. It is just more partisan nonsense. If they were really interested in the welfare of mothers and children, the last thing they would do is vote against a decent healthcare plan for everybody as well as a viable welfare system. Instead, they expect to not only frequently ruin the life of the woman by forcing her to have a child she doesn't want and even needlessly endanger her life while doing so, they also want to financially penalize the male for even getting her pregnant in the first place. It is really a prison sentence for having sex outside of marriage without the cost of a prison or even a trial.

 

[civ_king]

Yes. Because:

1. Birth control can fail. So even if the woman tells the truth about being on birth control, a baby can still result.

2. Even if the woman is lying, it's not the BABY's fault. Child support is meant for the CHILD, not the mother. Even if the money were put into a trust or account overseen by the courts, that's still better than nothing at all.


I realize that a lot of lying goes on. But none of this is the kid's fault, and the kid should not suffer from the stupidity or duplicitous behavior of the parents. It's not the fairest solution for the father, but it is for the child.

Indeed, but the woman can abort responsibility while the man can't. I'm of the camp that all should be responsible for the reactions and that it is unfair for only some to be able to ditch responsibility.

Yes, but IMO, her fraud is both tortable and sexual assault. He should be able to sue her for the child-support payments, and should even be able to press criminal charges.

In practice, it's hard to do those things without unreasonably burdening the child.

As an aside, I wish that people wouldn't bemoan that 'men don't have the right to abort'. It's more like 'men don't need the right to avoid debilitation and distended physiology, because it won't happen to them.'.

18 years of child support payments is nothing to wave away as nothing.

Reproductive responsibility, more like. If guys want the fun, they also have to be prepared for the possible consequences. It's not good enough to just whine that they didn't want to be fathers - if a pregnancy occurs and the mother opts to keep and raise the child, the father is morally obligated - for the sake of the CHILD who, after all, did not ASK to be conceived and born - to help.

Your argument is entirely valid, but it can also apply fairly well to women provided the sex was consensual:

Reproductive responsibility, more like. If women want the fun, they also have to be prepared for the possible consequences. It's not good enough to just whine that they didn't want to be mothers - if a pregnancy occurs and the father opts to keep and raise the child, the mother is morally obligated - for the sake of the CHILD who, after all, did not ASK to be conceived and born - to help.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's true, but neither party gets to waive the child support payments if there's a child.

I see. Reproductive freedom for some then. Cut it as you like, but that's still the end result you are interested in keeping codified. As mentioned even responsible birth controls methods can fail. I find this interesting.

Well, it might seem like the laws are not fair, but keep in mind that the biology is intrinsically not 'fair'.

At each stage, the burden on the woman is greater. Going through a pregnancy OR getting an abortion is a burden the man does not have. Once the baby is born (wanted or unwanted), the responsibilities begin to equalize, because both parents 'owe' proper child support.

The 'freedom' you're complaining about is to choose to get a distended belly OR have a doctor stick a tube up the vagina. These are not 'freedom choices' available to the male partner! Even if the male was willing to have a vacuum waved around their innards, in order to remove themselves from parental responsibility, that wouldn't change the fact that the baby will exist. Once the baby is in the picture, it's a separate entity, with its own (separate) needs.

When and if the baby is born, their burdens equalize. Before then, the burdens are disproportionate.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

At least here we agree. I have always stipulated that men should be given a choice in these matters. They can either freely decide to help pay for child support, or they can instead pay one half the cost of an abortion. It should then be entirely up to the woman what she wishes to do.

...huh. Didn't expect you to have that view.

 

[Leoreth]

I'm of the camp that all should be responsible for the reactions and that it is unfair for only some to be able to ditch responsibility.

You mean men? You know those involved who don't even have to have an abortion to ditch their responsibility?

If women want the fun, they also have to be prepared for the possible consequences.

I have the feeling that this "women should suffer the consequences of their [and I always sense an implicit "immoral" here] fun" argument - note the focus on women only here! - is what poisons the debate.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm still amused. For those of us who self-identify as liberals, how does it feel to be trying on what is effectively the abstinence-based personal responsibility and repercussions argument? Does it being gender specific help?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm sorry, do you think there's a stage in the process where the woman doesn't have greater obligations than the man?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If women want the fun, they also have to be prepared for the possible consequences.

Believe it or not, I completely agree with this - as long as the fun was consensual, between two adults. It is NOT right to blame a woman for not using birth control if she was raped. It's also not right to deny her Plan B, if she wants it.

 

[civ_king]

You mean men? You know those involved who don't even have to have an abortion to ditch their responsibility?


I have the feeling that this "women should suffer the consequences of their [and I always sense an implicit "immoral" here] fun" argument - note the focus on women only here! - is what poisons the debate.

I'm all for taking shiftless fathers to task.

I would like to remind you that that is a quotation of Valka except that I replaced women for men. If it is wrong for it to have the party specified being women then why is it totally fine if it says men? I'm saying it's anti-egalitarian for it to only apply to one party, likewise if white people get in trouble for using the n-word then black people should get in trouble for calling em crackers and honkies (both are pejorative terms for white people although once they weren't necessarily pejorative).

Believe it or not, I completely agree with this - as long as the fun was consensual, between two adults. It is NOT right to blame a woman for not using birth control if she was raped. It's also not right to deny her Plan B, if she wants it.

Remember, I did stipulate "...provided the sex was consensual", also I would say rape is most definitely not fun in any normal sense of the word.

 

[Traitorfish]

likewise if white people get in trouble for using the n-word then black people should get in trouble for calling em crackers and honkies (both are pejorative terms for white people although once they weren't necessarily pejorative).

Link to video.

And let no more be said about it.

 

[civ_king]

Link to video.

And let no more be said about it.

He's talking about black people calling black people that word which is not what I'm talking about.

 

[Traitorfish]

And let no more be said about it.

Pay attention.

 

[Perfection]

If you have no more to say on the matter, don't say anything else and let others ramble.

You can't just unilaterally declare having the last word. (Well, you can but noone will listen)

 

[civ_king]

Pay attention.

If the video actually addressed what I was talking about then no more would be said, but it didn't, two fairly distinct issues.

 

[Traitorfish]

If the video actually addressed what I was talking about then no more would be said, but it didn't, two fairly distinct issues.

Only if you think that "cracker" is just as offensive as the n-word, and if that was the case you'd basically be a lousy human being and there's not much more we could say about it. Otherwise, his point that our standards for the use of words are based on how people relate to those words- in this case, that white people relate to words like "cracker" and "honky" in a fundamentally different way than black people relate to the n-word- is entirely relevant.

I mean, I don't know about you, but I am really not offended if a black person calls me "cracker". In contrast, growing up Irish Catholic where I did, I can say from experience that I am offended if a Protestant calls me, say, "fenian". The words are not equivalent simply because they fall under the broad heading of "ethnic slur".

 

[Leoreth]

I'm all for taking shiftless fathers to task.

I would like to remind you that that is a quotation of Valka except that I replaced women for men. If it is wrong for it to have the party specified being women then why is it totally fine if it says men? I'm saying it's anti-egalitarian for it to only apply to one party, likewise if white people get in trouble for using the n-word then black people should get in trouble for calling em crackers and honkies (both are pejorative terms for white people although once they weren't necessarily pejorative).

I'm not saying that specifically targeting men would be okay.

But the fact remains that the consequences women have to suffer immensely outweigh those of the men. It's a fact that shouldn't simply be glossed over while making swift equivalences.

 

[Lord Gay]

but only if you eliminate the legality of forced child support payments from men who have no interest in being fathers who happen to get a woman pregnant.

What about saying that CS is only mandatory for spouses? The act of getting married means that both agree to be legally bound for any children that might come along, but any pregnancies that occur out of marriage carries no CS whatsoever?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

What about saying that CS is only mandatory for spouses? The act of getting married means that both agree to be legally bound for any children that might come along, but any pregnancies that occur out of marriage carries no CS whatsoever?

Haha, that'd never get passed.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What about saying that CS is only mandatory for spouses? The act of getting married means that both agree to be legally bound for any children that might come along, but any pregnancies that occur out of marriage carries no CS whatsoever?

So the kid, from moment it leaves the mother's body, is legally obligated to fend for itself? (if its parents are not married to each other)

 

[Lord Gay]

Understand I'm not advocating a position Valka, just thinking out loud here. With unmarried couples, the man would have no obligation. The woman is the one who is pregnant so she has sole control over the baby (as has been the case for most of history). If she wants to keep it, give for adoption, abort, or something else, she has sole say. By clarifying that the unmarried father has no financial obligation due to no legal bond, then it may help abortion arguments where the woman wants to and the father doesn't because we've already established that the father has no legal bond.

With married couples though they both have a say.