Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Additionally, on the whole "you were irresponsible no abortion for you" front...

 

Okay.  So, can we ban medical care for smokers or alcoholics?  Because it's their fault they got lung cancer or their liver is failing.  They should be forced to just die off because hey--they knew the risks when they started smoking or drinking!

 

Somebody was driving recklessly and got into an accident?  Well, they just have to heal their broken ribs on their own, they knew the risks of driving like a maniac so they shouldn't get the "easy way out" with proper medical care.

 

It's the same principle--punishing somebody for a behavior you don't condone, by refusing to provide them the medical means to deal with their problem(s).

Not even. It's like saying that you consent to the possibility of getting into a car crash when you enter a car, but that also means you waive all of your rights and access to any sort of care for the damage done to you, no matter how severe it is, because it's your fault you got into the car in the first place. Hospitals just flat out won't accept you, and you have a pretty big chance of being shamed, losing friends and/or your job over it. And, it only applies to women. Only women who were driving don't get easy access, or access at all, to the hospital, and in some cases doctors will refuse to service you or do something that would save your life just because you got into a car accident. It doesn't even matter if you were the one that was driving perfectly safely and the other guy crashed into you, it's your fault and you're going to live (or die) with the consequences.

 

ETA: It also doesn't matter if it's the state's job to give you driving lessons either; in most cases they don't, or they just say don't drive, but that's obviously unfeasible. And you still get shamed and blamed for it.

 

So when you say it should only be those people who are "completely innocent" that should be allowed to get abortions, you're ignoring the physical harm done to the actual person regardless of cause. You would not do that to car crash victims, would you? You see that it puts many people in immediate danger, and it's incredibly sexist. We're human, we understand that mistakes happen, and we want to make sure that people go on living in relative health, even if they did make a mistake.

So why are you going to do that with pregnant women? You do realize that the fetus is literally just a "clump of cells", right? It isn't a person, it isn't an individual, it can't think at all, it has no feelings, it doesn't have friends, it cannot survive on its own. All it is are human cells. It is the equivalent to my arm, if my arm were a parasite that drained on my resources for 9 months and could cause me to die.

 

Why, why would you put that thing's safety ahead of anyone else's? Why would you put the wellbeing of an inanimate car over the wellbeing of the person who got injured?

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post

Brilliant car example!

If the other driver was the one going to fast it's your fault... If the other person faked/misused bc, it's your fault...

Share this post


Link to post

IT almost seems to me that a BIG part of this issue is that there is NO real consensus as to WHEN it becomes more than 'just a clump of cells.' I mean, some want to argue that it is, in fact, more from the time of conception while others prefer to use birth as the point at which it becomes more... is the truth perhaps somewhere in between? Just an idea...

 

That is... an eight month fetus certainly LOOKS far less like just a clump of cells than , say a newly fertilized egg.

 

At what point does a person's life... as we think of it, the ability to think, feel pain and ect... actually begin? I am not trying to start an arguement, here, but the question does seem to have some bearing on the issue as as far as I know some people even oppose the use of birth control on the grounds that it might cause the fertilized egg to fail to implant.

 

( That is a view I don't agree with by the way, as plenty of fertilized eggs fail to inplant and develop into a child on their own)

 

Is there a point at which abortion, perhaps, should ONLY be allowed in extreme circumstances ( carrying the pregnancy threatens the mother's life)? IF a woman is pregnant and didn't want to be, why wait that long?

 

Just some thoughts on my part based on my knowledge, such as it is, of how pregnancy works.

Share this post


Link to post
Fetuses, those "clumps of cells" react to light and sound at sixteen weeks.

So does my houseplant. I've yet to be pulled up on murder charges for the two I killed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Fetuses, those "clumps of cells" react to light and sound at sixteen weeks.

And that proves..? Some studies show corn reacts to sounds. I am committing murder when I eat corn-on-the-cob?

Share this post


Link to post

Sensitive plants close up their leaves at night when there's no light, and I haven't tried clapping my hands next to them yet but I suspect they'd fold up then too.

Share this post


Link to post

Fetuses, those "clumps of cells" react to light and sound at sixteen weeks.

And your point is? How is that relevant to anything? They aren't consciously reacting to light, it's an autonomous reaction. That's like saying that their heart beats makes them human, when really all it is is a purely automatic process. Plants react to light. That requires no sentience.

 

Are you going to bother replying to the rest of the points in the posts? This is a discussion thread. I want to hear your reasons or thoughts behind what we brought up.

 

Do you agree that we should care more about the fetus than we should care about the mother? That we give more rights to the fetus than we do to the mother?

 

As well, to return to the adoption point; how can you say that when we have so many children in the system already? If there are so many people who want to adopt, and it's so easy, then why are there children in the system at all? Why haven't you headed an organization to adopt all the children and give them loving homes? There is NO shortage of children in the adoption system (which is horrible, as those incredibly informative posts posted before pointed out), and there is a GREAT shortage of people who have the resources, are a caring, good family, and who want to adopt. Why would anyone want to throw more children in there? That, in my mind, is cruelty.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post

Fetuses, those "clumps of cells" react to light and sound at sixteen weeks.

 

My venus fly traps sometimes reacts and closes when I clap near it or drops something. Sooo..

 

Are you going to bother replying to the rest of the points in the posts? This is a discussion thread. I want to hear your reasons or thoughts behind what we brought up.

 

Do you agree that we should care more about the fetus than we should care about the mother? That we give more rights to the fetus than we do to the mother?

 

As well, to return to the adoption point; how can you say that when we have so many children in the system already? If there are so many people who want to adopt, and it's so easy, then why are there children in the system at all? Why haven't you headed an organization to adopt all the children and give them loving homes? There is NO shortage of children in the adoption system (which is horrible, as those incredibly informative posts posted before pointed out), and there is a GREAT shortage of people who have the resources, are a caring, good family, and who want to adopt. Why would anyone want to throw more children in there? That, in my mind, is cruelty.

 

My guess is they won't. A lot of users disappear when they're shown plenty of evidence against their argument. That's what I've learned…

 

And let's not forget that many couples are biased when wanting kids. My grandmother was because she lost two children in birth. She was very biased when looking for children. She wanted NO defects or illnesses, they had to be 100% healthy. Mostly because she didn't want to go through losing another child but it just shows you that people can be EXTREMELY picky and tossing a kid in the system and hoping for the best is like throwing a dart and trying to hit the bull's eye while being FAR away. It sickens me when people keep using the paper thin excuse of "she can put it up for adoption!"

Share this post


Link to post

 

(I figured this was both relevant and too cool not to share)

Edited by Odeen

Share this post


Link to post
And let's not forget that many couples are biased when wanting kids. My grandmother was because she lost two children in birth. She was very biased when looking for children. She wanted NO defects or illnesses, they had to be 100% healthy. Mostly because she didn't want to go through losing another child but it just shows you that people can be EXTREMELY picky and tossing a kid in the system and hoping for the best is like throwing a dart and trying to hit the bull's eye while being FAR away. It sickens me when people keep using the paper thin excuse of "she can put it up for adoption!"

This.

 

Many want healthy children and/or children that at least look like them. And since adoption is pricey and has strict policies on just who can adopt, it's usually going to be upper middle class and higher that will adopt, and most of those people sadly aren't minority groups, so it's usually healthy white children that get adopted. I believe the percentage of minority children that are adopted has gone up in the past few years, even in the cases of interracial adoption, but it's still a small number. x: Course, I believe it's also just *harder* to adopt children of another race, but I might be mistaken, as I'm pretty sure there are laws in place that says an adoption agency can't delay or otherwise deter an adoption based on race, etc. I'm a little fuzzy on the subject so I don't know as much as I would like to. o3o

Share this post


Link to post

Reacting to stimuli =/= being a person

 

Having a heartbeat =/= being a person

 

Having human DNA =/= being a person

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I have heard it asserted that, in some parts of the world at least, fetuses that are found to be female prior to birth are more likely to be aborted than males because of their gender and no other reason.

 

Does anyone have any statistics on this?

Share this post


Link to post

I loved all the responses to the light reaction thing. xd.png

 

As far as anything goes, it's worth mentioning that cows and such have heartbeats, are alive, even have emotions and all that jazz...but how many of us are going to stop eating cheeseburgers? xd.png

 

This whole debate is just too stupid to get involved in for me. It all revolves around personal morals and beliefs, and can NOT be proved either way.

In the end, a pro-lifer is going to fall asleep being pro-life.

In the end, a pro-choicer is going to fall asleep being pro-choice.

 

'Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post

IT almost seems to me that a BIG part of this issue is that there is NO real consensus as to WHEN it becomes more than 'just a clump of cells.' I mean, some want to argue that it is, in fact, more from the time of conception while others prefer to use birth as the point at which it becomes more... is the truth perhaps somewhere in between? Just an idea...

 

That is... an eight month fetus certainly LOOKS far less like just a clump of cells than , say a newly fertilized egg.

 

At what point does a person's life... as we think of it, the ability to think, feel pain and ect... actually begin? I am not trying to start an arguement, here, but the question does seem to have some bearing on the issue as as far as I know some people even oppose the use of birth control on the grounds that it might cause the fertilized egg to fail to implant.

 

( That is a view I don't agree with by the way, as plenty of fertilized eggs fail to inplant and develop into a child on their own)

 

Is there a point at which abortion, perhaps, should ONLY be allowed in extreme circumstances ( carrying the pregnancy threatens the mother's life)? IF a woman is pregnant and didn't want to be, why wait that long?

 

Just some thoughts on my part based on my knowledge, such as it is, of how pregnancy works.

To me, it doesn't matter if it's a human life from conception or when it takes it's first breath or somewhere in between.

 

The fact of the matter is that no other living person has the right to hijack my body and use it without my consent. So, to me, the argument that a fetus is a person who deserves all the rights of a person actually weakens the idea that abortion is wrong.

 

Because unless you plan to give total strangers the right to use my body how they see fit with no regard to me, then a fetus does not get to do so, either. Otherwise you are actually giving a fetus more rights than any born person has.

 

This whole debate is just too stupid to get involved in for me.  It all revolves around personal morals and beliefs, and can NOT be proved either way.

In the end, a pro-lifer is going to fall asleep being pro-life.

In the end, a pro-choicer is going to fall asleep being pro-choice.

 

'Nuff said.

It's not stupid--and it's not a case of "if you believe one thing you'll just never change your mind", either. Debates like this are actually very, very important for helping to open eyes.

 

Many people change their views. I used to be firmly pro-birth, mistakenly thinking it was pro-life, until this thread some years back. It was only when I started getting access to information that wasn't Christian BS propaganda and lies that I actually realized just how risky it is to have children, all the added things that the "pro-life" campaign leaves out, etc. That's when I became firmly pro-choice.

 

I had no idea prior to this thread that the adoption system wasn't a wonderful haven for parents who don't want/can't raise their kid, since I'm a successful adoptee myself.

 

I also had never thought about how adoption is a solution for parenting, NOT for pregnancy. I didn't get information on all the things that can go wrong during pregnancy, or all the difficulties that happen even when it's what would be considered an easy pregnancy.

Share this post


Link to post

MANY people are fiercely determined to stay in one mindset, then.

 

IMO it's stupid because it OFTEN (not always) boils down to whether or not it's a person, which really can't be proven or disproven. It seems like a moot point to me.

 

One thing I'm curious about...why doesn't anyone on either side seem to care about improving much? I see a lot of strongly pro or anti abortion discussions, artwork, etc, (often to the point of condemning/accusing/hating the entire other side of the argument) but why is there no "How can we improve the adoption system?" thread? Why does everyone just care about abortion?

 

I'm not saying that nobody cares, I'm just saying that more focus is given to abortion than other solutions. Why is that?

 

Also notice that almost many people in these discussions is incredibly defensive, at each other's throats, etc. It certainly doesn't seem like a calm, helpful education center. It seems more like "if you disagree with me, I'm gonna yell at you." That happens a bit less HERE, but it certainly isn't uncommon. On other sites *coughdAcough*, you can pretty much expect a total censorkip.gif storm for voicing your opinions on the matter.

 

I've yet to see a completely respectful discussion regarding abortion between the members of the opposite parties. And yet, I personally have had such respectful discussions with other controversial topics. I guess it depends on who you talk to, but reading through threads like this (mostly for the LOLs), I've seen that people are almost ALWAYS jerks over abortion.

 

Like, this entire time I haven't said a thing to pick any fights, just asked some questions and voiced opinions, but I'm sure that someone will yell at me. X3

Share this post


Link to post

This topic is considered controversial but it needs to be discussed rationally without one of the sides screaming "Your wrong end of story shut up", which sadly seems to rarely happen...

 

Now onto my view,

 

I am very much Pro-Life, as a christian men's rights activist, it makes sense, but the issue is very gray scientifically and morally, I do feel that it probably should be available as an option in extreme cases, however I don't believe that it should be available for just anyone, you shouldn't be able to just walk into a clinic, say "I want and abortion" and then instantly get it with little checks and balances, Firstly I think the father of the child should very much have a say in whether an abortion happens or not, because I'm sorry, if a mother aborts her child with no attempt to contact the father and get his consent or ask how he feels about it, just seems wrong to me, because I've seen tons of proven situations where a girlfriend or even a wife aborts a child against the fathers explicit wishes, I also believe that their should be limits of some sort on the circumstances and the age of the fetus... Not really going to elaborate but if someone has questions feel free to ask

 

So to summarize, I think it should be legal, but have some restrictions and checks on it before its actually done

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly I think the father of the child should very much have a say in whether an abortion happens or not, because I'm sorry, if a mother aborts her child with no attempt to contact the father and get his consent or ask how he feels about it, just seems wrong to me, because I've seen tons of proven situations where a girlfriend or even a wife aborts a child against the fathers explicit wishes, I also believe that their should be limits of some sort on the circumstances and the age of the fetus.

Except that the whole pro-choice argument is about bodily autonomy. People who can get pregnant have a right to say what happens to their own damn body, regardless of the person who got them pregnant. You can't use my body for your child if I don't want it. You have to realize that pregnancy is not a 50/50 thing between both parents-only one person is pregnant. Only one person carries the risks that go along with it. Only one person is affected by the hormonal and emotional impacts of pregnancy.

 

Saying the father has equal rights in abortion is ridiculous, because it's not their body. End of story.

 

Edit to add:

Pregnancy is not just 9 months of waiting around and then pop out a kid. There a lot of risks-some can even be life threatening. Even beyond life threatening, what about someone who will lose their job and then not be able to provide for themselves, the new baby, and possibly other kids? What about someone who needs medication that might affect the fetus? What about someone who becomes suicidal?

 

Almost no one makes a quick decision to get an abortion nor do people use it as their primary birth control. Everyone has a reason, why do you think you get to be the one who decides what's good enough? Isn't the person who will actually be affected by it the one who knows best what they need?

 

Edit 2.0:

Also, tampering with birth control is a common abuse tactic, and having a child with an abuser makes it much harder to leave the relationship. By saying both partners get equal say, you will leave many pregnant people even more vulnerable.

Edited by hydrargyrum

Share this post


Link to post
MANY people are fiercely determined to stay in one mindset, then.

 

---

 

IMO it's stupid because it OFTEN (not always) boils down to whether or not it's a person, which really can't be proven or disproven. It seems like a moot point to me.

 

---

 

One thing I'm curious about...why doesn't anyone on either side seem to care about improving much? I see a lot of strongly pro or anti abortion discussions, artwork, etc, (often to the point of condemning/accusing/hating the entire other side of the argument) but why is there no "How can we improve the adoption system?" thread? Why does everyone just care about abortion?

That would be because there's always some contest between "right" and "wrong". No one wants to be wrong and they want to believe the other side, whatever it may be, IS wrong and tries to convince the other side they are.

 

Not that anything really defines what's "right" or "wrong" except for...well, us. But I believe the fear of being wrong stems from survival instincts and such. Being wrong could mean death in a lot of situations, and that isn't good.

 

---

 

"A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places."

 

So, technically the definition is very broad. BUT, I would NOT consider a fetus (and possibly not even a baby in the early months) to be a person

 

And since it's such a broad definition, that's EXACTLY why we need this kind of discussion. We need to more accurately define what a person is, which would in turn affect many things, from abortion to equality to animal welfare/rights.

 

---

 

I care about improving the adoption system, but sadly there's not really much to be done. I think the only thing I could *personally* do at this point in time is start/sign a petition, but there are many people in other countries that don't have that kind of luxury.

 

I believe there might be a thread on adoption somewhere and you're welcome to find it or start a new one if you can't...but what's that thread going to do? Sure it will spread awareness, but awareness does nothing if all you're doing is opening a thread. The people that read and engage in the discussion will need to actually *do* something, at the very least, again, start/sign a petition or something. And besides, I'd say this thread touches on a *lot* of adoption issues. Since it's very much so related, you might as well just have some of the discussion here.

 

And besides, there's a *very big reason* WHY abortion matters. It's a *very* hot topic and extremely controversial. There's a lot of misinformation out there about it and that especially needs to be cleared up.

Wow what a deep topic to find on a kids site. Weird af

 

I think every woman has a right to her body, and if she doesn't want to be pregnant, that's her call. I don't think it's anyone's business.

Kid's site? This site is PG-13, forum included, and I'm pretty sure a majority of the users are actually adults (at least legally). O.o

This topic is considered controversial but it needs to be discussed rationally without one of the sides screaming "Your wrong end of story shut up", which sadly seems to rarely happen...

 

Now onto my view,

 

I am very much Pro-Life, as a christian men's rights activist, it makes sense, but the issue is very gray scientifically and morally, I do feel that it probably should be available as an option in extreme cases, however I don't believe that it should be available for just anyone, you shouldn't be able to just walk into a clinic, say "I want and abortion" and then instantly get it with little checks and balances, Firstly I think the father of the child should very much have a say in whether an abortion happens or not, because I'm sorry, if a mother aborts her child with no attempt to contact the father and get his consent or ask how he feels about it, just seems wrong to me, because I've seen tons of proven situations where a girlfriend or even a wife aborts a child against the fathers explicit wishes, I also believe that their should be limits of some sort on the circumstances and the age of the fetus... Not really going to elaborate but if someone has questions feel free to ask

 

So to summarize, I think it should be legal, but have some restrictions and checks on it before its actually done

I don't know, I usually don't see a lot of that happening. For the most part, many still use lots of facts in their arguments, not just "you're wrong" without any justification...

 

How is it gray scientifically? I can understand morally, but is there really much mystery to it scientifically?

 

How do you define "extreme cases"? We literally just went over a similar discussion in the past couple of pages talking about why cherrypicking what and who is eligible for an abortion isn't good.

 

Why shouldn't someone who doesn't want to be pregnant not be allowed to get an abortion, especially when pregnancy is more dangerous and often more costly than an abortion?

 

I'm sorry, but personally I wouldn't give a crap WHAT my boyfriend/future boyfriend/husband/whoever wanted. It's MY body. Why should they have any more say than some other family member, friend, or stranger? Just because they want a child doesn't mean I do, and I don't want ANYONE to force me to have a child just because they want one or they want me to. Do I, the owner of my body, not get ANY say in what happens to it? Does the father's opinion matter MORE than mine? And just to be fair, I would NOT go through with a pregnancy, even if I desperately wanted a child, if the father didn't want one. In this case, I would wait until BOTH of us are ready before *ever* thinking of having a child. It's not fair to the parent that doesn't want the child.

 

Again, what constitutes eligibility for abortion to you? All you've mentioned is "restrictions", "checks", and "balances", which are very ambiguous.

Share this post


Link to post

@Odeen xd.png that is so cool. I want like 20

 

Fetuses, those "clumps of cells" react to light and sound at sixteen weeks.

And you point is....? Certain plants do that too...are you against killing plants too? Blight forbid then that you use herbicides or weed out your garden. Poor plants.

 

And it's not a fetus. It's still an embryo at that stage fyi. Not viable outside the host.

 

I'm guessing you didn't read through the important parts of what I, or anyone else said here, beings you just singled out a term you did not like and attached a fact that has little to no grounds worth defending when people can attribute to what they said about plants being able to do this as well.

 

So, let me put this in short

Realize what it is to be an adult, which means acknowledging you may not know everything about a person's situation at first glance, and to have the maturity to allow room for people to exert control over their own bodies even if they did something you don't approve of. Perhaps most importantly, listen to the people who have had circumstances that led them to make the choices you condemn, and evaluate their words with a rational and open mind.

 

What about people with crippling phobias? You stated that they can have an abortion. So why is that not extended to someone who does not? Even if she is stable mentally/physically, but what if something happens that she realizes she can't spawn it?

 

 

Found this on FB earlier.

America has become the land of the perpetually offended. We are the forever outraged, we Americans.

 

It's a bull**** first world problem that afflicts those who face no real difficulty in their day to day lives.

 

No difficulty? What's that you say? Yeah, listen, when you have to lug the day's water four miles from the nearest river on top of your head, get back to me. Having to wait in line for coffee and grumbling about how your favorite show isn't on don't count. And neither does any "problem" you have with what other people do in their private lives concern you. Whatsoever.

 

We're outraged all of the time because we've got nothing better to do than be outraged all the damned time.

 

It's a symptom of the larger disease.

 

When the only thing you've got to be upset about is that two gay people want to get married, if that's what offends you, you're just being an censorkip.gif***.

 

When the only thing you've got to be pissed off about is that other people worship a different god from yours, or go to a different church, or don't believe in gods at all, then you're just being an censorkip.gif***.

 

When you're outraged at the idea that some woman somewhere is getting an abortion, but meanwhile the thought of millions of children starving to death, or dying of preventable and treatable diseases, of suffering from poverty and neglect, or dying under the fall of our bombs doesn't bother you near as much to stand out and protest that instead, you're just being an censorkip.gif***.

 

Other countries? Other places in the world? Their leaders are chopping off heads. Literally chopping off heads. Chopping off hands. Murdering. Raping. They're gunning people down in the streets. They're invading their neighbors. People are starving to death and they've got no choice but to drink out of the same river they censorkip.gif in.

 

 

 

Alright, Blighty is in a sporting mood. So I have a question for you then

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

Edited by BlightWyvern

Share this post


Link to post
This topic is considered controversial but it needs to be discussed rationally without one of the sides screaming "Your wrong end of story shut up", which sadly seems to rarely happen...

 

Now onto my view,

 

I am very much Pro-Life, as a christian men's rights activist, it makes sense, but the issue is very gray scientifically and morally, I do feel that it probably should be available as an option in extreme cases, however I don't believe that it should be available for just anyone, you shouldn't be able to just walk into a clinic, say "I want and abortion" and then instantly get it with little checks and balances, Firstly I think the father of the child should very much have a say in whether an abortion happens or not, because I'm sorry, if a mother aborts her child with no attempt to contact the father and get his consent or ask how he feels about it, just seems wrong to me, because I've seen tons of proven situations where a girlfriend or even a wife aborts a child against the fathers explicit wishes, I also believe that their should be limits of some sort on the circumstances and the age of the fetus... Not really going to elaborate but if someone has questions feel free to ask

 

So to summarize, I think it should be legal, but have some restrictions and checks on it before its actually done

It's too easy for men to change their mind and walk away. What if he changes his mind and doesn't want it after all? What if he leaves her, maybe even for someone else? Especially when it's not uncommon for men to cheat when their spouse is pregnant, even more so in the last trimester when she can't get an abortion.

Share this post


Link to post

MANY people are fiercely determined to stay in one mindset, then.

 

IMO it's stupid because it OFTEN (not always) boils down to whether or not it's a person, which really can't be proven or disproven.  It seems like a moot point to me.

Many is not all, though. If we never had these debates I myself would still be pro-forced-birth genuinely thinking that adoption was a perfect solution, that the only people who got pregnant by mistake were irresponsible censorkip.gif s, etc.

 

THAT is why debates like this--no matter how stubborn people on either side can be--are deeply important. If we can convert one person to our side, we consider it a win, nevermind the hundred others who still think we're in the wrong. (And, honestly, I'm assuming that goes for the other side, too)

 

One thing I'm curious about...why doesn't anyone on either side seem to care about improving much?  I see a lot of strongly pro or anti abortion discussions, artwork, etc, (often to the point of condemning/accusing/hating the entire other side of the argument) but why is there no "How can we improve the adoption system?" thread?  Why does everyone just care about abortion?

 

I'm not saying that nobody cares, I'm just saying that more focus is given to abortion than other solutions.  Why is that?

IMO, that's because it's a simpler problem than a massive overhaul which would be needed for the various systems in place that contribute to the reason abortion is needed. If abortion itself can be safely declared legal and those who opt to have one are protected from the retribution of those who disagree, if we can stop people from trying to force uterus-bearers to take risky back-alley methods (which they will--abortion will NOT stop because it's outlawed, it will simply drive up the rates of abortion-related fatalities for both the pregnant person AND the fetus)...

 

Then that's one less problem to deal with, and more resources that can be devoted to dismantling the broken systems and social problems (like racism and homophobia) that contribute to the problems plaguing the adoption system.

 

Also notice that almost many people in these discussions is incredibly defensive, at each other's throats, etc.  It certainly doesn't seem like a calm, helpful education center.  It seems more like "if you disagree with me, I'm gonna yell at you."  That happens a bit less HERE, but it certainly isn't uncommon.  On other sites *coughdAcough*, you can pretty much expect a total censorkip.gif storm for voicing your opinions on the matter.

 

I've yet to see a completely respectful discussion regarding abortion between the members of the opposite parties.  And yet, I personally have had such respectful discussions with other controversial topics.  I guess it depends on who you talk to, but reading through threads like this (mostly for the LOLs), I've seen that people are almost ALWAYS jerks over abortion.

 

Like, this entire time I haven't said a thing to pick any fights, just asked some questions and voiced opinions, but I'm sure that someone will yell at me.  X3

 

Can you blame people, though? Yes, civil discussion is important--but we're all human. Those who oppose abortion generally think they're arguing against legal, institutionally supported murder of innocents. Those who support keeping abortion readily accessible generally are deeply concerned about those who have uteri being reduced to walking incubators with their rights to their own personhood stripped away. Both are horrifying realities/possible realities to those who hold that view. It's no wonder that debates can become charged. (Though DA is a toxic hellhole, really)

 

Wow what a deep topic to find on a kids site. Weird af

DC isn't strictly kids' site, really--it's a game for all ages. Quite a few of us are older than kids!

 

I am very much Pro-Life, as a christian men's rights activist, it makes sense, but the issue is very gray scientifically and morally, I do feel that it probably should be available as an option in extreme cases, however I don't believe that it should be available for just anyone, you shouldn't be able to just walk into a clinic, say "I want and abortion" and then instantly get it with little checks and balances, Firstly I think the father of the child should very much have a say in whether an abortion happens or not, because I'm sorry, if a mother aborts her child with no attempt to contact the father and get his consent or ask how he feels about it, just seems wrong to me, because I've seen tons of proven situations where a girlfriend or even a wife aborts a child against the fathers explicit wishes, I also believe that their should be limits of some sort on the circumstances and the age of the fetus... Not really going to elaborate but if someone has questions feel free to ask

 

Uterus-bearers are not walking incubators that are the property of the one who impregnated them once they are impregnated.

 

So, no, the father should not be allowed to force their will upon the uterus-bearer as if said uterus-bearer was not a person with a will of their own. If you want to be able to force a uterus-bearer into carrying a child--risking their health and their life--against their will, then you are perpetuating the idea that they are sub-human and objects, mere incubators with legs. You may not see it as such, but that is the basic idea at the core no matter how pretty you try to word it.

 

If you want the father to be able to have the baby anyway, go fund research into growing babies in tubes or finding a way to allow an artificial womb to be inserted into the non-uterus-bearer so they could endure the pregnancy instead.

 

Additionally, sadly people do either rape, tamper with BC, or otherwise coerce a partner into a child (the sex itself may be consensual, but then guilting them into not aborting) in an effort to keep them in an unhealthy, neglectful, or abusive relationship.

 

If you argue that the father should have equal say in what happens to the body of the one who's pregnant, then on the logical flip side the father should be allowed to force an abortion to happen even if the pregnant individual wants to have the child. Or that the father should be forced to pay child support and/or help raise a child they never wanted if the uterus-bearer decides to give birth and keep the child.

 

If you are supporting the idea that a father can veto the decision, you are not supporting the father having an equal say--because there is literally no middle ground if one parent wants an abortion but the other doesn't--you are supporting the idea that the will of the father trumps the right of the one carrying the child to have control over their own body and life.

Share this post


Link to post
So does my houseplant. I've yet to be pulled up on murder charges for the two I killed off.

Just want to point out - so does the pregnant person...

 

One thing I'm curious about...why doesn't anyone on either side seem to care about improving much? I see a lot of strongly pro or anti abortion discussions, artwork, etc, (often to the point of condemning/accusing/hating the entire other side of the argument) but why is there no "How can we improve the adoption system?" thread? Why does everyone just care about abortion?

 

I care plenty about improving many things: sex education, sex stigma, foster care, the adoption system, abuse apologia, reproductive health + access, etc. I don't talk about those specific things much in this thread or in 'abortion debates' in general because some of those things, such as improving the adoption system, isn't really related to the topic. Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not to pregnancy.

 

And when people have fundamental disagreements like with topics that have been ridiculously convtroversialized it's hard to agree on how to improve systems. Some anti-choicers also don't really see a problem with the adoption system. They care about punishing cis women for taking control of their own sexuality which they try to hide under the guise of "caring for children" (many are anti-welfare, anti-socialized healthcare, anti-free lunches, etc. - things that would help many children they claim to care about) making it hard to get off the actual topic of abortion to discuss anything else.

 

As well, I think a lot of pro-choicers just find the abortion debate an easier one. Overhaul of the adoption systems means a lot more overhaul of a lot more things than reproductive rights seems sometimes. Which is sad because children are very important and we should be actively working to improve lives and conditions.

 

I've yet to see a completely respectful discussion regarding abortion between the members of the opposite parties.

 

It is hard to be "respectful" in a debate where the other person's opinion is that you are less of a person than a fetus and that you don't deserve your human rights. ^^

 

Firstly I think the father of the child should very much have a say in whether an abortion happens or not, because I'm sorry, if a mother aborts her child with no attempt to contact the father and get his consent or ask how he feels about it, just seems wrong to me, because I've seen tons of proven situations where a girlfriend or even a wife aborts a child against the fathers explicit wishes, I also believe that their should be limits of some sort on the circumstances and the age of the fetus...

 

First, not all women have a uterus and some men have a uterus. Some nonbinary people have a uterus. It is not purely "women vs men".

 

Second, if need be, I will go back and link you to my post on the affects of pregnancy on a body. It is nine months of hell and can carry many permanent, life-long health complications. If your body is not going through that then no, it is not your say.

The same post also points out the dangerous line of thinking that limiting circumstances is because that is ridiculously complicated to uphold. As well, that's incredibly subjective for no reason. No, a doctor nor a judge does not know my body better than I do. Does the doctor understand the actual medical processes going on in my body better than I? Most likely. But I know when I feel bad. I know what my limits are. Except in certain circumstances, I am the one who knows when something is wrong. So I am the one who gets to make decisions about my body. I am not saying we should abort fetuses that are due the next day, but I am not a fan of strict limits.

 

Ideally: a couple should talk about what they want from the relationship. They need to talk about children and accidental pregnancy. If they are not on the same page on important things like this, then they really shouldn't be together, even if they like each other's personalities. So if something happens, that cuts the chances that partners will have a fundamental disagreement. But, in the end, partners need to respect each other's bodies and boundaries. If they do not or cannot, then they never should have been together in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Just a quick, general reminder for users to respect each other in these discussions and debates. Remember that piling can be quite intimidating. If someone else has already said what you wanted to say or if enough people have answered that replying will be overwhelming, please think carefully about whether or not you really need to post.

Share this post


Link to post

On adoption - I think a lot of people forget that, in the US at least, it's waaaay more expensive to adopt here at home, than it is to look abroad, which I think probably contributes to the abysmal adoption rates of American children. It's also not exactly easy, as I understand it, as far as restrictions go. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that homosexual parents can't adopt - they could be a huge help in getting a bunch of these kids out of the system, which would in turn lighten the load on a seriously overburdened system. But no, we have bible-thumpers and people who are simply grossed out by the idea of single-sex couples dictating who can and can't adopt. The antiquated and archaic beliefs - that have time and time again been proven wrong - that so many still buy into (gays are sexual predators, homosexuality is wrong, the kids will grow up to be gay, etc.) doesn't help matters any.

 

As a side note, my own parents did look overseas for my older brother, though their reasons were a bit different - my dad had served in Vietnam and, having seen and knowing that many kids were left orphaned, he wanted to adopt a Vietnamese kid. They were unable to do that, so they adopted my brother from Seoul instead. But in most cases, I'd expect that reason to be the exception, and certainly not the norm.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.