Abortion: Is it Absolutely Despicable, or are there Situations Wherein It's Okay?

Asmodeus said:
Would you add "Disability" to that list?

If you knew the kid was going to have Downs Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, fragile X, or even conjoined twins?
Click to expand...

I'd do it. My mom told me that's what she would have done, and I agreed with her when she said it.

If someone in my life was raped and impregnated, I would vote they keep their baby, and prove to the world that the best things can come from the worst.
Click to expand...

While the final decision lies with the 'mother', this I can't agree with. You don't have a rape baby as a form of therapy.
If you have the strength to raise a disabled child, then why not have the strength to raise a child of rape or incest? Prove to the world that nurture is stronger than nature, and that sin and evil are in the choices we make and not the seed that was sown?
Click to expand...

Nurture won't overcome genetic diseases. Isn't that projection as well, proving to others that good comes from bad?

The question is quality of life for your kid. Will he need attention his whole life? Is he capable of higher level human pursuits like enjoying literature or philosophizing? Can you provide for the kid in your emotional rape afterstate or are you just using it as a teddy bear?
 
My two cents on the subject. I have always believed it's the woman's choice on whether to have an abortion or not, and I absolutely believe in it if it would cost the mother her life. Given that people are having sex at earlier ages every year, more babies are popping out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing mass abortion just because someone couldn't wrap it up or someone couldn't take a pill (Both parties need to look at the choices.) What I am against, however, are people who try forcing a baby on someone who isn't ready for one in the SLIGHTEST. For instance, let's say someone you know gets raped. (Yes, textbook example, sorry.) She didn't want to be in that situation, but it happened. She might not have been ready for sex in general, but she definitely weren't ready for sex with whatever asshat raped her. Now she's pregnant. At this point, I do believe it's her decision. She was impregnated against her will, and had no choice once it happened. Now you've got these people who make it seem like you HAVE TO KEEP THE BABY OR YOU'RE GOING TO HELL. Those people. The ones who force a baby on someone who is, in no way, ready to raise the baby, and it was done in a way they couldn't escape from. She can't raise the baby on her own. There's a strong possibility the baby's life will be messed up as a result, and it'll affect the mother's life as well. I'm sorry if that sounds offensive, but how can someone seriously go up to someone who's been in that situation and say, "You have to keep the baby or you're a sinner!" I do agree that the mothers who raise children that came out of rape are inspirations, and they prove that nurture can win over nature, but it's not something they should be forced into if it was beyond their control.

If someone's just that brilliant to keep having sex without having their partner wrapping it up or taking a pill, or both, I do treat that rather differently.

Ultimately, however, it IS the woman's choice.
 
unanun said:
Isn't that projection as well, proving to others that good comes from bad?
Click to expand...
Okay, so the reality is that ALL children are victims to the schema and projections of their parents. The more extreme the parent's "reason" for having a child (e.g. to prove something) the more likely the kid will suffer from the force of those expectations.


I fear we may be drifting into another debate here..... should abortion be forced if the parent is a douche who will fuck that kid up? Should there be an IQ test for parents? Should we instate licences for breeding?


Obviously, that's a question for another thread. But I think the point here, made between me and Unanun, is that you can't advocate abortion based on expected quality of life. The most disabled child can have a sublime experience, and the most loving parent can fuck their kid up.

So that takes us back to the 'total inalienable right of the mother to choose'. It seems to be the easiest answer here. But what are we basing this on? That it's HER BODY, so any genetic material inside that body is subject to her own will? What about the father's genetic material? Does he lose all right to that material once it enters the female host?

What about situations when a woman rapes a man? Gets him drunk, harvests his sperm, tells him she's on the pill but lies. The woman may want a baby no matter the cost, or may just be twisted enough to want to fuck up that guy's life by getting pregnant.

Has the father lost all rights in the abortion debate?
 
This may sound odd but this subject brings up an event in something I saw that was more of a fictional setting. Two couples are together in a post apocalyptic world. (i.e. catastrophic disaster, extraterrestrial invasion, zombies, ect.)The world is a hostile place, where suffering and hardship is apart of daily life. Humans struggle to survive and deal with the idea of it may be hopeless. It might be the end for the human race. And the woman becomes impregnated with her partner. She however doesn't want to raise a child in that kind of world, where death is around every corner and where it seems hopeless. She believes it is wrong to try to raise a child in such an environment. The father however wants to raise the child. He believes there is hope and that the child will be able to adapt and grow strong. Would the father not have the right to choose the outcome of "their child?" Who is correct in this situation? Should they not bring a child into this world where it seems hopeless or is it wrong to extinguishes that child's life before it has any potential?
 
... Oh holy crap....

I agree with Asmo, to an extent.

Also, to the "skirting around the issue of taking a human life": Don't you think the potential mother might be thinking of that? Thinking that something is being nurtured in their wombs, but at that time, it just might not be beneficial or even possible to have a baby? Don't you think that for most women, it's a damned gut-wrenching decision? Yes, a human life had started to take root in your body.

For me, I'm going to skirt around the WHOLE damned debate. When I get my little "white-picket fence" idea worked out and in process, I'm going to adopt.

I've started MANY little flamewars on facebook with what I'm going to say next, and I apologize if this might stir something angry in you.

I believe that we should take some kids out of the system before adding to it. There are existing children RIGHT NOW, who already live a life where they might have been shuffled from foster home to foster home, where they might feel dejected by society. There are kids who need homes and families. Kids who, if you let them stay in those situations for too long, they get fucked up in the head. They might have done nothing wrong, maybe it was their parents. You could step in there and try to help them.

They're the ones who have the brains to know that they're being ignored, being swept aside for other more controversial thoughts.

They have thoughts and feelings, they feel pain, both physically and emotionally.

A couple of cells just starting to take root in your body has no thoughts, feels no pain. You might feel a ton of guilt and pressure over it, but it won't.

Fuckingaddoptagoddamnedkidandstopfuckingtalkingabouthowbadabortionisintheearlierstagesofpregnancyforgodssakesuckitupandletwomenmaketheirowngoddamnedchoicesandconsideraddopting.

FUCK.
 
Asmodeus said:
Obviously, that's a question for another thread. But I think the point here, made between me and Unanun, is that you can't advocate abortion based on expected quality of life. The most disabled child can have a sublime experience, and the most loving parent can fuck their kid up.
Click to expand...

You know, from what you've said I'm almost convinced that we should be instating rules for procreation. How many children are born into misery because their parents are not fit to be parents? If you have to take a test to drive a car, why not one to have children?

The most disabled child can have a sublime experience
Click to expand...

I personally will push for abortion in the case that my child is diagnosed in utero with a genetic disease or defect. If the child grows up and needs to have some sort of care taker forever, or has special needs, I just don't think they will be happy.
 
unanun said:
If the child grows up and needs to have some sort of care taker forever, or has special needs, I just don't think they will be happy.
Click to expand...


That's just it. You don't think they will be happy. It isn't something that you know. So why push for something you don't know?
 
Almost posted in this thread earlier today, but got distracted because I mistook an unexpected repairman for a burglar.




WOOOOH..... Dodged a bullet.


Also, sometimes it's just damned inconvenient to be pregnant/a mother. Yeah, I said it. Sometimes a woman gets pregnant and she may have other things that she would rather do with her life, or she's not in the right place emotionally/or financially and she decides to get an abortion.

Take away legal abortion, great. You'll just be instating illegal abortion. Coat hangers, toxic materials, improper use of natural herbs, physical violence to oneself and whatever else a desperate woman can think of. Try to stop a determined woman from ending a pregnancy. You can't. Legal abortion just insures only ONE fatality as opposed to two.

If the United States made abortion illegal, we would be the only first world country to do so. We would also be the only first world country to have the staggering number of illegal abortion fatalities like 'third world' countries do.
 
Celestia O'Malley said:
That's just it. You don't think they will be happy. It isn't something that you know. So why push for something you don't know?
Click to expand...

A baby with down syndrome may never know, indeed. What about the myriad of terminal/fatal genetic disorders? MS? Triploidy? The whole terrifying array of congenital disorders?
 
A baby with a defect is still a baby, and if the parent, mother or father, is trusting in him/herself, it shouldn't matter. Anybody can be happy in the right circumstances, like how anyone can brighten someone's day. Simple as that. I don't agree with the notion of having an abortion just because the child might have a defect. It isn't some insta-damning thing for the child. Will it make their life a bit more complicated/difficult? Yes, of course it will. Will it make their life hopeless and worth stopping to begin with? Not really, no. It's up the parents to HELP the child.
 
You can't help a child out of terminal illness, or something that condemns them to anything worse than constant care for the rest of their life.
 
You're wrong.

The problems one may have do not negate their happiness. It might make it difficult, but it won't destroy it. As long as its parents care and love for them, and they have healthcare that gives them ample support and a few goddamned friends, they'll be fine.

Or they won't. The fact is YOU DON'T KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW.

You can't make a guess and say THIS IS FACT!

Do you know someone with a terminal illness? Do you know someone who has special needs? Not just know OF them, but know them personally.

Even the worst of disorders can sometimes lead to an inspiring story. You know harlequin babies? Their skin hardens and cracks, they usually don't live very long. I can't remember her name, but a woman was one of the few who IS IN COLLEGE NOW, they rarely live past a year at most, last I checked. Sure, she takes a lot of baths and uses a lot of lotion to keep her skin soft, but dammit, she's living her life.
 
It's very easy to determine if you would condemn this fate on your children or not.

Just imagine yourself in their shoes. Would you swap your life with theirs to give them a better life?
 
I would much rather take the chance at helping the child, instead of giving up immediately. It's as simple as that. I am imagining myself in their shoes. If I ever have children with the one I love, and that child has some mental disability, I'd still care for that child. I would treat that child no differently than a child without disabilities, aside from the special needs the child has. And yes, if something went wrong and the child died, of course it'd hurt. That's a given. However, it'd hurt a lot more knowing that I didn't even TRY to help. There are plenty of children born with disabilities, and plenty more who are living successful lives right now. Like TK mentioned, even someone with something as terrible as the harlequin condition has made a positive out of her life.

Like you said, you have to put yourself in that child's shoes. You can't just assume they hate their lives.
 
Bringing the discussion back to whether or not the father has a say in the abortion, because that was a good question. o___o




As for MY opinion, the mother has to carry that baby for 9 months. She has to give up a part of her -physical- self for 9 months in order to carry that baby. D: Until that baby is born or when they can put babies in to men for carrying, I don't personally feel the father can demand the woman to carry the child. He might be just as emotionally invested or even more so. But that 9 months is a LONG TIME for a woman who does not the baby.

I feel that trumps the father's input, as much as that sucks for him.
 
[[TK, Unanun was just contributing to the debate. Please don't jump on him like that.]]


So, if we follow Diana's premise, what we're saying here is that a father loses all rights to protect his genetic material once it's inside a woman. Even if that man was raped (very hard to prove in today's society) or, like the woman, made a mistake. Even if the condom breaks or the vasectomy fails. Once the woman has your seed inside her, she gets full ownership and you lose control of your bloodline.

Does this count as affirmative action on behalf of women? Are men deliberately disempowered because of the "suffering/inconvenience" women will have to endure? Are men being legally punished for their natural sex drives?

This seems like a punitive reversal of tradition. Because authorities have bullied women so much on account of their sexuality, the laws have now hysterically reversed themselves in order to persecute men for their sex-drives instead.


Here's an analogy. Should a burglar be awarded automatic ownership of the things he steals, simply because he suffered physical and psychological trauma while breaking into a house? This is the same as awarding rights based on assumed suffering.

And this is the basis on which most people will say "The father should fuck off and learn to keep his dick in his pants". It is emotive. It is vindictive. A better argument is needed.
 
The father figure will definiitely contribute to the child in the end so he probably should have some say. Although let's go ahead and assume scenarios again. In a case of no consent like rape and such the father has pretty much, by unwritten law, lost all say in the matter of the baby. It is like a proposition where a business can work with another so long as they obey the laws set down by both. One company screws up the other company gets the whole thing. But let's take that in reverse as Asmo suggested should a man that was raped really get the choice of whether or not the woman that raped him keeps the baby? On one hand it was entirely her ill mannered social policies that created this being but what if the father actually wants to take care of it instead of it being another she just aborts?

There needs to be some dividing line and written rule of this but we have none and that is mainly because throughout history men thought that they were the one doing the raping. But as we evolve into the Roman Empire 2.0 we ask ourselves questions we didn't before and because of this unknown we are confused as to what priorities to place on what and when it comes to human life it is a case in the mass of population that is most dire to them they get it right. Fact is these parameters which we want fluctuate on a case by case basis and there is no solid "Oh he gets to choose," or "Oh she gets to choose." Overall the say and the decision ought to be handled just like going into conception. If it was well thought out and planned for then getting out of it will be well thought out and planned, yet, if it is quick like rape then the decision might be quick with no say from one party.

Going back to the Father and what he can say about the situation it comes down to the value of his word. If she trusts him and believes him then the Father has a lot of input but if he is just some random guy she will not listen to him and more than likely do the opposite of what that person wants. However, what if it is one of those situations where either the man or woman want to back out of something thought out and the other doesn't? In that case in today's society it will be what the woman wants due to the legal standards of the medical practice. One cannot force anyone through any procedure and thus if the woman does want the baby and the man does not she will more than likely give birth. If the woman does not want the baby and the man does more than likely the abortion will happen.

Which begs the question of the legality of forced operation. If abortion eventually would be considered a court based scenario what kind of government policies would be in place? Would it be legal to force a woman into abortion if she's a crack addict with no responsibilities and the father does not want the baby born into that world? Would the government have to set up a fund for mothers who wanted to keep their babies but the father's didn't if it is decidedly wrong to abort babies against the mother's will? Those fluctuations approach again and really would be up to a jury to define.
 
I think Pirogeth and Diana really summed up the primary reason why men do not have a say in what happens after conception of the child.

The nature of pregnancy is that women bare all of the responsibilities and risks of carrying the child and giving birth or undergoing a procedure do have the fetus removed. Man's lack of right to decision has very little if anything to do with punishing men for oppressing women in the past. Rather it is meant to preserve the rights which women have fought hard for over the last century. It was not that long ago that both women and children were considered a man's property and part of the reason you will find no north american judge or jury today who would even think about approving a court ordered abortion or carry to term has to do with the fact that the action puts us on a very slippery slope as far as individual rights and liberties go.
 
(I don't think TK was jumping on me :), but thanks)

The father has a say 'unofficially' as the SO of the mother, but you can make a pretty good argument that the mother should have the last say based upon health and biological reasons. She is the one who's life is at risk if something goes wrong.



I still strongly assert that I would push for abortion if my child happens to have some birth defect. You don't have to argue with me on this, just ask yourself: if my child had kerotosis (or anything else, like MS or downs), would I give them my body to let them have a normal life? Do I balk at the thought of taking on their condition? If so, I have bad (or good) news for you ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back