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

I was going to steer clear of this thread until I saw some stuff that felt less than friendly.

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...

All I'd like to say is that you don't know either.

So why push on him your thoughts just cause he said what he thinks? For a thread all about choice/ having a say your words got derisive awful fast when his way of looking at it did not match yours.

And I think that is unwarranted.






Hydronine said:
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!
Click to expand...

I'm just going to toss in a few thoughts on that train of thought & then surf on outta here:

1. With everyone trying to stay civil in here as best as they can, it's rude to just outright say "You're wrong." to someone.

2. The unborn kid you're defending so valiantly might end up miserable if they end up without all of those three requirements you had. Even one out of the three with just loving parents might not be enough. Or just Healthcare. Or just friends. But let's just go with at least having loving parents for the sake of optimism. Healthcare giving ample support and a few friends? Given the state of the world today, depending on where that kid is born, is asking a lot. As optimistic as I'd like to be the truth is that the right circumstances do not come together for every last child born with a congenital/ genetic defect.

3. You're right. You don't know either.

4. I never noticed him saying his thoughts were facts.






ON A SIDE NOTE. . .

Asmodeus said:
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.
Click to expand...


I hope to God I never run into that type of woman. Ultimate baby crazy. That's just terrifying. o_o;;;
 
Personally I'm waiting for the day parents can be aborted.

"Mom, Dad, there's a lot I want to do with my life and you're just holding me back."

"Mom, Dad, I don't think that the quality of your life warrants your continuing to live."

"You're not the ones I wanted."

just kidding, i'm batman


Also, it can't be a rape baby unless it's a LEGITIMATE RAPE baby. Cuz if it was legitimate, y'know, the woman's body has a way to shut that whole thing down.


Double Also, if people are so worried about people abusing the choice to have an abortion, after the first time around just remove the option of a sterile clinic visit and make it a shove down a long flight of stairs. THAT'LL keep her from opening her legs again.
 
Being a catholic, I'm against abortion.

But I am not going to argue using the bible or dogma.

I would just like to point out that abortion, as opposed to contraception, is just the same as murder. (On a side note: I do not like the idea of contraception, but I can find nothing reasonably - meaning from an ethical/real-world/material standpoint - wrong with it) You really have many options to avoid abortion, and as Asmodeus says, you are directly denying someone else's right to live.

Many people would argue that 'oh but humans already deny people the right to live' yadda yadda. In my mind, the 'fighting back' part for the right to live is what makes the existence of soldiers better/more tolerable than murderers, and why they are more acceptable. That baby doesn't even have a chance to fight back, and it's opposing it's own mother and a doctor.

We condemn the nazis for killing jews en masse, who couldn't fight back against their rule. We condemn the early soviet union for their armed purging of thousands of their own citizens who couldn't fight back against the majority. We lock up criminals for assault, for murder, for rape against victims who could not fight back.

Why must the same be acceptable?

That is why I abhor the idea completely. It's not about choice, it's about decency and humanity.

I believe that humans deserve a right to die on their own terms, or at least fighting for their own terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
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.
Click to expand...

What is this I don't even. I certainly hope that doesn't become a reality. It's a scary thought.

Giving the government and jury the right to dictate what mothers have the right to a child and which don't, the right of which can be easily abused...MUCH easier abused than we would care to think. Do we really have such faith in the government to trust them with that decision, to define protocol in a forced abortion? Do you really think that all of them are genuinely kind people who would chose to do the right thing? The same goes for a corrupt judge or jury brainwashed by popular opinion.

Hitler would have loved to have decided who should have babies and who should not, in fact, pregnancy in certain women was pushed (you are a fit, healthy, white woman, so you should have lots of children!) while pregnancy/children of other women was frowned upon (the sterilization of Jewish women as an example).

I thought it was my body. I thought I had a right to do what I wanted with my body....? I hope that right is not taken away from me. : )

(sorry I'm tired, I shouldn't be speaking xD )
 
So. In summation:

BODY AUTONOMY, ASSHOLES.

EDIT:Me and some other folk very pointedly avoided posting in this particular thread. So I'mma take full-ass responsibility in confessing that I ain't good at not poking my nose into some shit when I know ain't nothin' doin' about it. But, y'know, I haven't gotten so old where I don't feel that need. That need to come correct to the mass effect onna population ready to defect 'cause that disconnect be gnawin' at they necks. And prose aside, since everyone's openin' up their buttholes and dispensing their two cents then goddamn why the fuck not me too?

Get ready. The storm is coming.*

*lololololol melodrama.
(I promise I won't troll Diana... but ain't promising I won't turn on the snark.)
 
For me i dont really like abortion because the female in question may have been a victim or was careless but, the real victim would be the child. It is kinda unfair to the child that it gets killed for the mistake or incident that brought it to being. what did the child ever do the only connection the child has to the incident is the incident brought it to being any more than that the child is innocent and should not be blamed for the mistakes or situation that caused the child to be born. but if necessary such as the child is dead in the womb and other medical things(since i am not sure what type of medical situation would merit use of abortion as a necessity) which may apply to it then i am okay with abortion.
 
Kooriryu said:
(I promise I won't troll Diana... but ain't promising I won't turn on the snark.)
Click to expand...
Could you also promise to type in recognisable English without unnecessary apostrophes? :)


Ekaetriana said:
I thought it was my body. I thought I had a right to do what I wanted with my body....? I hope that right is not taken away from me. : )
Click to expand...
I would argue it already has been. If you commit a crime, your body belongs to the government. If you join the army, your body belongs to the government. When the President invades a nuclear-capable foreign country, it is taking responsibility for the destruction of your body. When the authorities raise taxes, ration food, distribute medicine, cut jobs, stop you on the freeway or ask for your ID, they are dictating the limits of your bodily freedom.

This is part of everyday life and the social contract of modern civilisation. Sometimes the invasion of your rights reaches to the most intimate level. Just because the baby is in your va-jay-jay doesn't mean it is any more beyond the reach of the law than, say, your blood when you get breathalised, your urine when you get drugs-tested or your brain when you get schooled.

Sure, these things can be avoided. But if you want to stay in mainstream society, you have to sacrifice rights, including the rights to a child if that child will be detrimental.

And yes, the government or a jury of peers should decide if that child will be detrimental. Saying "You don't know how much of a burden my child will be, so you can't make that decision" is the same as saying "You don't know that this paedophile will rape again, so we best send him back to his family."

Lines need to be drawn and decisions need to be made on behalf of the public good. The "sacred bond between mother and child" is just not good enough a reason for circumventing public well-being.


[Trust me, I'd rather it was the other way around. I'm currently in America waiting for a Green Card and might very well be deported and separated from my wife if the government wills it. I love her beyond words, but if the government thinks I'm going to be a drain on the public, then I'll have to accept their decision. My marriage could well be... aborted... :o]
 
The problem, though, with government and peers deciding on what the "right" thing to do is that.... well... sometimes they're dictated by batshit crazy laws/morals/misinformation/society standards that can be even more harmful than the "crime" they are trying to prevent.

For example, back in them oldie days where people believed witches could do crazy shit. A village of terrified people go putting someone to death for being a witch. Back then they 100% believed they were doing the right thing... but now? We know better.

Or laws and society standards where men were allowed to beat their wives, because wives were pretty much their property? We don't do that any more because society knows better!

So think about present date law, morals, belief and education. How far is too far when dictating the course of someone's body and their life? Do we punish a woman that gets pregnant the same way we punish criminals? By forcing her to have or not to have a baby? Based on what? Our current society's expectations? Our personal religion?

Even if you take a good hard look at that woman's life, you're going always going to come back to personal opinion. Whether or not abortion is killing a legitimately living human being.

And THAT is going to always be the vicious debate between science and personal belief.

...With that in mind, I say err on the side of a -proven- living human being's rights and keep CHOICE!
 
i dont think i have a right to say anything since i cant have kids but i will just say that i dont think it should be used for people that just dont want kids or arent ready and should only be used if rape or the mothers life is in danger or health reasons and then the woman the her doctor should have a long talk.

im against it at all costs but i think that it might be because i cant have a baby of my own and that makes me mad to think that someone would give up something as precious as a child.
i know i sorta dont have a right to talk here but i will just sorta throw this out.
 
This is a tough situation for me, because I have met people that use abortion the wrong way and I don't agree with it in the slightest. It isn't supposed to be an every-couple-month alternative to contraceptives. All morals aside, it's not physically healthy, for starters.

However, I do not believe that someone should be forced to carry a child, especially if something traumatic has happened to them. I do believe in things such as extenuating medical circumstances where the mother might die for carrying the child, rape, and things of that nature are legitimate causes. For these causes, it is hard to draw a line between whether or not someone qualifies.

In the black and white nature of "legal abortion for all" and "legal abortion for no one", I lean toward legal abortion for all, despite the ramifications involving women who use abortion like a particularly expensive contraceptive.
 
nightingale said:
i know i sorta dont have a right to talk here but i will just sorta throw this out.
Click to expand...
Yes Nightingale. Please be quiet and let the men continue debating this in peace.


Sea Queen Kittiana said:
like a particularly expensive contraceptive.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen in America, getting hold of the pill is pretty time-consuming and expensive too. And if you have a latex allergy you're pretty much fucked. And no one's even mentioning the score on the Male Pill. It seems like the only 'non-expensive contraceptives' are those that are so awkward that you lose your erection/moistness by the time you've got them out of the fucking packaging.

*punches a condom*


Personally, I think it's barbaric to not have something that enables BOTH the man and woman to feel each other properly, flesh-to-flesh, and enjoy the experience without unwanted pregnancy. It's no wonder some girls choose abortion.
 
For men there are some contraceptives in that are supposed to be released soon that have been cheap, effective, and relatively painless at least in other countries, as well as being reversible and long-term.

For women, from what I have seen at least of the area in which I live, the pill can be dispensed with relative ease from Planned Parenthood. It's not particularly expensive and only requires going in once a year for an exam.
 
Sea Queen Kittiana said:
For men there are some contraceptives in that are supposed to be released soon that have been cheap, effective, and relatively painless at least in other countries, as well as being reversible and long-term.

For women, from what I have seen at least of the area in which I live, the pill can be dispensed with relative ease from Planned Parenthood. It's not particularly expensive and only requires going in once a year for an exam.
Click to expand...
plus if you do fuck up you can get them over the counter at 16 ((right?)) without a parent...
 
Asmodeus said:
I would argue it already has been. If you commit a crime, your body belongs to the government. If you join the army, your body belongs to the government. When the President invades a nuclear-capable foreign country, it is taking responsibility for the destruction of your body. When the authorities raise taxes, ration food, distribute medicine, cut jobs, stop you on the freeway or ask for your ID, they are dictating the limits of your bodily freedom.

This is part of everyday life and the social contract of modern civilisation. Sometimes the invasion of your rights reaches to the most intimate level. Just because the baby is in your va-jay-jay doesn't mean it is any more beyond the reach of the law than, say, your blood when you get breathalised, your urine when you get drugs-tested or your brain when you get schooled.

Sure, these things can be avoided. But if you want to stay in mainstream society, you have to sacrifice rights, including the rights to a child if that child will be detrimental.

And yes, the government or a jury of peers should decide if that child will be detrimental. Saying "You don't know how much of a burden my child will be, so you can't make that decision" is the same as saying "You don't know that this paedophile will rape again, so we best send him back to his family."

Lines need to be drawn and decisions need to be made on behalf of the public good. The "sacred bond between mother and child" is just not good enough a reason for circumventing public well-being.


[Trust me, I'd rather it was the other way around. I'm currently in America waiting for a Green Card and might very well be deported and separated from my wife if the government wills it. I love her beyond words, but if the government thinks I'm going to be a drain on the public, then I'll have to accept their decision. My marriage could well be... aborted... :o]
Click to expand...


Thanks for the logical argument. I understand.

I agree that some people just shouldn't be allowed to raise kids, but mainly in the cases of criminals, or parents who would clearly be abusive. A child raised by abusive parents or parents with a criminal past certainly does not mean they will be detrimental, though it is likely. If I was in charge of these cases, which I am not, things would go a lot differently. If she was pregnant I would work to save the baby and give it a better, more constructive home after birth. We all have individual personalities. We are not all like our parents. A child of a murderer is not necessarily going to be a murderer. It can be less or more unlikely depending on how they are raised and their thinking type.

I agree with you also on the point that sometimes we just have to do what we are told and accept that we don't have control.

My issue is what Diana pointed out, that others can twist or abuse such a law.

Not to mention what she also said: CHOICE.

I can CHOOSE to get an abortion if I want.

But I can also CHOOSE to raise a child if I want.

Anything else just seems incredibly unfair unless I am an unfit mother. I can't count on the government to decide whether I am fit or unfit. For all I'd know they would take things that don't matter into account like my race and my career (people with low incomes are fully capable of raising a happy child). We already have a system that takes children away from unfit parents. But it is a horrible one. Sometimes it is abused, children are taken away from truly loving parents, and other times it isn't used...an abusive parent gets away with it.

I don't really HAVE an argument for or against this, I just am personally against such a regulation. Unfortunately, it could be forced upon us at any time. Like you said, mainstream society sacrifices a lot of rights. :/
 
An alternative solution is to require a rudimentary certificate of parenting to access government services. This will not infringe on personal liberty.
 
That seems like a fair solution.

Though would you still be arrested for child abuse? Neglect? Or would you be so off the radar that no-one would notice?...The government doesn't care about your children because you do not have a certificate?
 
That boomerangs back to the question of liberty. Are people allowed to do what they want with no gov. interference - the freedom to be bad parents and have children who will be miserable, or should the gov. attempt to make 'happy families'?
 
And that's why I don't like these sort of debates. I can't change anything. There's nothing I can do about it except have an opinion. : /

There are already laws defining what we can and cannot do, whether we are on the radar or not, and child abuse is a thing to be arrested for regardless. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. That's why laws and regulations are so complicated, and "rules and regulations" take up entire classes in colleges. Because it's more complicated than one way or another, for example "you are not allowed to do x, except under y circumstances or when z is present."

Admittedly, it would be easier to have it one way or another. But it rarely is so easy.
 
I knew this thread was going to be interesting (read: controversial) the moment I saw it. However, I guess I might as well put my thoughts in here. I'm not going to go on ad nauseam about them because this is the kind of polarizing debate that doesn't often change minds, but here you go.

A woman's body is hers. No one else's, and no one should have the right to dictate what she does with it. When a woman gets pregnant, she has to deal with being pregnant since it's within her body. If she doesn't want that in her body, no one should be able to force her to keep it for any reason. I'm sorry about the fetus, truly, but it must always be her choice. Most anti-choice people seem to forget that the woman herself is a human being with human rights, and among them is the right to choose whether to go through pregnancy and all the risks associated with it.

As to reasons, there certainly are some reasons for abortion that I find morally repugnant. However, I do not believe that the choice is mine to make or the judgment mine to give. The era of its being socially acceptable to force women to do unwanted things with their bodies should be over, whether that's rape or forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child.

Also, my two cents on control of procreation rights is that it's ridiculous, immoral, and easy to exploit for racist, sexist, ableist and many other purposes.
 
Just to question/clarify your belief there, Petitia: how do you feel about certain religious extremists like Jehovah's Witnesses, who object to all forms of medical treatment?


What if a pregnant woman is endangering her child by refusing treatment? Does the "Outside World" then have the right to interfere with that woman's body? And what if it's more than a foetus? What if it's a fully developed infant that needs to be delivered via C-section? Or a toddler that needs certain medication?

Does your belief in a woman's body sovereignty extend to the trumping of one person's human rights by another's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back