[Unthinking Majority]

Why is it your business?

Because you want a licensed medical professional to kill a human life that you (and your partner) are 100% responsible for creating by your own actions. If you want to remove your arm or leg or nose or ear or left bum cheek, i don't care.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because you want a licensed medical professional to kill a human life that you (and your partner) are 100% responsible for creating by your own actions. If you want to remove your arm or leg or nose or ear or left bum cheek, i don't care.

You seem to have more than one reason here.

Is it the fact that the couple is “responsible” for the fetus that makes it your business?

Or is it the killing?

[Unthinking Majority]

Your metaphors are nonsense. I understand how you want to make abortion look similar to plantations of South and the holocaust. But dude just freaking no, these two topics are humans being inhumans to other humans.

So you're saying a doctor sucking & ripping a living unborn from the uterus and killing it isn't inhuman? What is it then, just a "medical procedure"? Just like taking off a wart!

And abortion is about paying the price of being dumb or broken condoms in life.

An abortion is about premeditated killing of an unborn human life growing inside a woman. I don't want abortions, and I don't want unwanted/abandoned children. What I really want is for people to grow some damn responsibility and not make these problems in the first place, because they're 100% avoidable. If you use the pill, a condom, and the rhythm method there is 99.9999999% chance you will not have a pregnancy.

You can't compare the Germans and the plantation owners to young women whose only mistake was being neive and dumb (which is a trait most of humans have including me and you).

You forgot the killing innocent unborn babies part.

And yes men aren't allowed to have opinion on how a woman treats her own body and pussy pal, that kind of thinking is very very VEEEERY similar to the societies you just mentioned (nazis and plantation owners).

Uhmm no the part that is similar to Nazis is saying you are part of X group therefore you're not allowed to have an opinion. Fascist much?

Plus, girls usually tend to keep it if the guy who planted the seed actually stays with her or at least help her in any way. But 80% of the times we are proven dickheads, irresponsible and selfish bastards.

I agree with u guys can be dicks. But does that justify killing?

Because you seem like a good human, I suggest you try putting yourself in the situation of the others, it will help you a lot actually understanding some realities.
Goodnight lad

I have sex just like everyone else. Times i've had sex: thousands. Times i've caused an unwanted pregnancy: ZERO. Reason: I think with my brain, not just my genitals. With great power comes great responsibility. The greatest power & responsibility anyone can ever have is the ability to create or terminate a human life. I suggest people adulting the fuck up and take it more seriously. Jizzing inside a vagina bareback might feel good for both involved, but it ALSO CREATES HUMAN BEINGS.

[Unthinking Majority]

You seem to have more than one reason here.

Is it the fact that the couple is “responsible” for the fetus that makes it your business?

Or is it the killing?

Killing

[Pants-of-dog]

Killing

Then why did you mention the whole responsibility thing?

Anyway, let us imagine that you have an incredibly rare blood illness. And the only way to save you is to hook you up to your biological father (who, in soap opera style, is not the man who raised you but a complete stranger) and use his organs to clean your blood and keep you alive.

Now, let us assume that your biological father says “no, I do not feel like doing it”, and you die.

Why is it my business?

[XogGyux]

Because you want a licensed medical professional to kill a human life that you (and your partner) are 100% responsible for creating by your own actions. If you want to remove your arm or leg or nose or ear or left bum cheek, i don't care.

As far as I can tell, this kind of statement is merely driven by emotional bullet point rhetoric by the "pro-life" nonsense crowd. And yes, it is nonsense because these people don't really give a shit about life at all, it is more about enforcing their beliefs into other people than to protect life. They don't seem so heartbroken when people get shot, including children by accident. They don't seem so heartbroken when a mother risks her life either (be it a "regular risk pregnancy" or what is becoming more common in this country given obesity and other co-morbidities and artificial fertilization "higher risk pregnancy").

What is human life? Technically a human tumor cell is a human life, a finger is a human life. So the argument cannot be "anything that is alive with human dna". But this is irrelevant ultimately because this is a complete distraction, one aim to take advantage of people's emotional attachments to pictures of babies and toddlers and say "awww" why would someone kill that little baby...
The reality is that this is not that. At the end of the day, even if humans reproduced in such a way that the fetus is just a tiny adult (meaning they speak, they have personality, cognitive ability of an adult, can do algebra, etc) the reality would not change. "Personhood" would not override the right of a mother to terminate a pregnancy.
Imagine the following scenario, Bruce and Clark are in a cave, both of them wear pacemakers and both of them are 100% dependent on the pacemakers to survive. They realize that Clark's pacemaker's battery is about to run out. They have some bio-engineering background and improvise connecting Clark's pacemaker into Bruce's to buy some time. A few days go by, and they are not rescued and Bruce starts to worry that his pacemaker will run out of battery as well, now twice as fast. So during the night, he cuts the cables and Clark dies during that night on his sleep. Did Bruce just commit murder? The reason why he cut it is not important either, he could have cut it simply because Clark does not have the stamina to do long walk during the mornings and Bruce felt anchored to Clark because of the cable connecting them. (BTW in case it is not obvious, do not attempt to "tinker" with pacemakers, they are not designed for this, this is a thought experiment only )
You can make similar arguments with organ donation or even blood/marrow donation. Those things can save lives, and in many cases, it has much lower chances of harming the donor (blood, bone marrow) vs compared to pregnancy. Yet we do not obligate people to do so.
We don't obligate pregnant mothers to stay away from smoking, illegal drugs, LEGAL, prescription-grade drugs even when they can be highly teratogenic (cause malformations) or abortive.
When/if you really consider all the factors, the decision is quite clear, there is no two sides but a single side.
This idea that mothers-to-be or doctors just want to kill because they enjoy it or because they get money out of it some other deranged view is just that, non-sense created to manipulate people. Stay out of controlling other people's bodies.

[Unthinking Majority]

Anyway, let us imagine that you have an incredibly rare blood illness. And the only way to save you is to hook you up to your biological father (who, in soap opera style, is not the man who raised you but a complete stranger) and use his organs to clean your blood and keep you alive.

Now, let us assume that your biological father says “no, I do not feel like doing it”, and you die.

Why is it my business?

You forgot something. Also imagine that it was my father who gave me the rare blood illness by injecting a virus into me while I slept knowing there was good probability it could cause a fatal blood disease. But he didn't do it because he wanted me dead, he did it because he gets wonderful enjoyment when injecting people with needles.

Is it your business now?

Then why did you mention the whole responsibility thing?

Because as I showed above, when someone gets pregnant it's because of a deliberate and wilful act that every couple knows could lead to pregnancy.

[Pants-of-dog]

You forgot something. Also imagine that it was my father who gave me the rare blood illness by injecting a virus into me while I slept knowing there was good probability it could cause a fatal blood disease. But he didn't do it because he wanted me dead, he did it because he gets wonderful enjoyment when injecting people with needles.

Is it your business now?

No, we can ignore this weird and irrelevant addition you want to make.

Is it my business?

Because as I showed above, when someone gets pregnant it's because of a deliberate and wilful act that every couple knows could lead to pregnancy.

You just said the responsibility is not the issue, but the killing is.

Now you want to argue that the responsibility is the issue.

Stop contradicting yourself. You can say both are the problem.

And we can discuss the responsibility angle after we discuss the killing angle.

Now, why is it my business if the person who can save you does not?

[XogGyux]

You forgot something. Also imagine that it was my father who gave me the rare blood illness by injecting a virus into me while I slept knowing there was good probability it could cause a fatal blood disease. But he didn't do it because he wanted me dead, he did it because he gets wonderful enjoyment when injecting people with needles.

Is it your business now?


Because as I showed above, when someone gets pregnant it's because of a deliberate and wilful act that every couple knows could lead to pregnancy.

This is irrelevant.
Unless of course, you want to use the delivery of a fetus/baby as some sort of punishment for "irresponsible mothers" that failed to use protection (and this does not even take into account that pregnancies can still occur while practicing protected sex and that some abortions are not just because "got pregnant by mistake" many abortions occur because of some sort of health issues arising with either the fetus or the mother). Not only this is completely irresponsible not only to the mother but also to the fetus . Think about it, what kind of life does a child born to an irresponsible teen-ager mom that does not want that kid has?
Furthermore, what is your "punishment" for the equally irresponsible dad. Do you think it is a good idea to make all those "dads" get surgery and put a 9lbs rock inside their belly, make them carry the rock for about 9 months and then have a second surgery to remove it just to "teach them a lesson"?

Deep down, like I said, the motivation is not some sort of pure "I love live" belief, deep down what you guys want is to punish people for sex. You live in a culture that for generations have been ashamed of sex, have stigmatized all kind of sex acts and an unwanted pregnancy in your eyes is a consequence of wild unadulterated sex for enjoyment and this does not fit your pre-conceptions that sex is a shameful act. Therefore it has to be punished with a term pregnancy and raising of a kid.

[snapdragon]

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

It is not murder or homicide or any other legal term which only pertain to born people.

Most abortions are spontaneous.

Something goes wrong with the pregnancy resulting in the developing human entity being expelled from the person's uterus.

Other times, the person undergoes medical intervention to end an unwanted pregnancy for private reasons that are nobody else's business but their own, and the people they choose to involve.

People with a uterus have birth control choices that those who don't can't have.

they always have and they always will.

It's my opinion they ought to have legal right to exercise that choice safely.

Nobody should have part of their body controlled by anyone else.

[Hellas me ponas]

I have talked to enough women in my life and I can say that if a woman likes the man who got her pregnant? 9 times out of 10 keeping the baby is a certainty.

She doesn't like him? She thinks he is an asshole? And she feels unsupported? She will seriously consider not having the child.

In the end though? Abortion and losing the babies is HARD as hell for women. Extremely hard.

Yes, exactly! And by calling them murderers we only make their situation worse. That's my point

[Unthinking Majority]

You just said the responsibility is not the issue, but the killing is.

Now you want to argue that the responsibility is the issue.

Stop contradicting yourself. You can say both are the problem.

Both combine to form the issue. That's why i say in cases of rape abortion can be allowed, because the woman never had informed consent to the sex.

[Unthinking Majority]

This is irrelevant.
Unless of course, you want to use the delivery of a fetus/baby as some sort of punishment for "irresponsible mothers" that failed to use protection

No, i just don't want to punish the unborn because of irresponsible parents.

(and this does not even take into account that pregnancies can still occur while practicing protected sex and that some abortions are not just because "got pregnant by mistake" many abortions occur because of some sort of health issues arising with either the fetus or the mother).

It seems ethical that abortions should be allowed if the life/health of the mother is in danger.

Think about it, what kind of life does a child born to an irresponsible teen-ager mom that does not want that kid has?

So the answer is to kill the unborn child? Poverty is such a bad thing it should allow for killing?

So if your mom had you as a teenager out wedlock you'd be cool if she killed you while in utero? I think not.

Deep down, like I said, the motivation is not some sort of pure "I love live" belief, deep down what you guys want is to punish people for sex. You live in a culture that for generations have been ashamed of sex, have stigmatized all kind of sex acts and an unwanted pregnancy in your eyes is a consequence of wild unadulterated sex for enjoyment and this does not fit your pre-conceptions that sex is a shameful act. Therefore it has to be punished with a term pregnancy and raising of a kid.

All of your assumptions of me are completely wrong. I'm not religious in any way, nor a prude. I grew up in a pro-choice culture, a sexually liberated culture. I'm cool with any kind of sexual activity 2 consenting adults want to engage in. Just use the proper precautions and accept the risks. I was pro-choice most of my life because that's what was brainwashed into my head from an early age by the media and everyone around me. Then I actually thought about it for myself.

[Unthinking Majority]

As far as I can tell, this kind of statement is merely driven by emotional bullet point rhetoric by the "pro-life" nonsense crowd. And yes, it is nonsense because these people don't really give a shit about life at all, it is more about enforcing their beliefs into other people than to protect life. They don't seem so heartbroken when people get shot, including children by accident. They don't seem so heartbroken when a mother risks her life either (be it a "regular risk pregnancy" or what is becoming more common in this country given obesity and other co-morbidities and artificial fertilization "higher risk pregnancy").

I'm not these people. I'm not a religious conservative type.

And what you said is like me saying pro-choice people pretend to care about human rights until it interferes with their ability to have sex without consequences.

The reality is that this is not that. At the end of the day, even if humans reproduced in such a way that the fetus is just a tiny adult (meaning they speak, they have personality, cognitive ability of an adult, can do algebra, etc) the reality would not change. "Personhood" would not override the right of a mother to terminate a pregnancy.

So you think it's ethical to create adults and then then kill them? And do this 40-50 million times per year as is the global number of annual abortion? That's literally worse than Hitler.

We don't obligate pregnant mothers to stay away from smoking, illegal drugs,

We should. It's abuse.

This idea that mothers-to-be or doctors just want to kill because they enjoy it or because they get money out of it some other deranged view is just that, non-sense created to manipulate people.

I never argued that.

[XogGyux]

No, i just don't want to punish the unborn because of irresponsible parents.

Actually in the context of what I said I meant you wanted to punish the mother-to-be (and I sarcastically hinted punish the father-to-be as well). Technically speaking you would also be punishing the fetus/baby if allowed to be born to a mother that does not want/ is not ready/etc but that was not the main point I was making.
Either way, forcing a mother to go to term and deliver to punish anyone (mother, baby, father, anyone) is just cruel and flat out wrong in so many ways.

It seems ethical that abortions should be allowed if the life/health of the mother is in danger.

So you are not opposed to abortion per se... you just want it to be very very hard as so that it serves as a deterrent to people, a sort of punishment?
You don't seem to realize but this statement opens a pandora's box.
For instance, if it is not clear in a set of rule of what constitutes "high risk" this would allow for doctors/patients to make the decision of what is high risk. Traditional risks factors include young vs old age (less than 18y or more than 35), any sort of pre-existing co-morbidities (HTN, DM, HLD, CKD, etc), overweight/obesity and many others, history of miscarriage, etc. Just by having the age and weight alone, you could justify a great deal of those "ethical abortions" as you call it. And even if you find the perfect 25 year old healthy woman that is seeking for an abortion, the doctor can casually mention "it is a shame you are so healthy I cannot perform an abortion because it is not high risk, if only you had a history of prior complications or family history of terrible diseases/malformations in the fetus that would change everything" and wink, and voila all of the sudden the patient remembers that a great great grandmother gave birth to a child so misshapen that was confused with a chupacabra and quickly died.
So no, you would have to actually legislate exactly what qualifies and what does not... and you get into the messy situation of non-health profesionals dictating how health profesionals should best take care of their patients. Not to mention, that evidence evolves, if in 5 years we find out that gummy bears are teratogenic then we have a stupid law that does not allow for abortions due to gummy bears because the people that passed the law 20 years ago didn't have the information....

I explained all that just as a matter of having a thought experiment but I told you already. This is not the strongest argument in favor of allowing abortion.
Plain and simple, if I cannot force anyone to donate blood, a kidney, bone marrow, part of their liver, skin for skin grafts, hair, etc how can you possibly argue that you can force a woman to use her body as an incubator. Wether or not she was irresponsible or not is completely irrelevant and I can prove it. Imagine you have John and Clark. They are friends. Clark is a bit of a trouble maker, he likes to party "hard" and he uses some drugs. Imagine that he and John go to a party and Clark encourages John to try some heroin. John does it, but gets infected with a bacteria that goes to his heart (endocarditis) and during his treatment with strong antibiotics, he has interstitial nephritis and his kidneys fail. It is clear that Clark was irresponsible... should we force Clark to give one of his kidneys to John?

So the answer is to kill the unborn child? Poverty is such a bad thing it should allow for killing?

You are not paying attention. You dont kill an "unborn child" because of economics. Plain and simple the reason why a pregnancy is terminated is when and if the mother decides she no longer wants to carry out a pregnancy to term. It is a termination of a pregnancy. The "death" of the "fetus" is just a by-product, a consequence of the termination of the pregnancy because the fetus is by all intents and purposes, a parasite. Unable to survive when disconnected from the mother.

So if your mom had you as a teenager out wedlock you'd be cool if she killed you while in utero? I think not.

You realize this is nonsense right? If I am not born, I cannot be mad or have an opinion, I do not exist....
Furthermore, you seem to be obsessed with the "wedlock" aspect of all of this... I wonder why .

All of your assumptions of me are completely wrong. I'm not religious in any way, nor a prude. I grew up in a pro-choice culture, a sexually liberated culture. I'm cool with any kind of sexual activity 2 consenting adults want to engage in. Just use the proper precautions and accept the risks. I was pro-choice most of my life because that's what was brainwashed into my head from an early age by the media and everyone around me. Then I actually thought about it for myself.

Maybe so, you seem to be OK with abortion in many cases (rape/high-risk for instance) at least you claim to be.
If your argument is that abortion should not be promoted as a "anti-conceptive" method, I totally agree with you and I'd bet most doctors, including those that perform abortions, would agree as well. But I'd argue that you would be far more successful with education and preventative health (actual anti-conceptive methods and/or safe sex practices) that you would if you try to legislate what a woman can be forced to do with her body.
Ok, since you thought about it... what exactly convinced of being against abortion?

[Pants-of-dog]

Both combine to form the issue. That's why i say in cases of rape abortion can be allowed, because the woman never had informed consent to the sex.

If the killing is acceptable when it is not the pregnant person’s responsibility, then the issue is responsibility.

Let us look at another example where the person seeking medical attention is partly responsible for being injured: a traffic accident. Do we or should we deny medical treatment to those who are partly responsible for their injuries?

[Godstud]

You are bashing your head against a wall, @Pants-of-dog. You are going against a belief, and nothing rational that you can discuss or debate.

[Pants-of-dog]

I enjoy the right to use the illogical stance of others to illuminate why laws banning abortion are ridiculous.

[Unthinking Majority]

If the killing is acceptable when it is not the pregnant person’s responsibility, then the issue is responsibility.

Let us look at another example where the person seeking medical attention is partly responsible for being injured: a traffic accident. Do we or should we deny medical treatment to those who are partly responsible for their injuries?

A woman and man are both fully responsible for the pregnancy. A woman (and man) has 100% consent if they choose to have sex, and know prior to intercourse the protection being used. Otherwise, it's rape. A woman consents to have a penis go into her, and if the man refuses to wear a condom etc she has full power to reject sex. If she doesn't, it's rape. If she tells a man not to cum in her and he does, it's rape.

Your analogy isn't at all parallel to abortion.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

Can you think of any other situation where someone is denied medical treatment because they are (even wholly) responsible for their injuries or illness?

Yes or no?

If the answer is yes, please describe it so that we can see if the analogy is “parallel to abortion”.

If the answer is no, then please explain why responsibility is relevant at all.