How do you feel about abortion?

[FAST6191]

It may not violate the right, but you cannot change biology. If you have 99% chance of pregnancy risk, and don't want children, then people should be looking for something else and more productive things to do with their time.

Are you sure? The very primary purpose of sex is reproduction, without it, you wouldn't even be on alive and on this forum. Pleasure from sex is not a primary function, it is more of a reward system then anything else.

Riding my skateboard I am fairly confident in saying carries a 100% chance of getting cut and bruised, possibly some broken bones and more besides. Frequently fatal even a century ago, today a minor inconvenience and thus I have a fun activity. Might there be a parallel here?

What is/who gets to define a primary purpose and might it have changed in the modern world? Why not skip the function and take the reward?

On a different note it seems artificial wombs are further along than I thought
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...elps-premature-lamb-fetuses-grow-for-4-weeks/
The creating life from base chemicals was viruses and bacteria which is certainly fascinating but I can see where people have a logical disconnect. The above is complex mammalian life and in some of the stories they reckon human trials might only be a few years out.

 

[Lacius]

It may not violate the right, but you cannot change biology. If you have 99% chance of pregnancy risk, and don't want children, then people should be looking for something else and more productive things to do with their time.

You mean they should find something more productive but less re-productive?

But seriously, my point was that, regardless of the odds of an accidental pregnancy, sex is not consent to be pregnant, and nothing about the odds nor the possible consequences of one's actions changes that.

So what happens when said strategy fails?

I'm not sure what your point here is. A person with syphilis, for example, has a right to healthcare and treatment options, regardless of whether or not it's a drug-resistant strain of syphilis.

Are you sure? The very primary purpose of sex is reproduction, without it, you wouldn't even be on alive and on this forum. Pleasure from sex is not a primary function, it is more of a reward system then anything else.

For some people, the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. For most people, however, the primary purpose of sex is social bonding, pleasure, etc.—in other words, non-reproductive purposes. If you want to look at human sex as a whole on this planet, 99.999% of the sex we're having is for non-reproductive purposes, so that's why I confidently said the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. You need only look at infertile couples, elderly couples, gay couples, etc. to see that the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. The fact that I wouldn't be here if it weren't for sex that resulted in reproduction is irrelevant to sex's primary purpose.

Honestly, the conversation about the purpose of sex can and should end here, since a thing only has as much purpose as we subjectively give it. However, if you want to talk about the evolution of sex in humans, it should be noted that the evolution of sex in humans happened in conjunction with our evolution to become social animals. Sex is an important part of that social bonding. It's pleasurable, it causes the brain to do all sorts of things related to social bonding, and human women specifically evolved the ability to have sex even when they're infertile or already pregnant. A person who says the primary purpose of sex is reproduction probably isn't doing it right.

 

[RandomUser]

Riding my skateboard I am fairly confident in saying carries a 100% chance of getting cut and bruised, possibly some broken bones and more besides. Frequently fatal even a century ago, today a minor inconvenience and thus I have a fun activity. Might there be a parallel here?

What is/who gets to define a primary purpose and might it have changed in the modern world? Why not skip the function and take the reward?

On a different note it seems artificial wombs are further along than I thought
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...elps-premature-lamb-fetuses-grow-for-4-weeks/
The creating life from base chemicals was viruses and bacteria which is certainly fascinating but I can see where people have a logical disconnect. The above is complex mammalian life and in some of the stories they reckon human trials might only be a few years out.

The issue you're describing is different from the issue at hand. What you're describing is often self inflicted and generally does not end life, especially in modern time. The fetus in this case doesn't have a choice and relies on the mother to make a choice for it. Ending life should not be an option regardless of how it came to be. This abortion fiasco allows one to not have to take consequences regardless of the outcome. People are just simply looking for the easiest way out (not that I can blame them), instead of facing the music.
Except where abortion should only be carried out if in a life and death situation and rape as well, as it was forced upon the women.
It is a step in the right direction for artificial womb, and probably be good for women whom have lots of miscarriage via natural way, or am I missing something here?

You mean they should find something more productive but less re-productive?

But seriously, my point was that, regardless of the odds of an accidental pregnancy, sex is not consent to be pregnant, and nothing about the odds nor the possible consequences of one's actions changes that.

I see what you did their
That's true, yet people keeps saying it's a ok to keep on doing it.

I'm not sure what your point here is. A person with syphilis, for example, has a right to healthcare and treatment options, regardless of whether or not it's a drug-resistant strain of syphilis.

I didn't imply that nobody has no right to treatment options, they them self can decide for themselves. The fetus or the baby cannot decide. It is like saying it is okay to kill your child because he/she is sick, just because you didn't want to foot the co-pay or whatever.
If the anti-pregnancy countermeasure strategy fails, oh lets just kill it mentality.

For some people, the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. For most people, however, the primary purpose of sex is social bonding, pleasure, etc.—in other words, non-reproductive purposes. If you want to look at human sex as a whole on this planet, 99.999% of the sex we're having is for non-reproductive purposes, so that's why I confidently said the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. You need only look at infertile couples, elderly couples, gay couples, etc. to see that the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. The fact that I wouldn't be here if it weren't for sex that resulted in reproduction is irrelevant to sex's primary purpose.

Honestly, the conversation about the purpose of sex can and should end here, since a thing only has as much purpose as we subjectively give it. However, if you want to talk about the evolution of sex in humans, it should be noted that the evolution of sex in humans happened in conjunction with our evolution to become social animals. Sex is an important part of that social bonding. It's pleasurable, it causes the brain to do all sorts of things related to social bonding, and human women specifically evolved the ability to have sex even when they're infertile or already pregnant. A person who says the primary purpose of sex is reproduction probably isn't doing it right.

I supposed I didn't look at it as a whole. Didn't think about the infertile couples among others. So you may have a point.

 

[Lacius]

I didn't imply that nobody has no right to treatment options, they them self can decide for themselves. The fetus or the baby cannot decide. It is like saying it is okay to kill your child because he/she is sick, just because you didn't want to foot the co-pay or whatever.
If the anti-pregnancy countermeasure strategy fails, oh lets just kill it mentality.

The difference is a child is a person, and a fetus is not a person.

If we ignore that difference for a moment, it also doesn't matter. If a person needed to latch onto you physically and share your blood flow for 9.5 months in order to survive, the fact that it's a person still wouldn't violate one's right to bodily autonomy. You have the legal right to say no, even if it means that person will die.

 

[gameboy]

 

[the_randomizer]

Really want my opinion? Fine, not holding back:

- If you've been raped and need to go through healing, therapy and adoption isn't an option, then by all means. That's understandable.
- If people are getting knocked up for the fun of it, and then decide to avoid all responsibilities of raising a child, either wear a condom/take birth control, etc. Don't take the coward's way out if you've been messing around and are trying to avoid all forms of responsibility of raising a newborn. Yeah, not sorry.

There, I said it.

 

[OctolingRift]

We are way too overpopulated as it is, we can definitely afford to loose unborn babies. I don't normally stand with type of stuff but in this case I stand with abortion as we need to keep the population under control. I AM however against 3rd term abortion.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I don't care weather you are for or against, that's just my opinion on the matter

 

[RandomUser]

The difference is a child is a person, and a fetus is not a person.

If we ignore that difference for a moment, it also doesn't matter. If a person needed to latch onto you physically and share your blood flow for 9.5 months in order to survive, the fact that it's a person still wouldn't violate one's right to bodily autonomy. You have the legal right to say no, even if it means that person will die.

This I just cannot agree with, you are condoning outright murder. I'm not going to judge you, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Really want my opinion? Fine, not holding back:

- If you've been raped and need to go through healing, therapy and adoption isn't an option, then by all means. That's understandable.
- If people are getting knocked up for the fun of it, and then decide to avoid all responsibilities of raising a child, either wear a condom/take birth control, etc. Don't take the coward's way out if you've been messing around and are trying to avoid all forms of responsibility of raising a newborn. Yeah, not sorry.

There, I said it.

This person gets it. This is the point I have been trying to get across.
However I do like to add that even if pregnancy happens even with condom/drugs, then the responsibility should still rest on the people engaging in such activity. After all a risk is a risk, there is always the bad and the good. You can't have one without the other.

 

[the_randomizer]

This I just cannot agree with, you are condoning outright murder. I'm not going to judge you, you have your opinion and I have mine.


This person gets it. This is the point I have been trying to get across.
However I do like to add that even if pregnancy happens even with condom/drugs, then the responsibility should still rest on the people engaging in such activity. After all a risk is a risk, there is always the bad and the good. You can't have one without the other.

I didn't want to say that because people would say "well why should the rape victim be responsible for caring for the child?" I can smell that a mile away, but yeah, I'm not a fan of abortion, I don't care what people say about my opinion, I'm just done caring.

 

[Paulsar99]

Abortion is murder. It's not the kids fault why he/she had shitty parents who doesn't want to raise him. Why does the baby have to die for that?

 

[DaFixer]

I think it's good for some reason, some poeple are not made to have/get children. I see this alot when I was working in a workplace for disable poeple.
I have seen that some off my old co workers get chrilderen and they can't take care off it, and then there is another child's life fuckt up.
Last time I was at a food seller, I saw 2 teens (about +/-15 years old) having a baby....

And I know alot off those disable poeple they are forced to do a sterilization operation, that is a better option then do a abortion.

 

[FAST6191]

This I just cannot agree with, you are condoning outright murder. I'm not going to judge you, you have your opinion and I have mine.

By that logic I could be compelled to give up a kidney, slice of my liver, my blood, slice of my skin... any number of organs or slices thereof where I could still function just fine/regrow what was lost.

Volunteer such a thing by all means but I would not care to live in a society where it could be compelled.

"but ending a life"
I am yet to see why I should call it life in that sense.

 

[RandomUser]

By that logic I could be compelled to give up a kidney, slice of my liver, my blood, slice of my skin... any number of organs or slices thereof where I could still function just fine/regrow what was lost.

Volunteer such a thing by all means but I would not care to live in a society where it could be compelled.

"but ending a life"
I am yet to see why I should call it life in that sense.

Way to twist that meaning. I wouldn't like to live in a society where all forms of murder is legal (like on that movie called purge). Again nobody is being forced to have sex so their is that.

I didn't want to say that because people would say "well why should the rape victim be responsible for caring for the child?" I can smell that a mile away, but yeah, I'm not a fan of abortion, I don't care what people say about my opinion, I'm just done caring.

I have heard of withdrawn consent after the consented activity been performed, which is then considered rape. That is what I would consider false rape and would not qualify for abortion. But yeah, I agree with you on this.

 

[FAST6191]

Way to twist that meaning. I wouldn't like to live in a society where all forms of murder is legal (like on that movie called purge). Again nobody is being forced to have sex so their is that.

I don't consider that a twisting of meaning or similar such fallacy. Just the logical conclusion of the thing you posted, but if you want to split standards then so be it.

As far as being forced then the biological drive is rather high for most people -- if I walked into my doctor and sought help for losing weight (the drive to eat is also rather high and can come with negatives) they would still help me. Likewise it still does not cover the "so what? why not still provide such things" issue from earlier.

As for the false thing... I would say there is more nuance than that. For one it fails to account for sexual hygiene.

 

[RandomUser]

I don't consider that a twisting of meaning or similar such fallacy. Just the logical conclusion of the thing you posted, but if you want to split standards then so be it.

As far as being forced then the biological drive is rather high for most people -- if I walked into my doctor and sought help for losing weight (the drive to eat is also rather high and can come with negatives) they would still help me. Likewise it still does not cover the "so what? why not still provide such things" issue from earlier.

As for the false thing... I would say there is more nuance than that. For one it fails to account for sexual hygiene.

That is true, however you're thinking for yourself. an unborn child do not have the option to go to the doctor and what not. So you're okay with killing things that cannot think for themselves, even puppies? So by your logic it is okay to kill a deformed person, just because he/she is deformed or disabled in some ways.
I supposed at this point sterilization will be necessary then.

 

[FAST6191]

I am still not sure the foetus counts as alive or at least should be accorded the same rights in the same way a puppy or deformed person is -- it is a ball of cells (you yourself said it can't think), compared to its host which will likely have had thousands of hours of time, effort and huge volumes of resources invested in them. Equally if I can abide the male chicks being slaughtered and various animal shelters doing their thing I would have to extend that to puppies (by the way that could fall under the appeal to emotion idea, also a puppy may well have some agency of its own).

The deformed person thing goes on a case by case basis and is usually determined by quality of life that they enjoy. Equally yes we or indeed I have stood back or prevented medical intervention that may have allowed certain people to continue living, and I would similarly support euthanasia. As a general societal practice then that requires a lot of thought, probably only exists on the extreme end (I have similarly seen many people with some hideous conditions still manage to enjoy some life which makes "by default" a harder thing), and has a lot of overrides should those with powers have a say.

 

[YukiYolo]

I just wish men had a say say in regards to financial burden since they will never be able to impact whether or not their child is brought to term. This is all totally imbalanced to the point that men really need to be careful.

 

[Jack Daniels]

I just wish men had a say say in regards to financial burden since they will never be able to impact whether or not their child is brought to term. This is all totally imbalanced to the point that men really need to be careful.

you were teached to be carefull already you know, from the moment you left primary school you know that.
you already been teached about protection, about consequences. maybe you didn't learn about finances, but most likely a child costs more than your parents needed for you.
and since you had chance to learn there...
the girl on the other hand has more to say since she's gonna carry the child in her womb, she'll be the first to feed him, and since the child to be is for 9 months in her body, she gets to get attached to this child to be.
you as a father on the other hand might like or dislike the idea of this child, but you had your chance in thinking about protection.
now if you didn't do it there, you'll gotta understand that everything you do has consequences.
and come on, even the people i know without any degree or diploma, they still could do the finances, just you gotta know what rights you have.

 

[Lacius]

This I just cannot agree with, you are condoning outright murder. I'm not going to judge you, you have your opinion and I have mine.

You can argue that the morally right thing to do in this hypothetical situation is allow the person to be bonded with you in order to save his or her life, and I might even agree with you, but don't call it murder it someone chooses not to.

If a person needs a kidney and is matched to you, it's not murder to say no. A person will never be obligated to hand over his or her kidney to someone else, and that's because of one's right to bodily autonomy.

As I've already said, this is all beside the point as well when a fetus is not a person. My above point was that it also wouldn't matter if a fetus were hypothetically a person, which it's not.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Really want my opinion? Fine, not holding back:

- If you've been raped and need to go through healing, therapy and adoption isn't an option, then by all means. That's understandable.
- If people are getting knocked up for the fun of it, and then decide to avoid all responsibilities of raising a child, either wear a condom/take birth control, etc. Don't take the coward's way out if you've been messing around and are trying to avoid all forms of responsibility of raising a newborn. Yeah, not sorry.

There, I said it.

I don't think anyone gets "knocked up for the fun of it". Yeah, a lot of us have sex because it feels good, and so long as we've had a decent education on sex and protection (which is unfortunately NOT guaranteed in this country), we're careful and use at least two forms of protection, but I have yet to meet a person that gets pregnant just for the thrill of it and then wants to abort past the 22-week threshold