What do you think of men passing abortion laws?

[Hazzard]

I am Anti-Abortion, but Pro-Choice.
Before people come for me axes I mean it like this:
I don't believe that Abortion should be the Defacto way of dealing with unwanted pregnancy, I believe Condoms and Contraception should be used first, in that order. I find it disgusting that people think that when you have a decision that affects a clump of cells that don't even have a brain yet and a living, thinking human being, the cells get priority in everything.
It makes me wonder why women still live in these fundamentalist states.

 

[Erttheking]

Oh for the love of God, put it in religion and politics.

But it should be in it's own category of right or wrong and common sense. People that make it about religion or politics just tick me off for what right does either have to decide or be apart of it...

Hate to break it to you pal but since it's about the law, it's political, that's kind of how it works.

 

[Stripes]

Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

That is pretty much taking control of that woman's life though. When you're pregnant you have to take extremely good care of yourself. You can't drink, you can't even take medicine, you can't lift heavy things and there's probably even more than I'm not aware of. If you are carrying a child that you don't want you wouldn't have the same dedication to having a healthy baby. If I was forced to carry a child I would refuse to change my lifestyle for a parasite and that would be dangerous for it.

I think if the man doesn't want it and the woman does he shouldn't have to pay child support but the woman should not be forced against her will to carry.

Dont call a child a parasite, whilst technically a correct description it has so many negative connotations that it doesnt feel right to use, as if it is somehow at fault for being conceived. Like I said, if you have consensual sex then both parents should be prepared to support the consequences and its not right to make a human suffer because two people arent willing to accept their action's consequences. You say you wouldnt change your lifestyle to support being pregnant, thats fine, just dont choose to do anything which could result in that. If you make that choice, knowing the consequences, then you have no right not to take responsibility. I really cannot see why anyone could think otherwise, or that a fetus somehow isnt a human being (its a clump of cells I know but we are simply more developed clumps of cells at the base of it, aside from complexity and awareness we arent different at all).

That's pretty much asking people who don't want kids to never have sex. Contraptions and protection isn't 100% foolproof, mistakes happen. Abortion is just another way of dealing with it. Also wouldn't having an unwanted child make the parents suffer? Aren't they people too? Also they may not take responsibility for their kid and neglect it instead. I would rather abort a baby than have it grow up unwanted and unloved. Also I don't care if it's human or not, if it's not aware I have no problem killing it.

Reproduction is the purpose of sex, is it really unreasonable to state that people should be aware of this and realise they are gaming biology when they use contraceptives in the first place and accept that nature will sometimes succeed? If you arent prepared to have kids then you shouldn't risk them, abortion should be used only in very strict circumstances not when two people old enough to know responsibility dont really like the way things have gone despite knowing what they were doing. Im not against abortion but its not a method of population control nor is it a method of solving accidents which should never have happened, there are other ways of washing ones hands of a child (adoption for example?). what you are saying to me is that people should be able to have sex without having to worry about the consequences, they should be bailed out because they dont feel like accepting responsibility. Your statement that you would kill something because it is unaware is horrible, its such a disreagrd for human life.

 

[JimB]

Reproduction is the purpose of sex.

No. Sex is the mechanism by which human beings reproduce. It is not the "purpose" of sex, either whole or primary.

Is it really unreasonable to state that people should be aware of this and realize they are gaming biology when they use contraceptives in the first place and accept that nature will sometimes succeed?

Yes, it is unreasonable. These things are products of education, and thus are only as reliable as the information people give them. I have known grown adults who insist it's impossible to get pregnant from sex had while the woman is upright because sperm can't travel uphill.

What you are saying to me is that people should be able to have sex without having to worry about the consequences, they should be bailed out because they don't feel like accepting responsibility.

You make sex sound like a crime for which parenthood is the punishment. No wonder people are afraid to have children, with attitudes like that.

 

[Daverson]

Well, that's democracy, see. Everyone gets to vote on everything. You might equally say that poor people should have no say on financial legislation.

Now, personally speaking, I'm a technocrat, so I reckon only doctors should be allowed to pass abortion laws.

("Passing laws"... sounds kinda odd phrased like that. Like they're kidney stones or something! Though, I suppose with a lot of laws that analogy isn't too far from the truth...)

 

[BNguyen]

Sigh... this is not a political problem, this is a religious problem. Yes, the US believes it is a democracy. Sure, a democracy can be a great thing. But it could also be one of the stupidest ways to run things ever. And here is how it breaks down. Imposing your religion on a field like medicine is a stupid idea. You might think it's clever to insert your religious beliefs into the laws of the country and make your religion the 'state' religion, but it's not. Any country that runs around with the state religion and state laws coinciding is heading for destruction. Abortion is a medical practice not too dissimular from cancer therapy. A dangerous parasitic organism is growing inside a woman that the body doesn't fight and could ultimately lead to death.

Arguing whether or not abortion should be legal is like arguing should the flu vaccine be legal.

And arguing whether or not men should be able to make abortion illegal is like arguing for women to yank medication that cures testicular cancer. The only man that should have any say in this argument should be the womans partner! (or possibly her father if she is underaged)

I really think most if not all parents who love their children would whole-heartedly hate your position that you seem to have on developing children being parasites - the same can be said of yourself - up until you have a job and/or living on your own, you would also be a parasite to your parents who work hard to keep you sheltered, fed, and possibly educated, so by your standards, they reserve the right to get rid of you because you could be a dangerous parasite that could result in their deaths (depending whether or not you turn psychopath on them and/or be the indirect cause for them to die).

 

[BNguyen]

We really don't need new laws or anything on this matter with the exception of better education for women.
After your first period, use birth control every day until you will no longer be at risk of getting unwanted pregnancies, it's just that easy. If you are married but not yet ready, use both birth control, and condoms (maybe 2 if you aren't satisfied).
After that, abortions may be legal in some cases in which the embryo or fetus may pose a threat to the woman's life or may turn out to be dead or malformed to such a degree that life is unbearable.
Other than that - if you can't afford the child - set it up for adoption.
If you flat out don't want it but could easily care for it - then it's your fault for not using preventative measures and having sex so often. At this point, it's not the fault of the developing child and instead is the fault of the unworthy parent - after which the parent should be forced to at least put the child up for adoption.
The same goes for rape, while it is the rapist's fault for causing the pregnancy, it is the woman's fault for not using preventative measures when she knows she fertile, but in the end, don't take out your feelings on the child, set it up for adoption.
There are always going to be people who either want children but biologically can't or who want to help the children who are put up for adoption.
I just find it disgusting that so many people view yet unborn children as little more than cancer when they fail to see how they were the same way and up until they live on their own supporting themselves they are still parasites to whoever was supporting them.

If you're going to go around having sex and not use preventative measures then you should be ready to face the consequences and the child should be allowed to be born.

 

[BNguyen]

Abortion should absolutely be legal. Up until a certain number of weeks the fetus is nothing more than a glorified clump of oprganic matter. It has no "soul". It lacks what makes it human other than it's DNA.

I think that men should absolutely be able to have their input matter on questions of abortion, but not to force a woman to keep an organic clump against her will. They should be allowed to tell the required people that, "Hey, this is my offspring, I want it gone." and have that mean just as much as the womans input. They should never be able to force women to keep it though, that would be cruel.

On the political issue I cannot take a stand since I don't have the necessary knowledge of how US handles politics.

"Hey, this is my offspring, I want it gone."
I have to say that this quote really disturbs me - even simply out of context it could applied at any time like for example an abusive parent saying the same about a child. Let's say a parent just suddenly changes their mind about wanting the child at any point after it's born, then it would be a case of murder, thus illegal. Just by this quote alone, it feels as though you are saying murder can and should be legal for the soul basis of "I don't want it anymore."

 

[Justanewguy]

You need to check your facts: Eisenhower was the one who got us started in Vietnam and Korea was the last time we actually DID try to help another nation (until Libya). Pakistan was never our friend, they just used us to fund their arms race with India. President Obama is HARDLY the first president to be on bad terms with Iran, who's hostility towards the US can again be linked back to Eisenhower. And we aren't doing shit in Syria.

It's a bit difficult to place the blame of Vietnam on Eisenhower, when his major contribution was 900 Advisers, and a stern warning to Kennedy to be careful. It was Kennedy who escalated from 900 Advisers to 16,000 US Military personnel. Despite the fact that I'd agree that Pakistan has never been our friend, what we're doing currently is not helping that at all.

Oh, and for the record, your assertion that Korea was the last time we DID try to help another nation is also a bit fallacious. The motives behind the escalation of Vietnam and the escalation of Korea were the same, containment of Communism. The fact that we succeeded in South Korea and failed in South Vietnam doesn't change the fact that they were motivated by the same reasons.

As for Iran, I suggest you check your facts this time. The hostility with Iran started in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution and the deposition of the Shah (who came to power in 1941 with the British and Soviet occupation of Iran), and the ascension of Ayatollah Khomeini as Supreme Leader. If we're going to place blame on an American leader (which frankly, we shouldn't), then the Ayatollah's ascension was during Carter's Presidency.

Perhaps invading is to narrow a term though, lest we forget all those nice proxy wars we've been fighting in Central and South America and the Middle East for the past seventy years. What I'm saying is the politicians who "say" they're pro-life seem awfully eager to end it once it's left the womb naturally

That's a bit of a stretch. I mean, lets just be perfectly honest here, the number of US soldiers who have died in foreign wars since the end of Vietnam is under 7,000; and discounting the "War on Terror" that number drops to under 1,000. Ten times more people die in the US from diabetes in one year.

Nixon, at the time, was considered a great diplomat and peace-broker; as well as being termed the "Environmental President." As an Environmental Science major, I can say with relative assurance that no President since Nixon has done so much for our environment. While we may remember him as a crook for Watergate, as a Republican President, he embodied many of the things that you would attribute to Democrats.

He also said abortion was necessary in the case of mixed race offspring and plunged Laos and Cambodia into brutal Civil Wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people only to end-up abandoning South Vietnam. My point still stands.

Your point is a little difficult, considering you're accusing pro-lifers of supporting people who cause wars, and then pointing Nixon out as obviously not part of the pro-life movement. The reason I brought Nixon up was to point out that both the parties have good and bad in them, and your assertion has not damaged that point.

 

[Leadfinger]

If men could become pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

 

[BNguyen]

Just a question but what if all doctors (men and women who make the decision to take care of people's health) decide to not help anybody with their abortions?
What if they decide to remain uninvolved? Can you force them to do abortions?
just because abortions may be made legal does not mean that a doctor can be lawfully forced to participate?
Sure their oath may have them help women whose conditions may be in danger because of the developing fetus but if there is physically nothing wrong with the woman then a doctor ought to be able to say "No, I won't help you accomplish this."

 

[TehCookie]

Reproduction is the purpose of sex, is it really unreasonable to state that people should be aware of this and realise they are gaming biology when they use contraceptives in the first place and accept that nature will sometimes succeed? If you arent prepared to have kids then you shouldn't risk them, abortion should be used only in very strict circumstances not when two people old enough to know responsibility dont really like the way things have gone despite knowing what they were doing. Im not against abortion but its not a method of population control nor is it a method of solving accidents which should never have happened, there are other ways of washing ones hands of a child (adoption for example?). what you are saying to me is that people should be able to have sex without having to worry about the consequences, they should be bailed out because they dont feel like accepting responsibility. Your statement that you would kill something because it is unaware is horrible, its such a disreagrd for human life.

In case you didn't know smarter species have sex for fun not just humans, and to give it up for adoption you'd have to give birth to it first. I may be a minority but thinking about having another living thing inside of me leeching off me is appalling. Also humans are self-aware. If it's not self aware it's not a living human. If you're calling it a potential human than every guy who masturbated and every girl who had a period is a murderer.

I'd rather have happy couples and healthy babies, why are you against that? You seem to want to use the kid as punishment for being irresponsible but wouldn't irresponsible people be bad parents?

 

[chadachada123]

Just a question but what if all doctors (men and women who make the decision to take care of people's health) decide to not help anybody with their abortions?
What if they decide to remain uninvolved? Can you force them to do abortions?
just because abortions may be made legal does not mean that a doctor can be lawfully forced to participate?
Sure their oath may have them help women whose conditions may be in danger because of the developing fetus but if there is physically nothing wrong with the woman then a doctor ought to be able to say "No, I won't help you accomplish this."

If that were the case, I would become licensed to perform abortions just to help those in need.

Without doctors to perform them, women will seek other methods, often methods that are INCREDIBLY dangerous.

 

[BNguyen]

Just a question but what if all doctors (men and women who make the decision to take care of people's health) decide to not help anybody with their abortions?
What if they decide to remain uninvolved? Can you force them to do abortions?
just because abortions may be made legal does not mean that a doctor can be lawfully forced to participate?
Sure their oath may have them help women whose conditions may be in danger because of the developing fetus but if there is physically nothing wrong with the woman then a doctor ought to be able to say "No, I won't help you accomplish this."

If that were the case, I would become licensed to perform abortions just to help those in need.

Without doctors to perform them, women will seek other methods, often methods that are INCREDIBLY dangerous.

Would you really want to help those whose only reason for an abortion is because "I just don't want one?"

 

[chadachada123]

Just a question but what if all doctors (men and women who make the decision to take care of people's health) decide to not help anybody with their abortions?
What if they decide to remain uninvolved? Can you force them to do abortions?
just because abortions may be made legal does not mean that a doctor can be lawfully forced to participate?
Sure their oath may have them help women whose conditions may be in danger because of the developing fetus but if there is physically nothing wrong with the woman then a doctor ought to be able to say "No, I won't help you accomplish this."

If that were the case, I would become licensed to perform abortions just to help those in need.

Without doctors to perform them, women will seek other methods, often methods that are INCREDIBLY dangerous.

Would you really want to help those whose only reason for an abortion is because "I just don't want one?"

If the alternative is her having a child that she doesn't want or can't afford, then absolutely.

Even taking that out, without me there, she may seek, as I said, alternative methods that could *freaking kill her.*

You may not have read my post on the first page, but I clearly state that I think that people who DON'T have abortions when they don't have the time, money, drive, or knowledge for child-rearing are total assholes. Abortions are the morally superior option for everything short of the third trimester in these instances. It doesn't matter the reason.

 

[BNguyen]

Just a question but what if all doctors (men and women who make the decision to take care of people's health) decide to not help anybody with their abortions?
What if they decide to remain uninvolved? Can you force them to do abortions?
just because abortions may be made legal does not mean that a doctor can be lawfully forced to participate?
Sure their oath may have them help women whose conditions may be in danger because of the developing fetus but if there is physically nothing wrong with the woman then a doctor ought to be able to say "No, I won't help you accomplish this."

If that were the case, I would become licensed to perform abortions just to help those in need.

Without doctors to perform them, women will seek other methods, often methods that are INCREDIBLY dangerous.

Would you really want to help those whose only reason for an abortion is because "I just don't want one?"

If the alternative is her having a child that she doesn't want or can't afford, then absolutely.

Even taking that out, without me there, she may seek, as I said, alternative methods that could *freaking kill her.*

You may not have read my post on the first page, but I clearly state that I think that people who DON'T have abortions when they don't have the time, money, drive, or knowledge for child-rearing are total assholes. Abortions are the morally superior option for everything short of the third trimester in these instances. It doesn't matter the reason.

I cannot agree that killing a fetus is morally superior to putting that unwanted child into an orphanage. If you don't have the time, money, drive, or knowledge, then you should be using countermeasures such as birth control and condoms to prevent pregnancies or at the very least, not have sex when you're fertile. When you kill a fetus you are not morally superior to allowing an idiot to continue making the same mistake.