Gender-based abortions: right or wrong?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gender-based abortions: right or wrong?


http://amazingezone.com/img/2011/sept/womb/Babies-In-Womb-Amazingezone-11.jpg

In recent news it has emerged that some doctors across the United Kingdom have been performing gender-based abortions, in other words: if a couple wished for a boy and found out the baby was a girl, the girl would be aborted on that basis alone.

On the 7th October the attorney general ruled that the 1967 Abortion Act does not outlaw abortions based on the gender of a child and therefore is de facto lawful - but does this make it right? On one hand, some would say that abortions under any circumstances are wrong whereas others would take a middle ground position and say that abortion is suitable in some cases although is not an ideal solution to a pregnancy. Others would have no problem with abortions based on gender as they do not see abortion as the killing of an innocent child - and would argue that to outlaw gender-based abortions would be an intrusion of the state on women and their rights.

So what do you think? should gender-based abortions be banned or are they acceptable to your mind?


There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you.

[Kardan]

Women have a right to abort a baby if they wish, even if I think aborting a baby based on gender is very distasteful. I would never ever bring up that I wouldn't want a child based on it's gender.

[lawrawrrr]

At the end of the day it's the parents' choice whether they abort a baby - although their reasoning might be unethical to some people. This happens all the time in China - or even worse actually, but I never thought it would happen in the UK tbh.

I'd never discriminate gender-wise about a baby, I wouldn't care what sex I had, it's a baby, it's part of me!

[FlyingJesus]

While not something that I'd take into consideration when choosing whether to abort or not (especially considering it's not 100% accurate on scans until after the cut-off time for abortions anyway) I don't see why it shouldn't be a valid reason if someone's really adamant on having one or the other. Frankly any reason is good reason, and it's not like we need to be forcing people to keep babies they don't want

[-Moniquee.]

Although it is the parents choice, it is wrong! When you decide to have a child you are agreeing on the fact that it could be either gender. If you can't agree on that you shouldn't be trying to have a baby. It disgusts me because there is people in this world that are really genuine and lovely but just can't have children. Such a horrible thing to see that people are getting abortions due to the gender.

[DoCToRFusiions]

Abortion is wrong. Everyone has the right to live, whether they are male or female. If you don't like the specific gender of a child, then give birth to it and give it up for adoption. At least it gets a chance at life. We are the humans. We don't play God. If we think we do, then no-one is safe.

[Shar]

This is such a difficult topic. There's a lot of factors to consider.
People conceive knowing they're not going to necessarily have a baby of the gender that they want. If someone has an abortion after finding out they're having a girl after I don't know...8 times after trying to conceive a boy it may leave some side effects on a mental and physical level.

[Chippiewill]

I believe it actually used to be common practise (Maybe it still is) for hospitals in London not to give the gender of the child before birth as families of Indian descent were more likely to abort if it wasn't a boy. Not really an argument one way or the other, just thought it was interesting.

[Shar]

I believe it actually used to be common practise (Maybe it still is) for hospitals in London not to give the gender of the child before birth as families of Indian descent were more likely to abort if it wasn't a boy. Not really an argument one way or the other, just thought it was interesting.
It was around 20 years ago (from what my mum has told me anyway).

[Inseriousity.]

I don't agree with abortion myself but acknowledge that it's a woman's ultimate right to choose for herself. I'd personally find it distasteful to abort a baby based only on its gender. It's like designer babies without any of the actual mechanisms involved in designing it (another thing that gives me the creeps) and just crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How would people feel if the question were turned around and asked (if it were possible to tell) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their babies based on the fact the baby was mixed race or gay?

I actually find some of the comments on this thread very scary and worthy of 1930s German eugenics.

[FlyingJesus]

I would repeat myself:

While not something that I'd take into consideration when choosing whether to abort or not (especially considering it's not 100% accurate on scans until after the cut-off time for abortions anyway) I don't see why it shouldn't be a valid reason if someone's really adamant on having one or the other. Frankly any reason is good reason, and it's not like we need to be forcing people to keep babies they don't want

And I'm pretty sure you can't tell if a baby is gonna grow up to be gay

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would repeat myself:


And I'm pretty sure you can't tell if a baby is gonna grow up to be gay

I think that's just awful, but I suppose that's the kind of moral relativism we get when people start pretending that babies in the womb are unhuman and simply just a 'foetus' and not a baby. Incredible.

If women don't want babies, maybe they ought to keep their legs shut? I keep hearing of mother's right, what about the rights of the unborn who can't speak for themselves like the children they are?

[FlyingJesus]

That's an extremely ignorant statement that doesn't take into account the medical facts and simply assumes that a foetus is a full human being when it clearly isn't. By that logic it's also an immoral waste of life to ever have a period without getting pregnant or for a man to not be constantly attempting to impregnate people as soon as he's recharged and ready, but because potential life is not the same thing as a human being that's all nonsense

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's an extremely ignorant statement that doesn't take into account the medical facts and simply assumes that a foetus is a full human being when it clearly isn't. By that logic it's also an immoral waste of life to ever have a period without getting pregnant or for a man to not be constantly attempting to impregnate people as soon as he's recharged and ready, but because potential life is not the same thing as a human being that's all nonsense

Not at all, a foetus aka a baby is fertilised - it's a human although in early development, no matter how much you try to skew it to make it seem acceptable to yourself. This debate has always been about language: when a woman is pregnant willingly (ie she planned and wanted it) she refers to the baby in her womb as that, the baby - as does everyone else. But if it's unwanted? it becomes the latin 'foetus' in order to make it seem less human.

As Ron Paul has noted when he was training to deliever babies, he was being shown births taking place and in one room they walked in on a baby being born who was very early and the doctors were fighting to save it's life, he walked into another and a baby more or less in the same area of development was being aborted - was taken out, and put into a bucket into the corner despite crying and left to die.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc

This whole debate is just moral relativism at it's worst.

[FlyingJesus]

Late-term abortions are a completely different matter to early ones, which is why there are laws on when they can be done. Personally I think the current timeframe is too far extended and should be pushed back to the time at which the brain begins developing senses, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is a huge difference between a foetus and a baby - just saying no there isn't is not an argument whereas it is physically and medically extremely clear that potential human is not the same thing as realised human, hence foetal termination being the abortion of the becoming human process. Also putting a baby in a bucket to die is not legal nor is it how abortions work, you clearly have no idea what the process entails and are just blindly agreeing with your cowboy hero

[DoCToRFusiions]

How would people feel if the question were turned around and asked (if it were possible to tell) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their babies based on the fact the baby was mixed race or gay?

I actually find some of the comments on this thread very scary and worthy of 1930s German eugenics.

Do you know, I completely believe you. What is wrong with this planet? Where did we go wrong?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Late-term abortions are a completely different matter to early ones, which is why there are laws on when they can be done. Personally I think the current timeframe is too far extended and should be pushed back to the time at which the brain begins developing senses, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is a huge difference between a foetus and a baby - just saying no there isn't is not an argument whereas it is physically and medically extremely clear that potential human is not the same thing as realised human, hence foetal termination being the abortion of the becoming human process. Also putting a baby in a bucket to die is not legal nor is it how abortions work, you clearly have no idea what the process entails and are just blindly agreeing with your cowboy hero

Um yes it is, and we all admit to it when we call the unborn who are wanted 'the baby' even in the early weeks and instead call the unwanted babies 'the foetus' to dehumanise it. Because this argument that it isn't human until a certain time period is complete garbage when you really think of it logically - babies develop at different rates in the womb although broadly follow the same development rate. So right - why is it that at a certain number of weeks a foetus suddenly becomes a baby? what mechanism is it that activates which turns that being from a foetus into a baby? And can the hour, time/process be pinpointed or captured on camera?

Also i'm barely influenced by Dr. Ron Paul on this although it's clear you blindly follow and change words in order to fit what you want to be the facts but which don't make any sense when you analyse them. I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law but it's telling also that when people/regimes have wanted to dispose of certain groups that they don't want around, they too changed the language in order to dehumanise their targets.

There are countless stories of babies, sorry 'foetuses' that have been born and survived before the 23/4 week abortion limit - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2350822/Baby-born-week-legal-abortion-limit-fights-brink-death-make-miracle-recovery.html - Little human beings like that and we're pretending they aren't human, it's a disgrace.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/28/article-2350822-1A8E4C1E000005DC-12_634x582.jpg

I don't know what world you live in, but to me that is a baby yet you'll sit there and pretend for political ideas like 'wimmins rights' that it isn't. You may be fine with babies that size having salt injected into their tiny hearts, or their body parts being blended up in the womb (in which there exist videos of them trying to move away from the object that is killing them) but i'm not.

[-Moniquee.]

I find it disgusting that people still think abortion is acceptable. If you don't want a child in the first place wear protection or don't have sex. If you get pregnant and don't want the child, give it to another family, I think it is called surrogates? There are so many people in the world who can't have children and would make lovely parents. It's horrible to think people could abort their child if you could find out if it was gay or a different race. The child is still yours.
So horrible that people are killing an unborn child, everyone has a right to live.

[karter]

Abortion is wrong. Everyone has the right to live, whether they are male or female. If you don't like the specific gender of a child, then give birth to it and give it up for adoption. At least it gets a chance at life. We are the humans. We don't play God. If we think we do, then no-one is safe.

And you're saying this because you're male. Typical.

A woman has a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies, you ain't influencing her decision buddy because you aren't the one holding a child in your womb for 9 months. It's her decision and hers only. Pregnancy disrupts a woman's life, her job, deteriorates her health and often harms the body. Excuse me but no one gave you the right to tell what's right and what's wrong. The fetus is in the mother's womb not yours.

Regarding the 'you're killing life' argument. We can't say if a fetus is a human being or not, it's a bunch of cells which cannot survive outside the uterus. Yeah sure, it could grow into a human being. But so can the millions of sperms and thousands of eggs in the male and female body. Looking at your perspective, if we use contraceptives we actually kill life. If you have a fetus in one hand and a new born baby in another and you have to drop one of them then you'll obviously choose the baby. Why? because the baby is living but the fetus well, biologically yes, but otherwise not.

I am honestly done with men who think they have a shot at winning this argument bc in the end the choice is a woman's. All you can do is sit and judge from the distance

--

On topic, I think it is wrong and gender based abortion is even banned in my country. Abortion should be done only if the mother is not ready (whether financially, mentally or health wise)

[-:Undertaker:-]

And you're saying this because you're male. Typical.

A woman has a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies, you ain't influencing her decision buddy because you aren't the one holding a child in your womb for 9 months. It's her decision and [B]hers only.

She consented to sex and believe it or not (shock horror) sex actually often leads to you falling pregnant. See, that's why humans crave sex.. to reproduce. If women don't want the risk of falling pregnant, then maybe they should keep their legs shut and turn irresponsible males away?

That'd be personal responsibility. A strange concept today I know, but yeah.


Pregnancy disrupts a woman's life, her job, deteriorates her health and often harms the body. Excuse me but no one gave you the right to tell what's right and what's wrong. The fetus is in the mother's womb not yours.

As above.


Regarding the 'you're killing life' argument. We can't say if a fetus is a human being or not, it's a bunch of cells which cannot survive outside the uterus. Yeah sure, it could grow into a human being. But so can the millions of sperms and thousands of eggs in the male and female body. Looking at your perspective, if we use contraceptives we actually kill life. If you have a fetus in one hand and a new born baby in another and you have to drop one of them then you'll obviously choose the baby. Why? because the baby is living but the fetus well, biologically yes, but otherwise not.

So can you all define for us (which science has not been able to do) when a 'foetus' becomes a human being or a baby please. Not a vague answer, the exact timing - and then we can all shut up about abortion and go about our business.


I am honestly done with men who think they have a shot at winning this argument bc in the end the choice is a woman's. All you can do is sit and judge from the distance

Oh so I don't get to have a say on individual rights because I have a penis. Oh right.

That's akin to saying I can't have an opinion on the Holocaust because i'm not Jewish, Gay or Slavic.


On topic, I think it is wrong and gender based abortion is even banned in my country. Abortion should be done only if the mother is not ready (whether financially, mentally or health wise)

Then why didn't she think about those things which are so important to her before she engaged in sex?

[-Moniquee.]

Actually, contraception is used to prevent pregnancy, it makes sure sperm can't enter to fertilise the egg. So you aren't killing anything by using contraception.

I am a woman and I see so many genuine people who try and try and just can't have kids. THen you hear about abortion, it is wrong. You said that abortion should be done if the mother is not ready; there are so many other options to this. Give the baby up for adoption.

You said that women have a right to decide what they do with their bodies, which is correct. If they know they aren't ready for a baby, use precautions.

[karter]

Your argument of shaming the mother for having sex is so horribly ****** up, I am feeling nauseous that a person is actually using this dumb ****** excuse in a debate. Even in a heavily religion influenced and male dominated country like mine, this excuse is not valid.

She had sex without protection. Wow, shocker. She got pregnant (oops! bad move) Now she'll have to live 9 months caring for the child she doesn't want. This may ruin her career, her health forever. Oh well she deserves it right, she had sex. She was so irresponsible that she deserves a huge responsibility as punishment. Yay!

I'm going to say this one last time, the womb isn't yours, the choice isn't yours. Men don't have a say in this because all along for centuries they've pressurized women to do what they think is right but not this time, this time the choice is the mother's. Because it's her body, not yours.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/5a1bbfce11ad54bf79bf848e7e4efa66/tumblr_mw0u5aN7lr1sv8oqco1_500.png


What you expect is every pregnant woman should carry their pregnancy to term. If she is not ready for the responsibility, she should put the child for adoption. Great. Now what if these unexpected pregnancies don't go so well? What if it has a permanent effect on the mother's life and even the new born's life? What if the new born does not get a healthy environment. That's multiple lives ruined just to save a cluster of cells. You're willing to risk all that just to save a cluster of cells.

Here's some facts you need to learn

- children throughout the world are killed, severely injured, displaced, & lose family members due to wars/conflict/drones
- thousands of children are in foster homes/wait in orphanages to be adopted for years
- many of these children are never adopted
- children of color/disabled children have a lower chance of being adopted
- thousands of children live in poverty


- - - Updated - - -


Actually, contraception is used to prevent pregnancy, it makes sure sperm can't enter to fertilise the egg. So you aren't killing anything by using contraception.


According to your logic, yes you are, because sperms and eggs are potential babies.


I am a woman and I see so many genuine people who try and try and just can't have kids. THen you hear about abortion, it is wrong. You said that abortion should be done if the mother is not ready; there are so many other options to this. Give the baby up for adoption.

You're seriously not using that excuse here. Just because someone isn't able to conceive doesn't mean that the choice to abort should be taken away. This is honestly the most stupid logic ever

Read my post above if you think the adoption system is efficient

- - - Updated - - -




You said that women have a right to decide what they do with their bodies, which is correct. If they know they aren't ready for a baby, use precautions.

Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes precautions don't work. The responsibility of a baby for a woman who was not responsible according to you just doesn't add up, sorry.

- - - Updated - - -




That's akin to saying I can't have an opinion on the Holocaust because i'm not Jewish, Gay or Slavic.


You do have an opinion unless you are speaking against them

[-Moniquee.]

If an egg hasn't been fertilised it isn't living. If you truly understand the facts you just sent then why should people be killing more people?
Adoption agencies generally ensure all children are adopted to good families before letting the child go. SURROGACY also allows the child to be switched parents at birth so it wouldn't know any different. Don't you think it is fair for a child to live a life they deserve?
If you think children of colour/ disability have a lower chance of being adopted you are WRONG. I always see on the news that people have adopted a child with a disability of a certain race.
If the woman or couple isn't ready to have a baby then she shouldn't be engaging in sex. SIMPLE AS THAT.
If you think abortion is okay, then shame on you. You are killing the future generation.
Abortion is murder of a defenceless child. It is actually disgraceful that in the 21st century people still think that it is okay to abort an unborn child.
TO SUM IT ALL UP, IF YOU CAN'T LOOK AFTER A CHILD KEEP YOUR LEGS SHUT!
karter

- - - Updated - - -

Oh i didn't read the post above that. You think that womens health is affected when she falls pregnant? Well an abortion leads to worse health problems than pregnancy could ever lead to. An abortion leads to an increase in breast cancer and could also potentially lead to future miscarriages and problems with conceiving.
I think you need to look at the health issues associated with abortion and re-think your opinion.
karter

[karter]

If an egg hasn't been fertilised it isn't living. If you truly understand the facts you just sent then why should people be killing more people?
Adoption agencies generally ensure all children are adopted to good families before letting the child go. SURROGACY also allows the child to be switched parents at birth so it wouldn't know any different. Don't you think it is fair for a child to live a life they deserve?
If you think children of colour/ disability have a lower chance of being adopted you are WRONG. I always see on the news that people have adopted a child with a disability of a certain race.
If the woman or couple isn't ready to have a baby then she shouldn't be engaging in sex. SIMPLE AS THAT.
If you think abortion is okay, then shame on you. You are killing the future generation.
Abortion is murder of a defenceless child. It is actually disgraceful that in the 21st century people still think that it is okay to abort an unborn child.
TO SUM IT ALL UP, IF YOU CAN'T LOOK AFTER A CHILD KEEP YOUR LEGS SHUT!
@karter (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=58762)

I am not repeating my points, just read my post above


If you think children of colour/ disability have a lower chance of being adopted you are WRONG. I always see on the news that people have adopted a child with a disability of a certain race.

Ah yes, because a girl from a first world country has seen couples adopting children from other races, the fact is overshadowed that there are millions of orphaned children in Africa and Asia. Sorry to break the bubble of your utopian world. Let's say in Australia the system is perfect (when actually it isn't) but it's not in many countries

Too bad a woman could not keep 'her legs shut' now she is forced to keep a child in her womb that she doesn't want. Nice logic

If Abortion is the murder of a defenceless child then anti abortion laws are oppressive and cruel to women who do not want to bear children. You're right. The only thing which is disgraceful here is your ****** excuses which make no sense in real life.

[HE-Joshua]

The heartbreak women go through when they have a Miscarriage makes me ponder why the heck they would even think to have an abortion, My ex-girlfriend had two Miscarriages and at no time before those unfortunate events did we think of abortion even though in a particular time it would of been a challenge.

I understand people are after the perfect baby but that does come along with gender.

[karter]

@-Moniquee.

According to World Health Organization's 2005 report:

Major Maternal death causes were


severe bleeding/hemorrhage (25%)
infections (13%)
unsafe abortions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortions) (13%), eclampsia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclampsia) (12%), obstructed labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystocia) (8%), other direct causes (8%), and indirect causes (20%). Indirect causes are malaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria), anaemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaemia),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death#cite_note-3) HIV/AIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS), and cardiovascular disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiovascular_disease), all of which may complicate pregnancy or be aggravated by it.

Emphasis on "unsafe" abortions.

[iMusic]

tl;dr
Personal Opinion - Abortion is extremely wrong, I think if a woman is raped or otherwise she should have the baby and if wishes to give it up for adoption should do so, I personally have a half sister that I have never met the reason being my mum made a mistake and got pregnant at the age or 15 and personally she wanted the baby to have a mum and dad so gave it up for adoption, I do wish to meet my half sister and at one time was about to, but she canceled last minute to meet me and my brother. I can understand how it may be wrong and if someone is mentally challenged or is gay they could have a hardship of a life and no matter what you do or how you try to protect them things will happen to them because society has flaws and that will not change. My brother is gay and I know for a fact he has been bullied multiple times, but he moves on has a fine life and many friends, he is my brother and I love him. When you are aborting a baby coat hanger or otherwise you are ending something that could be life even if it has yet to develop at the age to have feelings or otherwise.

[HE-Joshua]

@-Moniquee.

According to World Health Organization's 2005 report:

Major Maternal death causes were



Emphasis on "unsafe" abortions.

Well done you can certainly post 8 year old statistics never the less 13% is a high number.

[-Moniquee.]

Your logic makes no sense to me. You're saying that a womans health is affected, the abortion system isn't always positive and you are bringing up anti abortion laws which are 'oppressive'.
Well, in conclusion; abortion causes short and long- term health affects which is going to affect her more mentally, emotionally and physically than carrying a child would.
The adoption system these days is organising adoptions before the birth has even taken place, for other children, many find their homes within the first 3 months. They are fed and given attention, which to me is a lot better than being killed in the womb.
Anti abortion laws are enforced for a reason, just think about that.
Actually, today abortion is decreasing and hopefully in the future it will cease all together.

My argument is valid, makes sense and is logical. Therefore, I end my argument as you aren't bringing up any valid points.

- - - Updated - - -

I laugh at your statistic on 'unsafe' abortion. Unsafe abortion is still an ABORTION. How is someone that wants to abort able to tell if it's going to be unsafe? I don't understand what point you were trying to prove here.

[karter]

Well done you can certainly post 8 year old statistics never the less 13% is a high number.


Emphasis on UNSAFE abortions

Anyway I found a newer source


(WHO Maternal mortality report) 2012



Every day, approximately 800 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.
Women die as a result of complications during and following pregnancy and childbirth. Most of these complications develop during pregnancy. Other complications may exist before pregnancy but are worsened during pregnancy. The major complications that account for 80% of all maternal deaths are:

severe bleeding (mostly bleeding after childbirth)
infections (usually after childbirth)
high blood pressure during pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and eclampsia)
The remainder are caused by or associated with diseases such as malaria, and AIDS during pregnancy.

Maternal health and newborn health are closely linked. More than three million newborn babies die every year, and an additional 2.6 million babies are stillborn.



- - - Updated - - -




Anti abortion laws are enforced for a reason, just think about that.


I am laughing at this bc this is so stupid. There are countries with Anti-Gay laws, countries where the law says women aren't allowed to drive, countries where religious conversion is prohibited. There is a lame ass reason to all of these laws doesn't mean they are oppressive in some kind of way


The adoption system these days is organising adoptions before the birth has even taken place, for other children, many find their homes within the first 3 months. They are fed and given attention, which to me is a lot better than being killed in the womb.


Sounds amazing. Find me any adoption system which works so well in countries in any of the African countries, China, India, Indonesia, the list goes on and on.


Actually, today abortion is decreasing and hopefully in the future it will cease all together.

Would love to see the source


How is someone that wants to abort able to tell if it's going to be unsafe?

When there's no proper healthcare? How do you think abortion is carried out in third world countries? You're an idiot

- - - Updated - - -


Well, in conclusion; abortion causes short and long- term health affects which is going to affect her more mentally, emotionally and physically than carrying a child would.

And you say this because? From personal experience? If not I don't know how you can conclude this point. This is stupid, get out of your delusion

[-Moniquee.]

I think you should read this site, sums up all my views.
That is all.
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/articles/article.aspx?articleid=85&owner=0

Also you are bringing up the WHO maternal articles. THINGS LIKE THESE CAN HAPPEN ANYTIME DURING PREGNANCY. You said that precautions don't work and then pregnancy occurs.

Well, this just proves that if youre not ready for a child, keep your legs shut.

[karter]

Well I am laughing at your 'views'


#1 - Women still die from abortion.Women still die from the abortion procedure, as well as from complications that occur afterwards.1Studies also show that women with abortion history have an increased risk of dying from a variety of causes after abortion

Clearly cannot be compared with women dying due to pregnancy complications. Everything has side effects, the 'precautions' you were talking about earlier have side effects too. Birth control pills can lead to death and other long term health effects too. Most recent example, is this (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/yaz-yasmin-birth-control-pills-suspected-in-23-deaths-1.1302473)


#3 – Abortion creates emotional and behavioral problems for women

...And having a child you don't want/put up for adoption isn't an emotional problem? Is this even real


Abortion is a form of racism against poor and ethnic women.Planned Parenthood identifies its core clients as young, low-income women of color. Black and Hispanic women represent only a quarter of American women of child-bearing age, yet account for more than half of all abortions in the U.S

Don't get what's being implied here?? Abortion should be a woman's decision. If she's influenced by others and then tries to go ahead with the decision of course it's wrong.


#5 – Abortion has led to increased violence against pregnant women.

Can you even imagine what kind of emotional trauma an unmarried or unemployed or a teenager who's pregnant could go through?


#6 - Women are pressured and coerced by family, friends, employers, institutions of learning, and sexual predators into having abortions

As I said, the ultimate decision is the mother's. If she is influenced then it's wrong. Anyhow, a pregnant woman who doesn't need the child but still goes through the term will be harassed and pressurized more by her family, friends and employers. Would your school support a pregnant teenager? Don't think so


#8 - Abortion negatively affects women’s future relationships

The irrelevance of this page has flown into another dimension. If you consider this one a real point, then idk man I can't even bother explaining how ****** this point is


#10 - Abortion affects women spiritually.

Why would it affect a woman spiritually if the decision is hers? Lol.

[HE-Joshua]

Your views reflect ____________________ i take that back.

[karter]

Your views reflect ____________________ i take that back.

Why did you edit your post? My views reflect my thirld world living. What makes you say that? The fact that I am standing up for the choice of the mother? Sadly Joshua, many of the first world countries agree with my third world country and abortion is legal on request in my country (unlike yours)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Abortion_Laws.svg/800px-Abortion_Laws.svg.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/14n1now.png

[Kardan]

Why did you edit your post? My views reflect my thirld world living. What makes you say that? The fact that I am standing up for the choice of the mother? Sadly Joshua, many of the first world countries agree with my third world country and abortion is legal on request in my country (unlike yours)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Abortion_Laws.svg/800px-Abortion_Laws.svg.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/14n1now.png


Why is the UK green? It should be blue. Is it because Northern Ireland is green, so it makes the whole of the UK green? They should make the British isles blue.

- - - Updated - - -

I must say, I'm pretty amazed by all the people saying abortion is wrong. What happens in cases of rape? Or in cases of children that won't survive out of the womb? Or in cases that the mother herself will die?

I guess putting down sick animals is also wrong. And slaughtering animals for food is wrong.

And keep going karter; I understand what you're saying :)

- - - Updated - - -


If an egg hasn't been fertilised it isn't living. If you truly understand the facts you just sent then why should people be killing more people?
Adoption agencies generally ensure all children are adopted to good families before letting the child go. SURROGACY also allows the child to be switched parents at birth so it wouldn't know any different. Don't you think it is fair for a child to live a life they deserve?
If you think children of colour/ disability have a lower chance of being adopted you are WRONG. I always see on the news that people have adopted a child with a disability of a certain race.
If the woman or couple isn't ready to have a baby then she shouldn't be engaging in sex. SIMPLE AS THAT.
If you think abortion is okay, then shame on you. You are killing the future generation.
Abortion is murder of a defenceless child. It is actually disgraceful that in the 21st century people still think that it is okay to abort an unborn child.
TO SUM IT ALL UP, IF YOU CAN'T LOOK AFTER A CHILD KEEP YOUR LEGS SHUT!
karter

- - - Updated - - -

Oh i didn't read the post above that. You think that womens health is affected when she falls pregnant? Well an abortion leads to worse health problems than pregnancy could ever lead to. An abortion leads to an increase in breast cancer and could also potentially lead to future miscarriages and problems with conceiving.
I think you need to look at the health issues associated with abortion and re-think your opinion.
karter

So, wait. You think that a case where a woman could die giving birth isn't worse than an increased risk of breast cancer and future miscarriages? How does that work?

[FlyingJesus]

Um yes it is, and we all admit to it when we call the unborn who are wanted 'the baby' even in the early weeks and instead call the unwanted babies 'the foetus' to dehumanise it. Because this argument that it isn't human until a certain time period is complete garbage when you really think of it logically - babies develop at different rates in the womb although broadly follow the same development rate. So right - why is it that at a certain number of weeks a foetus suddenly becomes a baby? what mechanism is it that activates which turns that being from a foetus into a baby? And can the hour, time/process be pinpointed or captured on camera?

It seems you're the one caught up in semantics - baby is not a technical term, the difference is just one between developing foetus and realised human, and therefore one of potential vs actuality. As I said in the very post you quoted here it is my opinion that until there is some sense development (which yes, can be pinpointed through brain scans) it is merely a potential life, a cluster of cells following chemical processes, and unless you believe that sperm contains magic souls that are implanted as soon as they reach an egg then it is medical fact that this is what they are at that stage. By your logic we are back to all periods and all ejaculate being real living beings because of what they are attempting to do on a cellular level. In terms of how alive an early foetus is, it has the same DNA and make-up as dandruff but washing one's hair isn't murder


There are countless stories of babies, sorry 'foetuses' that have been born and survived before the 23/4 week abortion limit - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2350822/Baby-born-week-legal-abortion-limit-fights-brink-death-make-miracle-recovery.html - Little human beings like that and we're pretending they aren't human, it's a disgrace.

Congrats on totally ignoring my explicit repetitions that I don't agree with late-term abortions. At that stage yes they are little humans, but there are very clear stages where this is not the case in any way


I find it disgusting that people still think abortion is acceptable. If you don't want a child in the first place wear protection or don't have sex. If you get pregnant and don't want the child, give it to another family, I think it is called surrogates? There are so many people in the world who can't have children and would make lovely parents. It's horrible to think people could abort their child if you could find out if it was gay or a different race. The child is still yours.
So horrible that people are killing an unborn child, everyone has a right to live.

Foetus =/= child, and it's a hugely ignorant stance to take that adoption and post-birth abandonment are better solutions. The problem with you "pro-life" types is that you only seem to care about it until it leaves the mother's body, and after that you just believe that the world will manage to take care of it perfectly and there'll be no negative effects. Furthermore, adoption and fostering are not nearly as prolific as they need to be for the current level of unwanted children, so you get kids being shipped around non-homes for years and years being unloved and statistically being more prone to abuse, mental illness, and latent criminal tendencies - but that's fine as long as a group of unfeeling cells aren't damaged, right?


Don't you think it is fair for a child to live a life they deserve?
If you think children of colour/ disability have a lower chance of being adopted you are WRONG. I always see on the news that people have adopted a child with a disability of a certain race.

You have no clue what you're talking about and are spouting proven lies as though they were fact - not just "opinions", lies. You seeing a news story about a disabled kid being adopted does not mean that decades of collated and ongoing research which outright prove the huge disparity in adoption of healthy white children to disabled non-whites, and frankly I find it sickening that you let an unfounded opinion blind you so much that you publish falsities just to save yourself from admitting that you're wrong. Yes it's fair for a child to live a life they deserve, which is why forcing people to carry a pregnancy to term and then abandoning the kid to be pushed around from place to place on the off-chance that someone might want them (and then allowing the potential trauma and suffering when they find out they were unwanted from before they were even born) is ridiculous. You are an uneducated, bigoted liar who masquerades their heavily flawed opinion as though it were universal truth despite all proof to the contrary, and then you have the sheer gall to tell other people to go re-think their opinion

[Kardan]

Can I just add, all you pro-life people, you need to realise that women that have abortions aren't all women that have had one night stands and have gotten pregnant accidentally. There are couples, trying for children that end up having abortions.

[FlyingJesus]

Excuse me Kardan facts are not welcome here

[Oleh]

Unless the child is heavily defected and the quality of life will be poor or degraded, an abortion shouldn't be considered. There is no reason to abort a perfectly fine human spawn.

[karter]

^ Unless the mother does not want to go through 9 months of pain and hardship with pressure from society? ?? ???

Going to say this again, men don't have an opinion in this unless they are in support of the mother's choice. Womb not yours, choice not yours. Boo. *******. Hoo.

[Kardan]

Unless the child is heavily defected and the quality of life will be poor or degraded, an abortion shouldn't be considered. There is no reason to abort a perfectly fine human spawn.

But it's totally fine if the mother has their life potentially put at risk?

[Shar]

Unless the child is heavily defected and the quality of life will be poor or degraded, an abortion shouldn't be considered. There is no reason to abort a perfectly fine human spawn.
I think we need to consider the women's health as well as the child's. Lets say a perfectly healthy women has conceived a perfectly healthy fetus but then her health deteriorates, what then?

[Oleh]

^ Unless the mother does not want to go through 9 months of pain and hardship with pressure from society? ?? ???

Going to say this again, men don't have an opinion in this unless they are in support of the mother's choice. Womb not yours, choice not yours. Boo. *******. Hoo.

Shouldn't let it get far enough to require an abortion...

[-:Undertaker:-]

It seems you're the one caught up in semantics - baby is not a technical term, the difference is just one between developing foetus and realised human, and therefore one of potential vs actuality. As I said in the very post you quoted here it is my opinion that until there is some sense development (which yes, can be pinpointed through brain scans) it is merely a potential life, a cluster of cells following chemical processes, and unless you believe that sperm contains magic souls that are implanted as soon as they reach an egg then it is medical fact that this is what they are at that stage. By your logic we are back to all periods and all ejaculate being real living beings because of what they are attempting to do on a cellular level. In terms of how alive an early foetus is, it has the same DNA and make-up as dandruff but washing one's hair isn't murder

What the hell is a 'realised' human? on that basis we're all not realised humans until we stop developing at age 21, and even then we are still developing in a number of ways. Again, this is the usual twisting of language by the pro-abortion side that you belong on. It's like at the end of your piece you start comparing a developing human in the womb to dandruff.. absolutely incredible. Look at the pictures in the womb, the little baby with it's body parts developing and it's movements and yet you compare this to sperm or dandruff. Wow.

I can sometimes understand where you are coming from, but as there is no way to define exactly when a 'foetus' becomes a human (probably because logic dictates that it is a human just as an Ash sapling is an Ash Tree) then i'm against abortions. Science hasn't yet been able to pinpoint this magical moment when somethine suddenly becomes worthy of life, and in my eyes never can for the reasons i've just mentioned.


Congrats on totally ignoring my explicit repetitions that I don't agree with late-term abortions. At that stage yes they are little humans, but there are very clear stages where this is not the case in any way

So again, when is the exact point and what does this process entail?


Can I just add, all you pro-life people, you need to realise that women that have abortions aren't all women that have had one night stands and have gotten pregnant accidentally. There are couples, trying for children that end up having abortions.

I KNEW, I just KNEW you lot would fall back on this - because as soon as the argument against abortion has become so overwhelming and convincing (not that you should need convincing in the first place that having an unborn child in the womb scrambled up or injected in the heart with sodium is a bad thing) that all you have left is to drag out tiny percentages of cases that are either rape or mental/health defects in an unborn child - that is, I assume, what you are getting at?

As it stands, i'm actually against all abortion unless the life of the mother is threatened. I sometimes waiver on the mental/health aspect, but then I think back to the 1930s and realise that all life is precious and should be protected.


Your argument of shaming the mother for having sex is so horribly ****** up, I am feeling nauseous that a person is actually using this dumb ****** excuse in a debate. Even in a heavily religion influenced and male dominated country like mine, this excuse is not valid.

Nobody is shaming anybody. What we are making the case for is personal responsibility, that is, when a woman engages in sex she should be intelligent enough to realise that by having sex and having a womb, she is putting herself at the great risk of becoming pregnant.

You talk as though pregnancy comes as a shock to women who have sex. It's so much for the women's movement which wanted women to become independent and responsible that we now have people like yourself arguing that women are too stupid to understand that having sex might mean they will fall pregnant.


She had sex without protection. Wow, shocker. She got pregnant (oops! bad move) Now she'll have to live 9 months caring for the child she doesn't want. This may ruin her career, her health forever. Oh well she deserves it right, she had sex. She was so irresponsible that she deserves a huge responsibility as punishment. Yay!

If she didn't want to become pregnant then why did she risk it and have sex? You talk about the poor diddums mother, what about the baby who didn't ask for the mother to have sex and bring it into this world?


I'm going to say this one last time, the womb isn't yours, the choice isn't yours. Men don't have a say in this because all along for centuries they've pressurized women to do what they think is right but not this time, this time the choice is the mother's. Because it's her body, not yours.

That's like saying a woman has the right to punch her stomach over and over when she's heavily pregnant 'becuz its her bodi and she can du wut she lykes' - wrong. There is another human being inside that body and it should not be harmed because of the selfishness and stupidity of a woman falling pregnant in the first place.


What you expect is every pregnant woman should carry their pregnancy to term. If she is not ready for the responsibility, she should put the child for adoption.

Again, why is the woman having sex if she is not ready for the responsibility of a child? True there is contraception and the pill etc, but she must also accept that these are not 100%.

Therefore, when she has sex she makes (or should do) a calculated decision.


Great. Now what if these unexpected pregnancies don't go so well? What if it has a permanent effect on the mother's life and even the new born's life? What if the new born does not get a healthy environment. That's multiple lives ruined just to save a cluster of cells. You're willing to risk all that just to save a cluster of cells.

The same question I put to Tom - at what point does this 'cluster of cells' become a baby? Science hasn't been able to answer it but you seemingly are claiming to be able to answer it, so spit it out.


You do have an opinion unless you are speaking against them

Uh logic fail, that's like saying I can't have an opinion on ****** women. I can speak out on whatever the hell I wish without you holding up a womb as an attempt to deflect criticism.

I don't whip out my penis when talking about men-related issues because believe it or not, I can actually debate a woman on any topic without even discussing my own genitals or that of my opponent.

Identity politics is so 1960s.

[Kardan]

TEXT WALL

So because the number of women that have abortions for life threatening reasons for the baby or the mother is just a small percentage of all abortions - it becomes irrelevant?

I mean, I at least understand your point of view for women that aren't giving a damn about their bodies and just have abortions simply because they're stupid - but come on... Some times they are medically needed, you can't shy away from that fact.

I could find you so many cases where a woman died from pregnancy, but she would have lived if she had an abortion. Heck, there's even some cases where the woman died because she was refused an abortion. You say every life is precious and should be protected. Well, what about the mother?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So because the number of women that have abortions for life threatening reasons for the baby or the mother is just a small percentage of all abortions - it becomes irrelevant?

It doesn't become irrelevant but it's strangely brought up all the time when the preveiling wind is against abortion in general. The issues of rape, mental/body conditions of the child and the health of the mother are all brought up as a means to divert the argument.


I mean, I at least understand your point of view for women that aren't giving a damn about their bodies and just have abortions simply because they're stupid - but come on... Some times they are medically needed, you can't shy away from that fact.

I could find you so many cases where a woman died from pregnancy, but she would have lived if she had an abortion. Heck, there's even some cases where the woman died because she was refused an abortion. You say every life is precious and should be protected. Well, what about the mother?

I have said in this debate that I support abortion only in the case where the mothers life is threatened.

But back to what I was saying above. The vast majority of abortions are not done because the child is ******ed mentally or has problems with his body, nor are the majority of abortions done because the mothers life is in danger or because she was raped.

So would you at least agree with us on the main bulk of the topic that abortion should not be allowed for those who simply became pregnant through fault of their own and not because of the reasons mentioned above. Once you've answered that, we can find out where you really stand rather than hiding behind issues which only affect a tiny proportion of abortions that are carried out.

[Kardan]

It doesn't become irrelevant but it's strangely brought up all the time when the preveiling wind is against abortion in general. The issues of rape, mental/body conditions of the child and the health of the mother are all brought up as a means to divert the argument.



I have said in this debate that I support abortion only in the case where the mothers life is threatened.

But back to what I was saying above. The vast majority of abortions are not done because the child is ******ed mentally or has problems with his body, nor are the majority of abortions done because the mothers life is in danger or because she was raped.

So would you at least agree with us on the main bulk of the topic that abortion should not be allowed for those who simply became pregnant through fault of their own and not because of the reasons mentioned above. Once you've answered that, we can find out where you really stand rather than hiding behind issues which only affect a tiny proportion of abortions that are carried out.

I agree with you that the percentage of all abortions that are medically required, or for reasons such as rape etc. are small.

But women should still have the right to have an abortion. I would say that the current 24 week limit does seem quite high, but it's also worth noting that the number of abortions at the 24 week limit is also small.

It's also worth noting that once again, out of all the "normal" cases of abortion, where a woman got pregnant and simply does not want the baby. It's not all because they didn't use contraception. Contraception can fail.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree with you that the percentage of all abortions that are medically required, or for reasons such as rape etc. are small.

But women should still have the right to have an abortion. I would say that the current 24 week limit does seem quite high, but it's also worth noting that the number of abortions at the 24 week limit is also small.

Who says they should have a right? what about the individual rights of the baby to a life?


It's also worth noting that once again, out of all the "normal" cases of abortion, where a woman got pregnant and simply does not want the baby. It's not all because they didn't use contraception. Contraception can fail.

Indeed, as I have said - and as I have concluded after saying that, it's still the woman's fault for falling pregnant and not some sort of mystic force that comes from the heavens. If you have sex then you take varying degrees of risk just as you take varying degrees of risk when you drive a certain model of a car, buy a house in a certain area and so on. In the case of men they take the risk with STDs and women take the risk with STDs and falling pregnant.

If these women aren't prepared to deal with the consquences that can arise from having sex, albeit small when using protection, then they shouldn't be having sex. It's as simple as that.

[Kardan]

Who says they should have a right? what about the individual rights of the baby to a life?



Indeed, as I have said - and as I have concluded after saying that, it's still the woman's fault for falling pregnant and not some sort of mystic force that comes from the heavens. If you have sex then you take varying degrees of risk just as you take varying degrees of risk when you drive a certain model of a car, buy a house in a certain area and so on. In the case of men they take the risk with STDs and women take the risk with STDs and falling pregnant.

If these women aren't prepared to deal with the consquences that can arise from having sex, albeit small when using protection, then they shouldn't be having sex. It's as simple as that.

Ahh, I see how your view works. So every person that dies when a lorry (who had a drunk driver driving) crashes into their car, it was the person's fault for being on the road. And all the people that died in the twin towers, it was their fault for going to work that day. And the people that died in the recent UK storm, it was their fault for living in the south of the UK.

I'm quite astounded that you still blame a woman if she gets pregnant through no fault of her own. Surely the man is equally responsible for getting her pregnant as the woman is? I mean, wow.

Let me guess, is it still the woman's fault she got pregnant if she gets raped?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ahh, I see how your view works. So every person that dies when a lorry (who had a drunk driver driving) crashes into their car, it was the person's fault for being on the road. And all the people that died in the twin towers, it was their fault for going to work that day. And the people that died in the recent UK storm, it was their fault for living in the south of the UK.

False comparison because a car crash with another car is with an outside force. But let's take an example of a car crash into say a tree or even car crashes with other cars. We add up the risks to our lives all of the time, some we don't put much thought into because some are unlikely to happen, ie living in the South of England which means you are more likely (although only by a small proportion) to die of say heatstroke than you are in Northern Ireland. When you buy a car too, it's taken into account how strong that car is - the smaller the car, student type cars, usually the weaker the car's frame.

Now accepted not everyone adds every risk factor up (such as how strong a car is when impacted) as it's unlikely to happen. But things like the strength of a car are added up in the price you pay for a car so you sort of do take note of it. On sex though, sex is for reproduction at the end of the day and if you partake in sex and are suddenly surprised that you fall pregnant then you must be immensely stupid and I don't see why a child should have it's life taken away from it just because of the stupidity of the mother.


I'm quite astounded that you still blame a woman if she gets pregnant through no fault of her own. Surely the man is equally responsible for getting her pregnant as the woman is? I mean, wow.

Did I say that men are not equally as responsible?

Of course both are responsible, that's why men who get women pregnant should ideally get with the woman like a real man would and provide for the child he has brought into the world - but let's presume the man isn't like that and he's a coward who refuses to share responsibility, he should be bound by the courts to provide financial care towards the child until that said child grows up. Financial care can't cover the lack of a father figure by all means but it's the least a cowardly man can be made to do.


Let me guess, is it still the woman's fault she got pregnant if she gets raped?

That's a cheap shot and you know it.

[Kardan]

False comparison because a car crash with another car is with an outside force. But let's take an example of a car crash into say a tree or even car crashes with other cars. When you buy a car, it's taken into account how strong that car is - the smaller the car, student type cars, usually the weaker the car's frame.

Now accepted not everyone adds every risk factor up (such as how strong a car is when impacted) as it's unlikely to happen. But things like the strength of a car are added up in the price you pay for a car so you sort of do take note of it. On sex though, sex is for reproduction at the end of the day and if you partake in sex and are suddenly surprised that you fall pregnant then you must be immensely stupid and I don't see why a child should have it's life taken away from it just because of the stupidity of the mother.



Did I say that men are not equally as responsible?

Of course both are responsible, that's why men who get women pregnant should ideally get with the woman like a real man would and provide for the child he has brought into the world - but let's presume the man isn't like that and he's a coward who refuses to share responsibility, he should be bound by the courts to provide financial care towards the child until that said child grows up. Financial care can't cover the lack of a father figure by all means but it's the least a cowardly man can be made to do.



That's a cheap shot and you know it.

Well, you did say that 'It's still the woman's fault if they get pregnant', didn't mention anything about men.

I'm just amazed how you can call women that have abortions stupid for getting pregnant.

So if women that have sex can't have abortions, does that mean gay men who have sex can never have treatment for HIV and Aids? Shall we just scrap all research into it, and literally only provide medicine for women that pass down the disease to their newborn children, since surely it is the gay man's stupidity for having sex in the first place? Heck, who cares about their well being and life in the future, it was that one, possibly stupid, action that defines them! And as you said, sex is only for reproduction, so why gay men are having sex in the first place, who knows (!)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well, you did say that 'It's still the woman's fault if they get pregnant', didn't mention anything about men.

That's because we aren't talking about men, we're talking about abortions and so-called 'womens rights'.


I'm just amazed how you can call women that have abortions stupid for getting pregnant.

You must be easily amazed, why is that so amazing to say that somebody who makes a choice to have sex bears the responsibility for something that they know could occur by having sex?


So if women that have sex can't have abortions, does that mean gay men who have sex can never have treatment for HIV and Aids? Shall we just scrap all research into it, and literally only provide medicine for women that pass down the disease to their newborn children, since surely it is the gay man's stupidity for having sex in the first place? Heck, who cares about their well being and life in the future, it was that one, possibly stupid, action that defines them! And as you said, sex is only for reproduction, so why gay men are having sex in the first place, who knows (!)

Well one of the reasons I abstain from gay sex is exactly that, the risk of HIV and AIDs so at least I can say I practice, in this regard, what I preach. But that aside - I don't think the life of an unborn child is really comparable to a virus, do you? it's true to say that if you fall sick with HIV after having sex (gay or straight) then you do share some of the responsibility in that you had sex - albeit with a condom - but knew that this woman you met tonight that you were sleeping with could be telling lies and could very well have HIV or maybe she doesn't even know it yet as she caught it last week.

Look - saying people have responsibility for these things may seem harsh, but i'm not saying it as "you moron look what you did" as I wouldn't with a woman who fell pregnant. All i'm arguing is that whatever bad choices that were made (aka to have sex in the first place) should not result in an unborn child having it's life taken away just because his mother was either a) stupid in that she didn't know sex resulted in pregnancy or b) naive.

[Kardan]

That's because we aren't talking about men, we're talking about abortions and so-called 'womens rights'.



You must be easily amazed, why is that so amazing to say that somebody who makes a choice to have sex bears the responsibility for something that they know could occur by having sex?



Well one of the reasons I abstain from gay sex is exactly that, the risk of HIV and AIDs so at least I can say I practice, in this regard, what I preach. But that aside - I don't think the life of an unborn child is really comparable to a virus, do you? it's true to say that if you fall sick with HIV after having sex (gay or straight) then you do share some of the responsibility in that you had sex - albeit with a condom - but knew that this woman you met tonight that you were sleeping with could be telling lies and could very well have HIV or maybe she doesn't even know it yet as she caught it last week.

Look - saying people have responsibility for these things may seem harsh, but i'm not saying it as "you moron look what you did" as I wouldn't with a woman who fell pregnant. All i'm arguing is that whatever bad choices that were made (aka to have sex in the first place) should not result in an unborn child having it's life taken away just because his mother was either a) stupid in that she didn't know sex resulted in pregnancy or b) naive.

Ok, so this is my personal situation, please tell me how this falls into 'Stupid in that she didn't know sex resulted in pregnancy' or 'Her being naive'.

First of all, we are both aware that pregnancy is caused by sex. That is pretty darn obvious. Secondly, we've already had the discussion what would happen if my fiancée was to get pregnant right now. We are both in our 3rd year at Uni doing Maths degrees, next year we are applying for the PGCE course, and the year after that we are very likely to get a job as a Maths teacher. Neither of us have jobs as our schedules are simply too demanding, even with a job, we would not be able to provide a decent quality of life for us. We both live with our parents, as we do not have enough money to buy a home, or even rent a home/flat/apartment etc. Also worth noting that she has the implant, one of the safest methods of contraception around.

If my fiancée was to get pregnant, we have already decided that we wouldn't have the child. We would not be able to afford a baby, we wouldn't be able to look or care after the baby as much as we would like with Uni commitments and not living together. We want to be able to provide our children with a childhood we never had, and by bringing our child into a world where we are not yet ready to be the parents we want to be, that's just not going to happen.

So please tell me where we fit. What happens in the very, very small chance our contraception fails? Is she stupid? Is she naive? I would say we would be more stupid to bring the baby up in the situation we are in right now. Sorry for actually wanting our children to have a good quality of life. Why is she not allowed an abortion if she chooses? It is her body.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ok, so this is my personal situation, please tell me how this falls into 'Stupid in that she didn't know sex resulted in pregnancy' or 'Her being naive'.

First of all, we are both aware that pregnancy is caused by sex. That is pretty darn obvious. Secondly, we've already had the discussion what would happen if my fiancée was to get pregnant right now. We are both in our 3rd year at Uni doing Maths degrees, next year we are applying for the PGCE course, and the year after that we are very likely to get a job as a Maths teacher. Neither of us have jobs as our schedules are simply too demanding, even with a job, we would not be able to provide a decent quality of life for us. We both live with our parents, as we do not have enough money to buy a home, or even rent a home/flat/apartment etc. Also worth noting that she has the implant, one of the safest methods of contraception around.

If my fiancée was to get pregnant, we have already decided that we wouldn't have the child. We would not be able to afford a baby, we wouldn't be able to look or care after the baby as much as we would like with Uni commitments and not living together. We want to be able to provide our children with a childhood we never had, and by bringing our child into a world where we are not yet ready to be the parents we want to be, that's just not going to happen.

So please tell me where we fit. What happens in the very, very small chance our contraception fails? Is she stupid? Is she naive? I would say we would be more stupid to bring the baby up in the situation we are in right now. Sorry for actually wanting our children to have a good quality of life. Why is she not allowed an abortion if she chooses? It is her body.

The quality of a life for a child does not all depend on wealth you know, often a caring mother and a caring father are the best thing for a child and money simply cannot buy that.

With your personal circumstances, sure it'd result in one of you (probably your fiancee) having to drop out of education for the time being and raise a child/or at least give birth - but after that with childcare and so on these days, she could always go back into education a few years down the line. The fact that she would have to delay her education and thus your household would suffer a temporary drop in wages is not the end of the world and indeed is not worth sacrificing the life of an unborn child for.

As small as the chances of her falling pregnant are - as you and her have clearly taken educated decisions to limit that risk - the risk nevertheless is still there and you yourself admit it. Therefore yes, if she does fall pregnant then it is her fault and the fault of yourself - and you should both thereby face up to your responsibilities as parents in that you've now brought a life into the world and have an obligation to look after that small and precious life.

That's how I see it. If you don't like that small risk then you ought not to have sex until you are in a position in your lives to plan for that very remote contingency of a child. To simply do away with the child as though it was an inconvienent cold is to me, the height of selfishness.

[Chippiewill]

A woman has a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies, you ain't influencing her decision buddy because you aren't the one holding a child in your womb for 9 months. It's her decision and hers only.
I almost entirely agree. However just to note on the father's rights, the father should be able to absolve themselves of responsibility at an early point if the mother doesn't want to abort. The current situation in america where a mother can refuse to abort and then demand child support is frankly ridiculous.

[bkps]

Completely wrong. It's pathetic killing a life all because it's not the right sex. At the end of the day, it's a baby, it's a life. I don't care what people say when they say 'oh it's a foetus, it isn't a proper baby till it's born' or the good ol' 'it's not a baby until however many weeks' that's just stupid. From the moment that the sperm has fertilised the egg, there is a life growing inside of you. Whether it's the sex you want or not, it's still your life. Something you created. It does piss me off so much when people decide to get abortions because of that, if they don't want a certain sex, good for them they can put it up for adoption if they really don't want it. But in all cases they should just grow up and stop being so stupid and have the goddamn baby and love it like they would have if it was the sex they wanted. Abortion in my eyes is wrong unless the person is unfit to look after the child (although they caan put it up for adoption) or if there has been sexual abuse involved. Those are the only 2 circumstances and even then i still ain't so sure abortion should be allowed. Of course, it should be the mother's decision but gender based? No.

[FlyingJesus]

What the hell is a 'realised' human? on that basis we're all not realised humans until we stop developing at age 21, and even then we are still developing in a number of ways. Again, this is the usual twisting of language by the pro-abortion side that you belong on. It's like at the end of your piece you start comparing a developing human in the womb to dandruff.. absolutely incredible. Look at the pictures in the womb, the little baby with it's body parts developing and it's movements and yet you compare this to sperm or dandruff. Wow.

I apologise for using science and fact rather than baseless moral beliefs in my arguments. Yes, a developing foetus is the same in terms of DNA and potential as dandruff - if you knew anything about cellular science rather than just saying WOW I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT!!! you'd know this to be true, and you'd also know that realisation is a point at which potential becomes reality. A human growing into an adult is still a human, but a foetus growing into a human has not yet become one, and as much as you want to tell me that being person-shaped makes one a human it simply isn't medically correct. Twisting language is again your plan rather than mine as you use terms like "little baby" to describe (yep, using the phrase again) a cluster of cells. You seem to be constantly forgetting or just ignoring the fact that I've said time and time again that I don't agree with late-term abortions where the foetus has developed into a human. Cue "BUT WHEN IS THAT LOL" despite having been told several times already


I can sometimes understand where you are coming from, but as there is no way to define exactly when a 'foetus' becomes a human (probably because logic dictates that it is a human just as an Ash sapling is an Ash Tree) then i'm against abortions. Science hasn't yet been able to pinpoint this magical moment when somethine suddenly becomes worthy of life, and in my eyes never can for the reasons i've just mentioned.

*+*+*Yes it has*+*+* try reading posts that you quote before replying to points that have been made. Your love for Victorian Britain doesn't mean we still live there, we have brain scans and plenty of other procedures that can pinpoint exactly what stage a foetus is at


So again, when is the exact point and what does this process entail?


the time at which the brain begins developing senses

until there is some sense development (which yes, can be pinpointed through brain scans) it is merely a potential life, a cluster of cells following chemical processes

Read. My. Posts. Your debate technique (ie: ignoring anything that you can't throw lies at) hasn't improved since becoming mighty overlord of making threads I see


The same question I put to Tom - at what point does this 'cluster of cells' become a baby? Science hasn't been able to answer it but you seemingly are claiming to be able to answer it, so spit it out.

Oh look you've asked it again, and again claimed that it hasn't been answered


that's why men who get women pregnant should ideally get with the woman like a real man would and provide for the child he has brought into the world - but let's presume the man isn't like that and he's a coward who refuses to share responsibility, he should be bound by the courts to provide financial care towards the child until that said child grows up. Financial care can't cover the lack of a father figure by all means but it's the least a cowardly man can be made to do.

Brilliant so not only are you against a woman's right to not up-end her entire life for what will be an unloved child (again pro-lifers not caring about it once it's outside the body, nice one) you're also against a man's right to have his own life even if he's been coerced, forced, or tricked into having a child. Despite having no legal say over what happens to his offspring (http://permutationofninjas.org/post/33184712056/) even if he does want it and the fact (yep, fact again! sorry I know you hate those) that child support is actually more of a burden on life (http://permutationofninjas.org/post/21545067785/) in terms of health and wealth than pregnancy in itself you care more about the potential for overpopulating the world with hypothetical unwanted children than the welfare of real people who already exist. Good news chaps, you're now a coward if you don't want to shorten your life and make it miserable for the benefit of someone you don't care about! Thought you were against people being invasively forced to pay for the welfare of others but hey I guess that's the whole basis of the pro-life movement: being pro-life but only if that life doesn't actually have any feelings of its own


That's a cheap shot and you know it.

Yeah how dare someone bring up an important point that's completely relevant? What a criminal

[Reality]

I think it's completely cruel to do this!
I don't think a baby should basically be "put down" because the couple didn't get what gender they wanted...
Who cares what gender your baby is? At the end of the day you have a child, you should be supportive of it in years to come, not end it's life before it has even begun, it's completely cruel and I think it should be stopped no human life should be put through it.
I know the baby doesn't have any say but again I come to the human rights act
"Article 6: The right to life."

So overall, I am not with this find it disgusting!

[e5]

No. You can't stop a person wanting an abortion, but deciding whether to have one based on the gender of the baby is just wrong.

[Yawn]

interesting debate

http://24.media.tumblr.com/915c5a5a135d1c7b367dd5d6fb93c576/tumblr_mw44oiBYAa1rmud50o1_400.gif

-

surprised how many have said they think its ok tbh was expecting every1 to flat out say NO

[lucaskf390]

People saying this is a difficult debate, that's funny, this is an easy debate eveyone has the right to live, Parents' Choice? Of course not. Once a life is there, they don't have the right to decide, If they decide to take off is homicide.
People need to have life's respect before their own comfort. There is no difference between a baby and adult, life is life. Abort is same that someone says: you are going to die because I don't want you.

[Kardan]

People saying this is a difficult debate, that's funny, this is an easy debate eveyone has the right to live, Parents' Choice? Of course not. Once a life is there, they don't have the right to decide, If they decide to take off is homicide.
People need to have life's respect before their own comfort. There is no difference between a baby and adult, life is life. Abort is same that someone says: you are going to die because I don't want you.

But a group of cells that's a day old... Is that a baby?

[lucaskf390]

But a group of cells that's a day old... Is that a baby?
They are, once sperm and ovule become a single thing, a life exists there. And yes, it is a baby.

[Kardan]

They are, once sperm and ovule become a single thing, a life exists there. And yes, it is a baby.

And what do you think about abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger?

And what about situations where the baby will not survive outside the womb?

[lucaskf390]

And what do you think about abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger?

And what about situations where the baby will not survive outside the womb?
And what do you think about abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger?
Do the necessary to save both lifes.
And what about situations where the baby will not survive outside the womb?
That's not a reason to not let him have a chance to live.

[FlyingJesus]

They are, once sperm and ovule become a single thing, a life exists there. And yes, it is a baby.

If I throw iron filings at a lump of carbon is it immediately steel?

[lucaskf390]

If I throw iron filings at a lump of carbon is it immediately steel?

Are iron and carbon alive things? Are they the smallest part of the life?

[FlyingJesus]

Well you've missed the point entirely but if you want to play that game, sperm and ova are already alive so every night that you bash one into a tissue you are murdering millions of potential lives, and every period a woman passes unfertilised is COLD HEARTED MURDER. When you scratch your head BILLIONS OF LIVING CELLS DIE BECAUSE OF YOUR HATEFUL ACTIONS. Sounds stupid? Too right it does

[lucaskf390]

Well you've missed the point entirely but if you want to play that game, sperm and ova are already alive so every night that you bash one into a tissue you are murdering millions of potential lives, and every period a woman passes unfertilised is COLD HEARTED MURDER. When you scratch your head BILLIONS OF LIVING CELLS DIE BECAUSE OF YOUR HATEFUL ACTIONS. Sounds stupid? Too right it does
I don't think I lost the point.
Yes, Bash one is a body necessity and women aren't forced to be fertilised always she is able to, this is not cold hearted action, cold heart is you know you'll have a baby and choose for your own comfort take it off.

[FlyingJesus]

You're writing words but they just aren't making sense, would you like to try again?

[Kardan]

And what do you think about abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger?
Do the necessary to save both lifes.
And what about situations where the baby will not survive outside the womb?
That's not a reason to not let him have a chance to live.

Sadly there are cases where both mother and child cannot be saved. What happens in that situation then?

And if a baby is born with a fatal defect, for example, only born with half a heart and will die as soon as it is born, you are not giving it a chance to live, you are only letting it have the chance to die in front of its parents... (Of course with abortion its the same outcome, but surely the earlier its done, the better. If not, you're essentially raising the baby so it can die later, and depending on when certain senses develop, it could certainly be a more cruel death).

And why should a woman have to give birth to a 40 week old baby and watch it die because you (not the mother!) didn't want to kill the 20 week old baby.

[karter]

And what do you think about abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger?
Do the necessary to save both lifes.
And what about situations where the baby will not survive outside the womb?
That's not a reason to not let him have a chance to live.

If you have any idea of how medical procedures go, there come many situations where only one of them can be saved so enough with the layman comments "do the necessary" because you clearly have no medical experience or any knowledge whatsoever

Risking an adult's life for an unborn undeveloped child who might not survive is the most idiotic excuse made by prolifers

[lucaskf390]

Sadly there are cases where both mother and child cannot be saved. What happens in that situation then?

And if a baby is born with a fatal defect, for example, only born with half a heart and will die as soon as it is born, you are not giving it a chance to live, you are only letting it have the chance to die in front of its parents... (Of course with abortion its the same outcome, but surely the earlier its done, the better. If not, you're essentially raising the baby so it can die later, and depending on when certain senses develop, it could certainly be a more cruel death).

And why should a woman have to give birth to a 40 week old baby and watch it die because you (not the mother!) didn't want to kill the 20 week old baby.
Sadly there are cases where both mother and child cannot be saved. What happens in that situation then?
One (or both) of them unfortunately die, but you did all you could to try to save them.

And if a baby is born with a fatal defect, for example, only born with half a heart and will die as soon as it is born, you are not giving it a chance to live, you are only letting it have the chance to die in front of its parents... (Of course with abortion its the same outcome, but surely the earlier its done, the better. If not, you're essentially raising the baby so it can die later, and depending on when certain senses develop, it could certainly be a more cruel death).

What has no cure today can possibly be cured tomorrow, medicine is advancing rapidly and that his assertion cruel death, abortion is women taking a medicine that blocks the fetal development and the other is to cut the fetus into pieces and sucks it out . What is cruel here?
And that affirmation shows you have no faith, that I won't discuss.

[lucaskf390]

If you have any idea of how medical procedures go, there come many situations where only one of them can be saved so enough with the layman comments "do the necessary" because you clearly have no medical experience or any knowledge whatsoever

Risking an adult's life for an unborn undeveloped child who might not survive is the most idiotic excuse made by prolifers
If you have any idea of how medical procedures go, there come many situations where only one of them can be saved so enough with the layman comments "do the necessary" because you clearly have no medical experience or any knowledge whatsoever
There is always a chance that 1 of them will die, Is that a excuse to abort? I have no experience but I know that are doctor's job save all lifes as he can.
Risking an adult's life for an unborn undeveloped child who might not survive is the most idiotic excuse made by prolifers
There is always a risk during birth mother or child have problems, if your mother think as you do, you wouldn't be here.

[karter]

If you have any idea of how medical procedures go, there come many situations where only one of them can be saved so enough with the layman comments "do the necessary" because you clearly have no medical experience or any knowledge whatsoever
There is always a chance that 1 of them will die, Is that a excuse to abort? I have no experience but I know that are doctor's job save all lifes as he can.
Risking an adult's life for an unborn undeveloped child who might not survive is the most idiotic excuse made by prolifers
There is always a risk during birth mother or child have problems, if your mother think as you do, you wouldn't be here.


I don't need to be thankful to my mother for not aborting me, what the ****??? ?? For anything I need to be thankful for is for her to give birth to me and raise me. Shut up, moral police.

And yes, that is an excuse to abort a child, because the fetus is not a breathing, independently living and thinking creature while the mother is. Like I said that there comes a point when doctors need to decide which one to save, that's a good ******* excuse to abort if the mother is willing since it's her body and not anyone else's. If you still don't get what I am trying to say, go to page 1 and read each post from there' you'll get where I am going because I am really tired of repeating the point which is so easily understandable

Anyway I found this quote which I thought was the apt reply


“Bringing a child into the world makes sense only if this child is wanted consciously and freely by its two parents. If it is not, then it is simply animal and criminal behavior. A human being becomes human not through the casual convergence of certain biological conditions, but through an act of will and love on the part of other people. If this is not the case, then humanity becomes — as it is already to a large extent — no more than a rabbit-warren.
In abortion the person who is massacred, physically and morally, is the woman. […] The fate of the woman is in such a disproportionate condition of unfairness compared with the man’s, that every male should bite his tongue three times before speaking about such things.
”

—
Italo Calvino on abortion - 1975





I hope everyone shuts up now

[FlyingJesus]

BUT ADOPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! because there are totes more people looking to adopt than kids needing to be adopted right and no-one's ever left in the system for all of their child life right and growing up knowing that you weren't wanted won't be damaging at all right

ps still not sure what his response to me was meant to say

[Kardan]

Sadly there are cases where both mother and child cannot be saved. What happens in that situation then?
One (or both) of them unfortunately die, but you did all you could to try to save them.

And if a baby is born with a fatal defect, for example, only born with half a heart and will die as soon as it is born, you are not giving it a chance to live, you are only letting it have the chance to die in front of its parents... (Of course with abortion its the same outcome, but surely the earlier its done, the better. If not, you're essentially raising the baby so it can die later, and depending on when certain senses develop, it could certainly be a more cruel death).

What has no cure today can possibly be cured tomorrow, medicine is advancing rapidly and that his assertion cruel death, abortion is women taking a medicine that blocks the fetal development and the other is to cut the fetus into pieces and sucks it out . What is cruel here?
And that affirmation shows you have no faith, that I won't discuss.

So its okay if the mother dies? At least the doctors tried to deliever the baby? And I think babies being born without a full heart is a pretty fatal defect, it seems unlikely to me that someone would opt for an abortion but then change their mind because they get told that scientists maybe able to discover how to build a new babies heart in a day.

And I'm not religious no, but that makes little difference. There are many religious women in need of abortions and there have been recent cases of women refused abortions over religion that have died.
So you would make the decision for your wife over abortion then? And if her life was in danger you would tell her to continue the pregnancy?

[RapLuvr334]

let them have it its their body so its their choice stop being sexist u *****s

[lucaskf390]

So its okay if the mother dies? At least the doctors tried to deliever the baby? And I think babies being born without a full heart is a pretty fatal defect, it seems unlikely to me that someone would opt for an abortion but then change their mind because they get told that scientists maybe able to discover how to build a new babies heart in a day.

And I'm not religious no, but that makes little difference. There are many religious women in need of abortions and there have been recent cases of women refused abortions over religion that have died.
So you would make the decision for your wife over abortion then? And if her life was in danger you would tell her to continue the pregnancy?

So you would make the decision for your wife over abortion then?
Yes, I would without thinking twice.
And if her life was in danger you would tell her to continue the pregnancy?
Yes, I would without thinking twice. Parents must take care of their children, no matter the problem. Animals have same action. Egoism is the main problem here.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't need to be thankful to my mother for not aborting me, what the ****??? ?? For anything I need to be thankful for is for her to give birth to me and raise me. Shut up, moral police.

And yes, that is an excuse to abort a child, because the fetus is not a breathing, independently living and thinking creature while the mother is. Like I said that there comes a point when doctors need to decide which one to save, that's a good ******* excuse to abort if the mother is willing since it's her body and not anyone else's. If you still don't get what I am trying to say, go to page 1 and read each post from there' you'll get where I am going because I am really tired of repeating the point which is so easily understandable

Anyway I found this quote which I thought was the apt reply



I hope everyone shuts up now
100% egoist text

[Kardan]

So you would make the decision for your wife over abortion then?
Yes, I would without thinking twice.
And if her life was in danger you would tell her to continue the pregnancy?
Yes, I would without thinking twice. Parents must take care of their children, no matter the problem. Animals have same action. Egoism is the main problem here.

- - - Updated - - -


100% egoist text

Wait, wait... Isn't egoism all about only caring for yourself? Because, y'know... I'm going to argue that me and karter are trying to care for the females here...

As for your opinions, I mean, there's just no words for it. I understand people complaining about teenagers having abortions because they have unprotected sex, and people complaining that the abortion week limit is too high, and even people that wouldn't want to have abortions themselves because they are religious...

...but for you to say you would demand your wife to carry on with the pregnancy, I mean... there's just no words. Your wife has no rights to her own body then?

Even -:Undertaker:-; doesn't have this extreme of a view, and y'know, he's quite good at doing that

[lucaskf390]

Wait, wait... Isn't egoism all about only caring for yourself? Because, y'know... I'm going to argue that me and karter are trying to care for the females here...

As for your opinions, I mean, there's just no words for it. I understand people complaining about teenagers having abortions because they have unprotected sex, and people complaining that the abortion week limit is too high, and even people that wouldn't want to have abortions themselves because they are religious...

...but for you to say you would demand your wife to carry on with the pregnancy, I mean... there's just no words. Your wife has no rights to her own body then?

Even -:Undertaker:-; doesn't have this extreme of a view, and y'know, he's quite good at doing that
I'd kill myself for my children or my family without thinking twice.
Your wife has no rights to her own body then?
Once you are going to have a children (wanted or not), you responsability is there, wanting or no, you must take care. And parents' instint as humans is to save their children! It's your blood there, Your most important legacy. And if the only solution is to die, die.

[Kardan]

I'd kill myself for my children or my family without thinking twice.
Your wife has no rights to her own body then?
Once you are going to have a children (wanted or not), you responsability is there, wanting or no, you must take care. And parents' instint as humans is to save their children! It's your blood there, Your most important legacy. And if the only solution is to die, die.

So a woman should be prepared to die for her unborn child that could also die itself? That's madness.

[MKR&*42]

-insert unpopular opinion- |
----------------------------------------

I've always wondered how it could be fair if this happens:

A) Male X gets Female Z pregnant
B) Z decides she doesn't want to have a baby
C) X still wants the baby and can financially support one by himself and would also be a good father figure. This leads to argument and X + Z split up over it, but the "child" is still 50% biologically X's and he wants that child.
D) Z knows he wants that child as an act of revenge refuses to give birth and instead gets an abortion.

Z is allowed to go ahead with the abortion despite X having the financial stability and good characteristics of being a good father who genuinely wants a child. I must ask how it is fair Z gets the final say despite the fact the child is only 50% hers (and in this case there won't be any complications ok), it just sickens me such a case could happen where something is destroyed out of pure revenge.

As for rest of debate idrc.

[Kardan]

-insert unpopular opinion- |
----------------------------------------

I've always wondered how it could be fair if this happens:

A) Male X gets Female Z pregnant
B) Z decides she doesn't want to have a baby
C) X still wants the baby and can financially support one by himself and would also be a good father figure. This leads to argument and X + Z split up over it, but the "child" is still 50% biologically X's and he wants that child.
D) Z knows he wants that child as an act of revenge refuses to give birth and instead gets an abortion.

Z is allowed to go ahead with the abortion despite X having the financial stability and good characteristics of being a good father who genuinely wants a child. I must ask how it is fair Z gets the final say despite the fact the child is only 50% hers (and in this case there won't be any complications ok), it just sickens me such a case could happen where something is destroyed out of pure revenge.

As for rest of debate idrc.

Whilst it is morally wrong to do that, it is her body at the end of the day and there is not much you can do to stop that from happening.

[Catchy]

-insert unpopular opinion- |
----------------------------------------

I've always wondered how it could be fair if this happens:

A) Male X gets Female Z pregnant
B) Z decides she doesn't want to have a baby
C) X still wants the baby and can financially support one by himself and would also be a good father figure. This leads to argument and X + Z split up over it, but the "child" is still 50% biologically X's and he wants that child.
D) Z knows he wants that child as an act of revenge refuses to give birth and instead gets an abortion.

Z is allowed to go ahead with the abortion despite X having the financial stability and good characteristics of being a good father who genuinely wants a child. I must ask how it is fair Z gets the final say despite the fact the child is only 50% hers (and in this case there won't be any complications ok), it just sickens me such a case could happen where something is destroyed out of pure revenge.

As for rest of debate idrc.

It's a grey area. Is it fair to let X go through 40 weeks of an unwanted pregnancy? No. Pregnancy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[karter]

100% egoist text

Last time I remember egoist meant a self centred person and I'm here standing up for women and their right to choose and gee, I became self centred, fantastic logic coming from a guy who will never bear the pain of pregnancy

[Craptarded]

Having to have an abortion I can really relate to this topic. I do not believe one should be allowed to abort if they don't like the gender of the fetus. I am pro choice when it comes to abortion though. Since i would be a hypocrite if I said I was anti.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[karter]

-insert unpopular opinion- |
----------------------------------------

I've always wondered how it could be fair if this happens:

A) Male X gets Female Z pregnant
B) Z decides she doesn't want to have a baby
C) X still wants the baby and can financially support one by himself and would also be a good father figure. This leads to argument and X + Z split up over it, but the "child" is still 50% biologically X's and he wants that child.
D) Z knows he wants that child as an act of revenge refuses to give birth and instead gets an abortion.

Z is allowed to go ahead with the abortion despite X having the financial stability and good characteristics of being a good father who genuinely wants a child. I must ask how it is fair Z gets the final say despite the fact the child is only 50% hers (and in this case there won't be any complications ok), it just sickens me such a case could happen where something is destroyed out of pure revenge.

As for rest of debate idrc.


Right of the woman over her body vs Right of the crybaby male parent who might not even make a good parent. Oh yeah, you gotta pick your battles

What's really sickening here is that you can judge how a male parent will be like just by his financial stability even though the woman has clearly objected the idea, what now you'll make her go through the pregnancy just because his daddy feelings were hurt? I will repeat this till the end, if you don't have a uterus, you have absolutely no right to jump on the conclusion that abortion is wrong. That's like sitting with a bunch of white people asking their definition is racism

There's a reason this is an unpopular opinion

[karter]

Right of the woman over her body vs Right of the crybaby male parent who might not even make a good parent. Oh yeah, you gotta pick your battles

What's really sickening here is that you can judge how a male parent will be like just by his financial stability even though the woman has clearly objected the idea, what now you'll make her go through the pregnancy just because his daddy feelings were hurt? I will repeat this till the end, if you don't have a uterus, you have absolutely no right to jump on the conclusion that abortion is wrong. That's like sitting with a bunch of white people asking their definition is racism

There's a reason this is an unpopular opinion


*of racism woops

[MKR&*42]

Right of the woman over her body vs Right of the crybaby male parent who might not even make a good parent. Oh yeah, you gotta pick your battles

What's really sickening here is that you can judge how a male parent will be like just by his financial stability even though the woman has clearly objected the idea, what now you'll make her go through the pregnancy just because his daddy feelings were hurt? I will repeat this till the end, if you don't have a uterus, you have absolutely no right to jump on the conclusion that abortion is wrong. That's like sitting with a bunch of white people asking their definition is racism

There's a reason this is an unpopular opinion

I wasn't trying to judge his qualities by his financial stability, moreso the fact he has them both. I totally understand it's the woman's body and all, but I don't understand how you can possibly view it as morally fair when you're literally destroying an entire future for the dad. Also "crybaby" is a bit too far... if I had a friend who went through that I wouldn't exactly call them that I would at least try and be sympathetic : L.

[Kardan]

I wasn't trying to judge his qualities by his financial stability, moreso the fact he has them both. I totally understand it's the woman's body and all, but I don't understand how you can possibly view it as morally fair when you're literally destroying an entire future for the dad. Also "crybaby" is a bit too far... if I had a friend who went through that I wouldn't exactly call them that I would at least try and be sympathetic : L.

I don't think 'He could be a good Dad' would mean anything really, I mean, you can't even predict how good someone will be until they've done it... And even then? Isn't it all perspective? Adults might think you're a good Dad, but at the end of the day, your children might not think so - and surely it's their opinion that counts :P

[MKR&*42]

I don't think 'He could be a good Dad' would mean anything really, I mean, you can't even predict how good someone will be until they've done it... And even then? Isn't it all perspective? Adults might think you're a good Dad, but at the end of the day, your children might not think so - and surely it's their opinion that counts :P

Hmm yeah I guess so. I was just basing it on someone who wouldn't have any kind of criminal record or bad history with drugs/alcohol etc. and stuff like that :P

[Yawn]

u r thick as **** lucas

[karter]

I wasn't trying to judge his qualities by his financial stability, moreso the fact he has them both. I totally understand it's the woman's body and all, but I don't understand how you can possibly view it as morally fair when you're literally destroying an entire future for the dad. Also "crybaby" is a bit too far... if I had a friend who went through that I wouldn't exactly call them that I would at least try and be sympathetic : L.

YOU ARE ALSO DESTROYING THE LIVES OF THE MOTHER AND THE BABY BY MUCH MORE EXTENT JUST BECAUSE THE FATHER DECIDED TO BARGE IN AND SHOVE DOWN HIS DESIRE TO BE A PARENT. HE IS IN FACT NOT EVEN NEEDED IN THE HEALTHY UPBRINGING OF A CHILD, THE MOTHER CERTAINLY PLAYS A HUGE PART IN IT.

You found the crybaby part a little harsh? A little overview of the thread for you


If women don't want babies, maybe they ought to keep their legs shut?


If women don't want the risk of falling pregnant, then maybe they should keep their legs shut and turn irresponsible males away?


TO SUM IT ALL UP, IF YOU CAN'T LOOK AFTER A CHILD KEEP YOUR LEGS SHUT!



There is another human being inside that body and it should not be harmed because of the selfishness and stupidity of a woman falling pregnant in the first place.


it's still the woman's fault for falling pregnant

If you're fine with these statements and find the crybaby thing offensive, then congratulations to you but I am not here for the 'blame the woman for everything while protecting the opinions of unoppressed gender' attitude

[MKR&*42]

YOU ARE ALSO DESTROYING THE LIVES OF THE MOTHER AND THE BABY BY MUCH MORE EXTENT JUST BECAUSE THE FATHER DECIDED TO BARGE IN AND SHOVE DOWN HIS DESIRE TO BE A PARENT. HE IS IN FACT NOT EVEN NEEDED IN THE HEALTHY UPBRINGING OF A CHILD, THE MOTHER CERTAINLY PLAYS A HUGE PART IN IT.

You found the crybaby part a little harsh? A little overview of the thread for you











If you're fine with these statements and find the crybaby thing offensive, then congratulations to you but I am not here for the 'blame the woman for everything while protecting the opinions of unoppressed gender' attitude

I never said I was fine with those statements at all, I think they're worse than what you said. Can you not throw in things I'm not even saying nor have I outright agreed to... lol. I said a while back "as for rest of thread idrc" as I didn't do anything but skim the posts. Christ find my opinion unfair all you want but don't twist my words so I suddenly agree with whatever nonsense people have spewed about it being the woman's fault.

Wait what how can you say a father isn't necessary in upbringing? Yeah there are single parent families that do fine, but not having some form of male (or female role model if the single parent is a male) is hardly a gigantic benefit to the child. I never got brought up around the dad and it didn't do any wonders for me? :S

[karter]

I never said I was fine with those statements at all, I think they're worse than what I've said. Can you not throw in things I'm not even saying nor have I outright agreed to... lol. I said a while back "as for rest of thread idrc" as I didn't do anything but skim the posts. Christ find my opinion unfair all you want but don't twist my words so I suddenly agree with whatever nonsense people have spewed about it being the woman's fault.

Wait what how can you say a father isn't necessary in upbringing? Yeah there are single parent families that do fine, but not having some form of male (or female role model if the single parent is a male) is hardly a gigantic benefit to the child. I never got brought up around the dad and it didn't do any wonders for me? :S

But you found the crybaby thing a little harsh, out of everything on this thread that was harsh. Fab. Anyway this is what I was implying, I wasn't exactly 'twisting' your words. You chose not to involve with that and your reply was 'idrc' but you found crybaby objectionable..but what can I say....opinions are opinions...

Why men are not a necessity in the upbringing of a child :

1. Men often get a free pass when it comes to raising a child, like it's a woman's duty. I am not generalizing here but it's a fact that in most households, men don't provide an active role in rasing kids

2. Women are more attached to children, because they carried them during the pregnancy and would obviously be better caregivers, for men however it's a forced task most of the time.

3. Men are generally clumsy in non verbal communication, nursing, dressing, feeding etc.

The only role I see that men are good at is probably emotional support and encouragement which the mothers can provide too

What I wrote above was highly generalized I know, that's why I wrote 'most men' and 'generally' so before anyone jumps in and calls me stereotyped, yeah. Now you please elaborate how a willing and financially stable father will successfully bring up a child against the will of the mother.

[MKR&*42]

But you found the crybaby thing a little harsh, out of everything on this thread that was harsh. Fab. Anyway this is what I was implying, I wasn't exactly 'twisting' your words. You chose not to involve with that and your reply was 'idrc' but you found crybaby objectionable..but what can I say....opinions are opinions...

Why men are not a necessity in the upbringing of a child :

1. Men often get a free pass when it comes to raising a child, like it's a woman's duty. I am not generalizing here but it's a fact that in most households, men don't provide an active role in rasing kids

2. Women are more attached to children, because they carried them during the pregnancy and would obviously be better caregivers, for men however it's a forced task most of the time.

3. Men are generally clumsy in non verbal communication, nursing, dressing, feeding etc.

The only role I see that men are good at is probably emotional support and encouragement which the mothers can provide too

What I wrote above was highly generalized I know, that's why I wrote 'most men' and 'generally' so before anyone jumps in and calls me stereotyped, yeah. Now you please elaborate how a willing and financially stable father will successfully bring up a child against the will of the mother.

Bold = Yes because it harsh, because some other fools have come out with "it's the woman's fault" it doesn't give you a right to say anything like that?

In the second point you say "more" attached, which is understandable given the biological circumstances. It doesn't mean a father cannot be extremely attached towards a child as well? If you imagined it as a scale out of /100 (I can't think of another example) then you could have A) Female = 100/100 for attachment and B) Male = 99/100, just because he supposedly can't be as attached it doesn't mean he isn't going to be attached at all.

Clumsy I'm not even gonna try I'm confused in general.

The fact of the matter is, any statistic would show you someone in a fatherless family has the odds stacked widely against them in regards to dropping out of school/experiencing poverty/crime/heck even rape and more. Fatherless families are NOT the way to go and I know you've said "in general", but that's still pretty damn insulting as you're implying the large majority of men will act like that when I would believe the other way round - if u wanna go find a statistic for "clumsiness" be my guest i guess...

Poor gay couples doing an awful job of raising any kid.

[Kardan]

Bold = Yes because it harsh, because some other fools have come out with "it's the woman's fault" it doesn't give you a right to say anything like that?

In the second point you say "more" attached, which is understandable given the biological circumstances. It doesn't mean a father cannot be extremely attached towards a child as well? If you imagined it as a scale out of /100 (I can't think of another example) then you could have A) Female = 100/100 for attachment and B) Male = 99/100, just because he supposedly can't be as attached it doesn't mean he isn't going to be attached at all.

Clumsy I'm not even gonna try I'm confused in general.

The fact of the matter is, any statistic would show you someone in a fatherless family has the odds stacked widely against them in regards to dropping out of school/experiencing poverty/crime/heck even rape and more. Fatherless families are NOT the way to go and I know you've said "in general", but that's still pretty damn insulting as you're implying the large majority of men will act like that when I would believe the other way round - if u wanna go find a statistic for "clumsiness" be my guest i guess...

Poor gay couples doing an awful job of raising any kid.

That's a bit of a generalisation, right? I don't think a father or a mother is necessary, but parent(s) (doesn't have to be biological) are.

Maybe I read your last sentence in the wrong context, could do with a comma somewhere maybe :P

[MKR&*42]

That's a bit of a generalisation, right? I don't think a father or a mother is necessary, but parent(s) (doesn't have to be biological) are.

Maybe I read your last sentence in the wrong context, could do with a comma somewhere maybe :P

Was meant to be sarcastic if that's where your confusion is coming from? :P I was taking the idea that a father cannot supposedly by a decent parent "in general" to quote someone and applying it to a gay couple, thus suggesting they would supposedly raise children worse than hetero couples which isn't actually the case.

[Kardan]

Was meant to be sarcastic if that's where your confusion is coming from? :P I was taking the idea that a father cannot supposedly by a decent parent "in general" to quote someone and applying it to a gay couple, thus suggesting they would supposedly raise children worse than hetero couples which isn't actually the case.

Yeah, you need to like, italicise it or something :P

[MKR&*42]

Yeah, you need to like, italicise it or something :P

Will bear that in mind ;) Ran out of edit time sorry.

[karter]

And..what...about...motherless families.....Do they stand out in these statistics you are talking about? I was comparing fatherless families to motherless families by the way. Because if you realize this argument started where you mentioned the situation where the mother was unwilling to give birth while the father was advocating his right to bring up the child. I would. love. to compare the statistics.

I think the problem lies in your ideology of equality but you have to realize that when it comes to issues like this, men can't really say anything because they are incapable of giving birth. People can call me an outdated 1960s supporter of Identity politics all they want but the whole problem lies where a group of unoppressed people start deciding what's oppressive and what's not because if men start saying something they will shrink women down to the level where there significance will only mean a machine who gives birth to children.

You would think I am being an obnoxious tryhard feminist but not really, I am actually here in support of minorities who are suppressed and the people who are not suppressed think that their opinions matter. No, this is a wrong way of dealing with issues, and that's why if you are a man, and you have got problems with abortion, you have no say in it. You felt insulted when I talked about men even though I carefully put words such as 'generally' and 'most' which obviously implied that all men are in fact not like that. See, now I regret even putting that because that's a very effective way of silencing women rights. We live in a culture where men look down on women, where men are much more in number when it comes to deciding the moral rights of a woman on her body. I think men should shut up and stop thinking about themselves. I think men should shut up and stop benefiting from sexism. I WISH that all the males prolifers on this thread would shut up because they empathize with the cluster of cells growing in a woman who haven't even developed yet and with the male parent with the 'financial stable' tag but not even a bit of empathy for a woman with her own preferences and life choices. (Oh wait, the woman who couldn't keep her legs shut am I right?) Because all the intimidation, rape, sexism, gender based discrimination was not enough so the **** tag goes to the woman who chose not to go through the pregnancy. Pretty much a punishment for having a reproductive system. Call males the oppressive gender? Oop, hit a nerve there.

So that's pretty much why I don't take guys seriously. Now if you're all like "OMG BUT EVERYONE HAS OPINIONS" Yes dear you do have opinions but you gotta learn where your opinions matter, if you are a man and prolife then sorry to break it up to you but you're 100% irrelevant and your narrow minded opinions will only make the society go backward, not forward.

[FlyingJesus]

Right of the woman over her body vs Right of the crybaby male parent who might not even make a good parent. Oh yeah, you gotta pick your battles

I take it then that you absolutely oppose the idea of forced child support payments, as that's putting the rights of a crybaby female parent who might not even be a good parent over the right of a man to his body/time/expenses


2. Women are more attached to children, because they carried them during the pregnancy and would obviously be better caregivers, for men however it's a forced task most of the time.

Scientifically untrue and women are actually more likely to be child abusers than men which does not equate to better caregivers


3. Men are generally clumsy in non verbal communication, nursing, dressing, feeding etc.

Just nonsense frankly


What I wrote above was highly generalized I know, that's why I wrote 'most men' and 'generally' so before anyone jumps in and calls me stereotyped, yeah.

Saying BUT I DIDN'T MEAN IT ABOUT EVERYONE!!! doesn't take anything away from the fact that you quite literally said that men are not a necessity and then listed a bunch of untruths and harmful generalisations. If you don't mean them, don't say them


People can call me an outdated 1960s supporter of Identity politics all they want but the whole problem lies where a group of unoppressed people start deciding what's oppressive and what's not because if men start saying something they will shrink women down to the level where there significance will only mean a machine who gives birth to children.

As opposed to men currently being machines who just pay for things and die


You would think I am being an obnoxious tryhard feminist but not really, I am actually here in support of minorities who are suppressed and the people who are not suppressed think that their opinions matter.

Women are not a minority nor are they oppressed, certainly not in the Western world anyway


We live in a culture where men look down on women

No we don't, not exclusively


I think men should shut up and stop benefiting from sexism.

Yeah having no parental rights, dying at hugely increased rates, being the primary victims of every single type of physical assault (yes including rape), being constantly told otherwise because raping a male isn't even counted as a crime or believed by the police as a problem, having your genitals mutilated at birth for "tradition", being the massive majority of homeless persons and suicides, having an incarceration rate so maligned that the gender gap for same crimes outweighs race gaps, being forced behind in education because schools are made to use methods that are more female-friendly, great benefits. Name one legal right that men have and women don't


Call males the oppressive gender? Oop, hit a nerve there.

Yes because it's a lie. You seem to be getting very worked up about a topic which you know very little about

[karter]

"Women are not a minority nor are they oppressed, certainly not in the Western world anyway"

You said that, I stopped reading. Are you kidding me? Women are oppressed everywhere, everywhere. If you break the bubble of your utopian world, you would know. Women are paid less, sexually harassed at both workplace and at home, rape...a woman can't go out without worrying about physically or sexually assaulted, they are shamed and stigmatized for the same **** men do which they are appreciated for. They are represented less in every field and industry. Do you have a different definition of oppression? Let's take a look at the 'western world'


UK

45% of women have experienced some form of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.10
21% of girls and 16% of boys experience some form of child sexual abuse11
At least 80,000 women suffer rape every year.12
In a survey for Amnesty International, over 1 in 4 respondents thought a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, and more than 1 in 5 held the same view if a woman had had many sexual partners.13
On average, two women a week in England and Wales are killed by a violent partner or ex-partner. This constitutes nearly 40% of all female homicide victims.14
70% of incidents of domestic violence result in injury, (compared with 50% of incidents of acquaintance violence, 48% of stranger violence and 29% of mugging).15
Around 85% of forced marriage victims are women16
Domestic violence is estimated to cost victims, services and the state a total of around £23 billion a year.17

Source: http://www.whiteribbonscotland.org.uk/Resources/violence_against_women
(http://www.whiteribbonscotland.org.uk/Resources/violence_against_women)


The major English-speaking democracies are placed mostly in the top 40% of the ranked countries. New Zealand ranks at position 27 with women comprising 32.2% of its parliament. Australia (24.7% in the lower house, 38.2% in the upper house) and Canada (24.7% lower house, 37.9% upper house) rank at position 46 out of 189 countries. The United Kingdom is ranked at 58 (22.5% lower house, 22.6% upper house), while the United States ranks 78 (17.8% in the lower house, 20.0% in the upper house)

Source : http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm


By population they are not a minority but by representation in various institutions, they are very much a minority. An institution or group with 30% women would be judged as equal and with 50% women would be judged as women dominated. The USA hasn't had even a woman vice president so don't wave the flag of the oh so perfect western world toward me because all I see is ********



Yeah having no parental rights, dying at hugely increased rates, being the primary victims of every single type of physical assault (yes including rape), being constantly told otherwise because raping a male isn't even counted as a crime or believed by the police as a problem, having your genitals mutilated at birth for "tradition", being the massive majority of homeless persons and suicides, having an incarceration rate so maligned that the gender gap for same crimes outweighs race gaps, being forced behind in education because schools are made to use methods that are more female-friendly, great benefits??? Do you realize that my post was not targetting male gender, the entire point was that women are much much more oppressed, are you implying that being a male is hard lol? I am not ruling out the sexual and physical violence against men but do you even realise that women have it so much worse that it is not even comparable? Are you going to ignore the facts that nearly all sexual assaults happen against women just to make a point that men are vulnerable too? Are you also going to ignore that it's the women who have to tolerate victim shaming more than men, what the hell are you trying to imply here?? They have been marginalized for centuries but you're like "hey I am not getting free educational benefits like you are" I think we both know what's the serious problem here

- - - Updated - - -




You seem to be getting very worked up about a topic which you know very little about


"Women are not a minority nor are they oppressed, certainly not in the Western world anyway"


lol

[FlyingJesus]

You said that, I stopped reading. Are you kidding me? Women are oppressed everywhere, everywhere. If you break the bubble of your utopian world, you would know. Women are paid less, sexually harassed at both workplace and at home, rape...a woman can't go out without worrying about physically or sexually assaulted, they are shamed and stigmatized for the same **** men do which they are appreciated for. They are represented less in every field and industry. Do you have a different definition of oppression?

Women are paid less due to their own choices; job for job with the same hours women have the same salaries as men. "Wage gap" theory has been debunked time and time again, so yes I repeat that you don't know what you're talking about
Sexual harassment happens for men too only they aren't allowed to report it or they get laughed out of the place. Rape and assault I already covered and it's statistical fact that men suffer more from those than women - fear of something does not equal it being a thing.
Men don't actually get applauded for the things women (and you) seem to think. No-one these days thinks that being a playaplaya is cool, that's some 80s newsroom stuff right there.
Underrepresentation is again down to the women's choice. Equality quotas are a terrible idea and you can't force people to become mechanics or farmers if they don't want to enter those careers. Women also make up the majority of voters btw, so any idea of "omf but politixan r man" is null and void since they're chosen by women and cater to women's needs because the politicians know who the majorities are.
Try coming up with something that is true please.


Let's take a look at the 'western world'

Ok let's.
"45% of women have experienced some form of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking" yet 70% of non-reciprocal domestic abuse cases (http://25.media.tumblr.com/e7c26b08c8fb4116ae24e8f565f9922a/tumblr_ms1mrn6glh1qfzspbo1_1280.png) have the woman as the perpetrator (and some other lovely domestic facts there for you too), so clearly your number is even higher for men if you actually bother to look at them.

"21% of girls and 16% of boys experience some form of child sexual abuse" instantly very obviously false since 15.8% of underage boys in the UK are circumcised, which is (unless you're a fan of slicing apart someone's genitals without anaesthetic for no real reason) a clear sexual abuse. Furthermore, while obviously all sexual abuse is disgusting and should be stopped, young boys experience full rape more than young girls (http://underthegoddess.tumblr.com/post/66778154013/).

"At least 80,000 women suffer rape every year" and we'll never know how many men, because the law doesn't even state that men can be raped by women so the statistics are hideously flawed. When women raping men is actually named rape as it should be, the figures for who's attacking who are pretty much equal (http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/).

"In a survey for Amnesty International, over 1 in 4 respondents thought a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, and more than 1 in 5 held the same view if a woman had had many sexual partners." Which shows that a lot of people are uneducated and disgusting, nothing to do with oppression though. If we're playing that game though let's count how many people think it's even possible for a woman to rape a man, often explained away because "he always wants it" or some such lovely sentiment.

"On average, two women a week in England and Wales are killed by a violent partner or ex-partner. This constitutes nearly 40% of all female homicide victims" again showing that there are a lot of terrible people about. These women are being killed because their partners are violent psychopaths, not because there's a secret war on women going on.

"70% of incidents of domestic violence result in injury, (compared with 50% of incidents of acquaintance violence, 48% of stranger violence and 29% of mugging)" Notice how there's no actual mention of women in this one, fab. Covered DV already anyway.

"Around 85% of forced marriage victims are women" lots of forced lesbian marriages going on I see.

"Domestic violence is estimated to cost victims, services and the state a total of around £23 billion a year" and would cost even more if male victims had shelters and proper support, but it's far easier to just ignore half of the problem and blame it on them instead.


By population they are not a minority but by representation in various institutions, they are very much a minority. An institution or group with 30% women would be judged as equal and with 50% women would be judged as women dominated. The USA hasn't had even a woman vice president so don't wave the flag of the oh so perfect western world toward me because all I see is ********

Are you 4real equal numbers in X position does not mean equal representation. Regardless of that, I don't see any women clamouring for equal representation among refuse collectors, miners, and other high-risk jobs at which men make up the majority. You're using what's known as the apex fallacy, making the assumption that if men are at the top then all men are better off, when in fact they make up 98% of all workplace deaths and yet still get people like you who just spew what you're told telling them that they're the top class of humans for being a penis.


??? Do you realize that my post was not targetting male gender, the entire point was that women are much much more oppressed,
No they're not


are you implying that being a male is hard lol?
Yes it is


I am not ruling out the sexual and physical violence against men but do you even realise that women have it so much worse that it is not even comparable? Are you going to ignore the facts that nearly all sexual assaults happen against women just to make a point that men are vulnerable too?
No they don't


Are you also going to ignore that it's the women who have to tolerate victim shaming more than men, what the hell are you trying to imply here??

Wow you make an entire long post about how men don't have any problems when I can (and have) shown that they clearly do and have no representation among victims at all then you come along and tell me that men don't get victim shamed, amazing. It's actually laughable that you think a few teens on facebook making disgusting comments about victims is worse than an entire social and legal system that doesn't recognise male victims at all and spits in their face.


They have been marginalized for centuries but you're like "hey I am not getting free educational benefits like you are" I think we both know what's the serious problem here

Again, tell me one legal right that women don't have and men do. I know what the serious problem is, and a lot of it is to do with people like you refusing to believe anything past the dogma you've accepted even when it means that half the world's population goes unnoticed. Furthermore I'd rather be "marginalised" in safety than sent out to be murdered - I'm fairly sure mass graves of young men forced to fight for kings they've never seen is a tad worse than princesses not having as much say in how the country's run as their brother got.

Don't come at me with dogma when you clearly have never done any research past the front page of an abuse site

[AgnesIO]

At the end of the day it's the parents' choice whether they abort a baby - although their reasoning might be unethical to some people. This happens all the time in China - or even worse actually, but I never thought it would happen in the UK tbh.

I'd never discriminate gender-wise about a baby, I wouldn't care what sex I had, it's a baby, it's part of me!

China has been an entirely different story. Their one-child policy has meant for some families it has simply not been seen as viable to have a female child, not to mention some of the techniques used to kill babies in China being completely barbaric.

[Craptarded]

Here is my experience with abortion-- so that guys can understand what a girl has to go through.

I arrive at the clinic, as since i was 6 weeks pregnant, I was able to have the abortion in a clinic, as opposed to a hospital setting. If I had gone to the hospital my parents would of been notified as it would be an over night visit. After I arrive, I signed in and had to fill in a questionnaire about why I wanted the abortion. It even asked how I was feeling about deciding to have the abortion, as well as signing a waiver if anything bad were to happen. As you could probably imagine, it was really hard for me to keep myself together. The clinic had around 25 chairs, most of which were full with other girls, and some even with their own parents, that were going with them.

I handed in my form, and waited for them to call me into their "counselling" room. This is where they strived about getting a one to one moment with a grief counsullar, that could try to help you feel better about your decision, before you go through with it. The counsellar wasnt very compassionate, and it felt like I was on a conveyer belt. They were very brief with me saying "Yes it will hurt. Severe cramping. Youll be fine. Take these pills." I started to have second thoughts, but knew I had to go through with this considering I was in an abusive relationship, and had been pushed down a flight of stairs while pregnant, so the damage was irreversible either way.

I was given a pill of morphine, as well as an anti-anxiety pill. (Those pills do nothing when you are already wound up). There was a back room where you would go and wait for the doctor to call you in to do the actual procedure. The doctor called my name and in I went. I was so nervous, and having a reaction to the morphine pill, and was having a panic attack. They decided it be best after doing an ultrasound to confirm the pregnancy, to give me a sedative intravenously (IV). This calmed me down a bit, but I had alot of chills.

They then used local anesthetic on my cervix (a needle inside you know where). (HURT ALOT!!!!!!!) then the scraping and suction started. The local anesthetic didnt kick in while she (the doctor) was doing the procedure. So I felt everything, the pain was unbearable. I was sweating, but felt cold. (clammy i suppose?). After they had finished scraping, they took me to recovery area for just over an hour, gave me another morphine pill, and water, as well as some cookies to keep blood sugar up. I felt like I was going to pass out. It was the worst experience of my life.

Where was my boyfriend? He was at the movie theatre, and refused to go with me because he promised his friends he'd go. (he promised me prior to, that he'd go with me).

When I left the recovery room to take the bus home (as they say not to drive). I had a text message saying "did u get it over with?" I couldnt believe my boyfriend at the time said that to me. I had just gone through this entire tramatic procedure, with really not having much say in the matter.

Those people that keep saying its the girls fault for getting pregnant, it takes two to make a baby. So yeah, I take great offense to that. You can not judge until you are faced with the decision.

I still think gender based abortions should be ILLEGAL.

Abortions= Should be LEGAL everywhere, and free of judgment (so a doctor cant say no to you).

So for anyone that ever has to face an abortion, please do your research, and talk to your loved one, or family. I wish I did, it would of been easier for me, had I not done it on my own. I regret it every day. If I had continued the pregnancy, my baby would be almost a year old. It hurts alot to be judged, but its to be expected.

[karter]

You're trying to completely overshadow a huge problem just to make a point that "it happens to men too!!!!" I refuse to believe the points bc you're literally handpicking stats where the abuse rate is equal but the fact is that women are victims most of the time. You are really obsessing over the fact that male sexual victims are less likely to come up and report crimes but you don't realise that this is the result of a patriarchal society which women did not invent.

Women are paid less due to their own choices; job for job with the same hours women have the same salaries as men.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about and are saying that I have not researched the facts while you make outrageous statements with no truth whatsoever


Across industrialized countries, men’s median, full-time earnings were 17.6 percent higher than women’s. The biggest gender wage gap was in South Korea and Japan, where men earn wages more than 30 percent higher than women, and was smallest in Belgium, where the gap is 9.3 percent.In the United States, the typical full-time female worker earns 19 percent less than the typical full-time male worker.

Source:
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/03/09/business/economy/oecdwomen.jpg








http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/gender-pay-gap.jpg?w=696

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/gender-inequality-at-work1.gif?w=696

1. The average male fulltime worker spends 15% more time than married women with children. This is discrimination in it's purest form bc women and their household responsibilities forces them to work less and hence, lesser wages but this isn't the case for men

2. Men work in uncomfortable and dangerous workplaces which require physical work. This is hardly an excuse..female anatomy doesn't allow women to do equal physical work however some women still engage in mining, construction activities. Unfair comparison.

Regarding sexual abuse in which you claim to have much knowledge in


A study done by the CDC found that 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they had been forced to penetrate someone else, usually a woman.

In 2011, the US Centers for Disease Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control) found that "nearly 20% of all women" suffered rape or attempted rape sometime in their life. More than a third of the victims were raped before the age of 18.


Any stats you pick, male perpetrators are overwhelming. You seem to be really sensitive towards male victims but the fact that the offender is male most of the time doesn't get in your head. Like I said, I don't rule out male rape and I understand the social stigma a male has to go through to report a rape, but a woman victim has to go through the same amount, how many times have you seen people shaming a male victim? I personally haven't. A woman victim is blamed and questioned even in the socially advanced and highly civilized West :rolleyes:

I think you mentioned armed forces? Well let me tell you that one of the reason women might not want to join them is the fact that nearly all countries literally exclude women from certain posts in the army, if not at all. British Armed Forces for example, excludes women from the combat units in the Army, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force. So why cry about men getting killed in combats when women don't even get a chance?


entire social and legal system that doesn't recognise male victims at all and spits in their face.


No it doesn't. "Not in the Western world anyway"



are you implying that being a male is hard lol?
Yes it is

No it isn't.

[FlyingJesus]

You're trying to completely overshadow a huge problem just to make a point that "it happens to men too!!!!" I refuse to believe the points bc you're literally handpicking stats where the abuse rate is equal but the fact is that women are victims most of the time.

You're trying to overshadow a huge problem to claim that men aren't equally attacked when the stats (hand-picked!) show that they are. You have literally just said to me here "you have stats but they're wrong ok women are victims more I know this because". That is not an argument, that is perpetuating lies for the sake of wanting to be right


You are really obsessing over the fact that male sexual victims are less likely to come up and report crimes but you don't realise that this is the result of a patriarchal society which women did not invent.

Neither did men. There wasn't some secret cabal where every male in existence sat down and said right chaps how can we oppress women today. If there was, I doubt they'd have sent themselves forward to do the dying and backbreaking labour, they'd have simply made women all-purpose slaves. Gender roles evolved naturally as can be seen in just about every primate, and while they're certainly damaging in modern metropolitan life (which is why I oppose them) they are damaging to everyone


Clearly you don't know what you're talking about and are saying that I have not researched the facts while you make outrageous statements with no truth whatsoever

Psssst those are still caused by the woman's choice. You straight away go on to say


1. The average male fulltime worker spends 15% more time than married women with children. This is discrimination in it's purest form bc women and their household responsibilities forces them to work less and hence, lesser wages but this isn't the case for men

Which is purely infantalising women by claiming that they can't make their own choices. The same stat can be used to suggest that it's discrimination against men because their financial responsibilities (which show them as a wage packet and not even a human being) force them to work more and hence less time with their children or in leisure. Note also that while men are the primary earners in the Western world, women are the primary spenders. This money isn't going into some patriarchy fund for old white men to buy ankle chains for their kitchen-imprisoned concubines. As for the gap itself, no-one claims that there isn't one at all, but it certainly isn't because the world hates women (http://permutationofninjas.org/post/21542975783/the-wage-gap-that-isnt)


2. Men work in uncomfortable and dangerous workplaces which require physical work. This is hardly an excuse..female anatomy doesn't allow women to do equal physical work however some women still engage in mining, construction activities. Unfair comparison.

Hey you're the one who brought up positional equivalence and the apex fallacy. I'm not advocating for women to be drafted into dangerous jobs, just pointing out that a few men in power doesn't mean all men share the benefits


Regarding sexual abuse in which you claim to have much knowledge in



Any stats you pick, male perpetrators are overwhelming. You seem to be really sensitive towards male victims but the fact that the offender is male most of the time doesn't get in your head.

If you actually read the CDC study (I linked to it and a discussion of it in my previous post, but here it is (http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/) again) the stats do not show male perps as overwhelming, they show "forced to penetrate" as nearly equal to "forced to be penetrated", it's just that one of those gets called rape and the other is brushed off by society and the law. The actual split is about 60/40, far closer than anyone would think by looking at the gynocentric media - and regardless of who's doing the attacking, the fact remains that victimhood is equal at the most moderate estimations. If prison rape is factored in then males outnumber females in victimhood by staggering numbers, and here 94% of sexually abused youths (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf) in detainment report a female attacker and 65% in adult facilities (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf) likewise. Apologies for once again picking stats that show reality rather than just parroting phrases that have no backing


Like I said, I don't rule out male rape

Clearly you do since you claim that men are the biggest perpetrators when the very study you're using shows that 80% of raped men were raped by women


and I understand the social stigma a male has to go through to report a rape, but a woman victim has to go through the same amount, how many times have you seen people shaming a male victim? I personally haven't. A woman victim is blamed and questioned even in the socially advanced and highly civilized West :rolleyes:

Well as a victim I have seen it quite a lot thank you. You personally not having seen something doesn't make it not so, and how many times have you even seen someone coming forward as a male victim? Or recognised as a victim when they do? On the rare occasion that a female raping a male makes it to the news the comments are overwhelmingly of the "wow what a lucky guy" and "haha you go girl" variety


I think you mentioned armed forces? Well let me tell you that one of the reason women might not want to join them is the fact that nearly all countries literally exclude women from certain posts in the army, if not at all. British Armed Forces for example, excludes women from the combat units in the Army, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force. So why cry about men getting killed in combats when women don't even get a chance?

I think you mentioned parenthood? Well let me tell you that one of the reasons men might not want to be a stay at home dad is the fact that nearly all countries literally exclude males from society when they aren't a financial success. Divorce rates for example, increase hugely among couples where the male is out of work even among families with wealth enough to not require him to be. So why cry about women getting left in the safety of the home when men don't even get a chance?


No it doesn't. "Not in the Western world anyway"

Yeah let's ignore the stats and figures I gave on how the legal system is biased against males and how the law doesn't even recognise female on male rape as a possibility. Let's put all that to one side, refuse once again to give an example of how women are legally oppressed and just continue claiming that men have it good in all walks of life


No it isn't.

Harder than being a woman apparently (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7kP_dd6LU)

[-paul.]

You should never have an abortion due to gender. The thought of designer babies is a crude idea. Leave it to nature.

[Empired]

I had no idea this debate was even still going on.


Those people that keep saying its the girls fault for getting pregnant, it takes two to make a baby. So yeah, I take great offense to that. You can not judge until you are faced with the decision.

This point here is what I've been thinking the whole way through the first four pages I've read. Especially in reply to that person who kept saying "if you don't want to get pregnant keep your legs shut" (can't remember who now).

Firstly, the posts in this thread seem to be getting further and further away from the actual debate: Gender-based abortions. Reading through the first four pages, I think it's clear to see that pretty much everyone agrees that gender-based abortions are unethical and wrong.

Also, I find it interesting to watch everyone talk about abortions "in general". Abortions really shouldn't be a "general" thing as they're about life (yes, more than one life- the mother, the grandparents AND the baby/foetus/whatever you want to call it ALL have to be taken into consideration). And we really can't just generalise life. I'm slightly shocked at pretty much everyone either saying abortions are wrong or right. It's never going to be as simple as that lol... No matter how much you back it up with statistics and opinions and whatever other crap some of you have come up with.

[Chug!]

Abortion is totally a different thing, but aborting because of gender - I think it's wrong.

[!:random!:!]

I think aborting a baby should be based on how you feel about having a baby, But to abort a baby because of its gender to me is morally wrong and it is sort of sexist ... i think all babys should have the right to live however if the mother knows she can not cope with having a kid or she believes she is not ready then the mother should be allowed the decision to keep the baby or not.

[RapLuvr334]

Look If Your Infertile And You Only Saved Like One Egg And You Really Wanna Have A Baby Boy And You Get A Scan And Its A Girl Then Obviously Your Gonna Want To Abort It. So What Difference Does It Make To You Guys? It's Their Body So Theyre ******* Choice. Stop Being So Ignorant You Misogynistic ********.

- - - Updated - - -

And Also What If The Woman Doesnt Want Her Child To Get A Disease Like Ovarian Cancer. So She Needs To Abort The Baby If Its A Girl Right? This Is Just Common Sense People... -.-

[AgnesIO]

Look If Your Infertile And You Only Saved Like One Egg And You Really Wanna Have A Baby Boy And You Get A Scan And Its A Girl Then Obviously Your Gonna Want To Abort It. So What Difference Does It Make To You Guys? It's Their Body So Theyre ******* Choice. Stop Being So Ignorant You Misogynistic ********.

- - - Updated - - -

And Also What If The Woman Doesnt Want Her Child To Get A Disease Like Ovarian Cancer. So She Needs To Abort The Baby If Its A Girl Right? This Is Just Common Sense People... -.-

Well if you saved one egg, whether you abort or not you've used that egg..? Also, why the hell would you abort a child on the off chance they get a disease.. surely you should also abort the male in case of testicular cancer? If you don't take minor risks in life you won't have/do anything.

And it's "their". Sorry, only pointed that out as I don't think there is any need for you to swear at people.

[RapLuvr334]

Well if you saved one egg, whether you abort or not you've used that egg..? Also, why the hell would you abort a child on the off chance they get a disease.. surely you should also abort the male in case of testicular cancer? If you don't take minor risks in life you won't have/do anything.

And it's "their". Sorry, only pointed that out as I don't think there is any need for you to swear at people.I Dont Think You Get What Im Saying... First Of All Check Your Privallages At The Door... You Will NEVER Know What Its Like To Be Infertile Or Something And Not Have Enough Eggs To Have A Baby. My Grandma Died Of Ovarian Cancer So You Saying My Ideas Stupid Actually Offends Me Because She Was A Really Great Woman Who Did Charity Work etc.

[AgnesIO]

I Dont Think You Get What Im Saying... First Of All Check Your Privallages At The Door... You Will NEVER Know What Its Like To Be Infertile Or Something And Not Have Enough Eggs To Have A Baby. My Grandma Died Of Ovarian Cancer So You Saying My Ideas Stupid Actually Offends Me Because She Was A Really Great Woman Who Did Charity Work etc.

Bit in bold: what on earth are you saying here; makes no sense.

How exactly do you know I won't know what it's like to be infertile? You do realise males' can also be infertile, right? And the number of eggs doesn't matter; once that egg is fertilised having an abortion won't magically give you another egg.

I said nothing against your grandmother, so please don't try and twist things.

[RapLuvr334]

Bit in bold: what on earth are you saying here; makes no sense.

How exactly do you know I won't know what it's like to be infertile? You do realise males' can also be infertile, right? And the number of eggs doesn't matter; once that egg is fertilised having an abortion won't magically give you another egg.

I said nothing against your grandmother, so please don't try and twist things.WTF! I Am Not Twisting Things And I Do A Level Biology And AS Science In Society So Im Pretty Sure I Know What Im Talking About. And Males Are Never COMPLETELY Infertile They Just Get So Its Unlikely They Can Have A Child But Theres Always A Chance They Can So I Was Correct Saying You Cannot Empathise With Their Situation So Please.. Stop Being So Close-Minded And Just Let People Get On With Theyre Lives... Jeez -.-

[Kardan]

WTF! I Am Not Twisting Things And I Do A Level Biology And AS Science In Society So Im Pretty Sure I Know What Im Talking About. And Males Are Never COMPLETELY Infertile They Just Get So Its Unlikely They Can Have A Child But Theres Always A Chance They Can So I Was Correct Saying You Cannot Empathise With Their Situation So Please.. Stop Being So Close-Minded And Just Let People Get On With Theyre Lives... Jeez -.-

Not true.

- - - Updated - - -



Bit in bold: what on earth are you saying here; makes no sense.

How exactly do you know I won't know what it's like to be infertile? You do realise males' can also be infertile, right? And the number of eggs doesn't matter; once that egg is fertilised having an abortion won't magically give you another egg.

I said nothing against your grandmother, so please don't try and twist things.

Please Don't Argue You Are Wrong Very Clearly Wrong I Love My Shift Key It's A Very Nice Key I Hope It Never Breaks.

[RapLuvr334]

Not true.Look I Know What Im Talking About And I Know Im Right. My Dads A Doctor Too.

[AgnesIO]

WTF! I Am Not Twisting Things And I Do A Level Biology And AS Science In Society So Im Pretty Sure I Know What Im Talking About. And Males Are Never COMPLETELY Infertile They Just Get So Its Unlikely They Can Have A Child But Theres Always A Chance They Can So I Was Correct Saying You Cannot Empathise With Their Situation So Please.. Stop Being So Close-Minded And Just Let People Get On With Theyre Lives... Jeez -.-

Science in Society? Sounds a bit of a joke!

And you are wrong about the infertility thing. Who's stopping people get on with their lives?


Look I Know What Im Talking About And I Know Im Right. My Dads A Doctor Too.

Your dads a doctor, so that gives you a qualification in infertility. Right then.

[Kardan]

Look I Know What Im Talking About And I Know Im Right. My Dads A Doctor Too.

Ok, so please tell me how a guy that loses their male genitalia is not infertile.

[RapLuvr334]

Ok, so please tell me how a guy that loses their male genitalia is not infertile.That's Extreme Circumstances. Pretty Much Anything Is Possible Hypothetically, Jerk

[AgnesIO]

That's Extreme Circumstances. Pretty Much Anything Is Possible Hypothetically, Jerk

"Males Are Never COMPLETELY Infertile"

Definition of never; at no time in the past or future; not ever.

[Kardan]

That's Extreme Circumstances. Pretty Much Anything Is Possible Hypothetically, Jerk


And Males Are Never COMPLETELY Infertile They Just Get So Its Unlikely They Can Have A Child But Theres Always A Chance

...

[FlyingJesus]

Pssssssst you're arguing with pretty much the only genuine troll we have here

[RapLuvr334]

"Males Are Never COMPLETELY Infertile"

Definition of never; at no time in the past or future; not ever.Ad Hom Ad Hom Ad Hom, Some Ad nauseum But Mainly Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, Your So Seethrough. Did You Even Get An Education? Lmao

[AgnesIO]

Pssssssst you're arguing with pretty much the only genuine troll we have here

I am unsure whether they are really a troll, or just very young (sort of reminds me of me in my very early days lol)

[RapLuvr334]

I am unsure whether they are really a troll, or just very young (sort of reminds me of me in my very early days lol)Not Going To Reply? Looks Like I Win. Thank God Its Over Because You Were Getting Very Tedious Towards The End.

[Kardan]

Not Going To Reply? Looks Like I Win. Thank God Its Over Because You Were Getting Very Tedious Towards The End.

RapLuvr334 1 - 0 Payasam

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NXczClL8Mts/UO2ibsiMycI/AAAAAAAACuc/3g3RT_D84v0/s1600/the+End.jpg

[Catchy]

I don't need to be thankful to my mother for not aborting me, what the ****??? ?? For anything I need to be thankful for is for her to give birth to me and raise me. Shut up, moral police.

And yes, that is an excuse to abort a child, because the fetus is not a breathing, independently living and thinking creature while the mother is. Like I said that there comes a point when doctors need to decide which one to save, that's a good ******* excuse to abort if the mother is willing since it's her body and not anyone else's. If you still don't get what I am trying to say, go to page 1 and read each post from there' you'll get where I am going because I am really tired of repeating the point which is so easily understandable

Anyway I found this quote which I thought was the apt reply



I hope everyone shuts up now

They'd always try and save the mother, so they wouldn't even have to make a decision. Foetus has absolutely no legal rights what soever prior to delivery.

[Craptarded]

True point the person above me said mother is always saved . It's better that way. You can't have a legit feeling of what an abortion is like until you go through it . I am infertile and got pregnant had to get an abortion . I regret it but it had to be done .

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

[Connected--]

aborting a baby due to its gender isn't right at all. we should all accept one another for who an what they are.

[AgnesIO]

True point the person above me said mother is always saved . It's better that way. You can't have a legit feeling of what an abortion is like until you go through it . I am infertile and got pregnant had to get an abortion . I regret it but it had to be done .

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

This argument is incredibly tedious; if we apply that to everything on this forum there would be no discussion lol People can have opinions on things, without having actually done it :L

[Charz777]

RapLuvr334 1 - 0 Payasam

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NXczClL8Mts/UO2ibsiMycI/AAAAAAAACuc/3g3RT_D84v0/s1600/the+End.jpg


THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT MADE ME LOL! I especially like the part where you got called a jerk, Aiden :P

But back on topic, no it is not right to abort a baby based on gender alone. I am pro-choice and think under certain circumstances abortions are be acceptable, but gender is not a valid reason to abort a child.

[Vodafone]

You get what you are given.

[Thomas.]

Absolute Outrage. The Parent(s) should decide if they want to abort it, either way. DOCTORS SHOULD NOT DO IT

[FlyingJesus]

What you think parents who want to abort should do it themselves?

[Empired]

Absolute Outrage. The Parent(s) should decide if they want to abort it, either way. DOCTORS SHOULD NOT DO IT
what are you actually trying to say here

edit: oh it's just occurred to me that you might have been trying to say doctors should not be given the decision to abort another woman's foetus when it looks to us like you're trying to say doctors shouldn't be allowed to abort a child ever. Is that it? :P

[Wengles]

I'm of the mind that it's not the right of men to make decisions on something so physically personal to a woman. So while my opinion coming next is an opinion. I don't see any reason why it should be given any credence what so ever. And I certainly don't believe that governments that are overwhelmingly dominated by men should have the right to do so either.

I find it very difficult to justify any kind of abortion. Let alone gender based abortion. As soon as an egg is fertilised, I myself have to consider that an unborn child. I find no moral good in the needless termination of unborn children. BUT, having said that nature often does the work for us. It's pretty good at knowing when the body doesn't like something. For the purposes of this argument let's assume that the majority of pregnancies result in a birth. Which, at least in most developed nations that is the case.I couldn't in good graces allow myself to remove logic from my mind; in assuming that disallowing a fertilised egg to develop, no matter the stage of its development is not the death of an unborn child. This applies to natural abortion as well as forced. It's fundamentally wrong to me.

I've heard all of the arguments and I just have to sit and look at the facts of it; because the rape argument is no solace for me. The disability argument, is no solace for me. And more important to this topic the gender argument isn't solace to me either. I couldn't possibly (given that I was a female) not allow a unborn child the experience of life. But that's because I believe there's life and death and that's where it ends. Usually you hear this pro life argument from the heavily religious but I would argue it has to be more important to non believers. To disallow a child to experience life is nothing I could get behind.

But! My first paragraph considered, it isn't my decision make, it isn't for people of my sex to decide and so as I said, I really shouldn't be given any credence.

[Succubus]

I've heard all of the arguments and I just have to sit and look at the facts of it; because the rape argument is no solace for me.

So lets say a fifteen year old girl was raped she should keep the baby just so the baby can experience 'life'. The girl is probably not financially capable of looking after the baby, let alone she'll probably struggle in school because she has a baby to look after (I'm aware you can get baby sitters but that costs time, effort and money). So you'd rather let a girls mental, and probably physical health, deteriorate just because you want a baby to experience 'life'?

[Wengles]

So lets say a fifteen year old girl was raped she should keep the baby just so the baby can experience 'life'. The girl is probably not financially capable of looking after the baby, let alone she'll probably struggle in school because she has a baby to look after (I'm aware you can get baby sitters but that costs time, effort and money). So you'd rather let a girls mental, and probably physical health, deteriorate just because you want a baby to experience 'life'?

Very good rebuttal. I would give you the answer of; there is plenty support (at least in the UK) for young mums. There are options for mothers to then decide not to keep their children; and then allow social services to do their job. My answer to your last question would be; yes. I would rather a child experience life - Than have no chance of development; no chance of growth; no chance of existence in this world. The child didn't choose the way it was conceived. So does that mean it deserves no chance of existing? I couldn't in good conscience say yes. It seems a cruel punishment to me.

[Succubus]

Very good rebuttal. I would give you the answer of; there is plenty support (at least in the UK) for young mums. There are options for mothers to then decide not to keep their children; and then allow social services to do their job. My answer to your last question would be; yes. I would rather a child experience life - Than have no chance of development; no chance of growth; no chance of existence in this world. The child didn't choose the way it was conceived. So does that mean it deserves no chance of existing? I couldn't in good conscience say yes. It seems a cruel punishment to me.

I understand there is support, but it doesn't cut out the factors of the mothers mental health. Being raped itself is a traumatic event, adding someone else's life to cater for after that is just stressful.

I also understand that you'd want the baby to experience life, but would it be fair for the baby to grow up in a place where the mother is, potentially, struggling with school work, money etc. And I see your argument of not keeping the baby (so basically suggesting adoption) but is being in an adoption centre for a long time, or any time at all, fair quality of life? What about if the child (suggesting that she didn't abort and gave it away) wanted to see the mum and dad?

[karter]

I just have to sit and look at the facts of it; because the rape argument is no solace for me.

*REMOVED*

Edted by Dilusionate (Acting Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude, thanks!

[Wengles]

I understand there is support, but it doesn't cut out the factors of the mothers mental health. Being raped itself is a traumatic event, adding someone else's life to cater for after that is just stressful.

I also understand that you'd want the baby to experience life, but would it be fair for the baby to grow up in a place where the mother is, potentially, struggling with school work, money etc. And I see your argument of not keeping the baby (so basically suggesting adoption) but is being in an adoption centre for a long time, or any time at all, fair quality of life? What about if the child (suggesting that she didn't abort and gave it away) wanted to see the mum and dad?

It is an intolerable event that no one can understand unless they've dealt with it. Or at first hand been affected by it. I concede that. My only point is; an abortion as a result of rape - I can only see as a punishment to a child given no decision as to how it's conceived or born.

An arguable unfair quality of life, is better than no life at all in my view. But as I said in my argument; this is coming form someone who believes that there is life and death. There is no after or before. Stealing life from a child that had no say its conception is something I can't agree with. I an empathise as much as I can but I will never be able to sympathise.

[Succubus]

It is an intolerable event that no one can understand unless they've dealt with it. Or at first hand been affected by it. I concede that. My only point is; an abortion as a result of rape - I can only see as a punishment to a child given no decision as to how it's conceived or born.

An arguable unfair quality of life, is better than no life at all in my view. But as I said in my argument; this is coming form someone who believes that there is life and death. There is no after or before. Stealing life from a child that had no say its conception is something I can't agree with. I an empathise as much as I can but I will never be able to sympathise.

Not all victims of rape speak up, so how will the victim explain to their parent(s) that they are pregnant, and she'll probably be ****-shamed by many for something she had no control over. So yeah, lets add a baby on top of that just to make things worse.

But people aren't 'stealing life', they are trying to prevent something they aren't prepared for.

There are many reasons why I believe that a woman should be able to abort, and not only just because it's her own body (which is by one of the most important things to remember). Giving up a baby can just be as emotionally damaging as having an abortion. It's disgusting for a person to be raped in the first place but to have their emotional state to be ruined even more because they have to make a decision like that is horrible.

[Empired]

It is an intolerable event that no one can understand unless they've dealt with it. Or at first hand been affected by it. I concede that. My only point is; an abortion as a result of rape - I can only see as a punishment to a child given no decision as to how it's conceived or born.

An arguable unfair quality of life, is better than no life at all in my view. But as I said in my argument; this is coming form someone who believes that there is life and death. There is no after or before. Stealing life from a child that had no say its conception is something I can't agree with. I an empathise as much as I can but I will never be able to sympathise.
I struggle to see how an unborn child should have the same rights as a born one. I saw this on tumblr ages ago:


I’m holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding a fetus in the other.I’m going to drop one. You chose which.
If you really truly believe a fetus is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. You should have to flip a coin, that’s how impossible the decision should be.
Shot in the dark, you saved the baby.

Are you really saying you have to stop and think about which one to drop?

[Wengles]

Not all victims of rape speak up, so how will the victim explain to their parent(s) that they are pregnant, and she'll probably be ****-shamed by many for something she had no control over. So yeah, lets add a baby on top of that just to make things worse.

But people aren't 'stealing life', they are trying to prevent something they aren't prepared for.

There are many reasons why I believe that a woman should be able to abort, and not only just because it's her own body (which is by one of the most important things to remember). Giving up a baby can just be as emotionally damaging as having an abortion. It's disgusting for a person to be raped in the first place but to have their emotional state to be ruined even more because they have to make a decision like that is horrible.

And that's perfectly fine. If that's what you want to do. I can't rationalise it. Like I said, I've had no experience, and will never be in that situation. So I can only attempt to put myself in that situation. I cannot relinquish myself of logic to accommodate an act that isn't logical.

But my point unfortunately stands. You haven't diluted it... Um. Trying to prevent something they aren't prepared for is irrelevant to whether a life has been taken or not allowed to happen in this case. Again, I can't find any logic in something that to me seems like a punishment to an innocent party.

I'll ask you, because assuming you're female perhaps you can answer the question better than I can and you've presented it and I think it's a good point. Would you rather the child never had the opportunity to live, than have to give it away because you're unprepared? It seems like an impossible question but perhaps you can find solace in one rather than the other.

- - - Updated - - -


I struggle to see how an unborn child should have the same rights as a born one. I saw this on tumblr ages ago:



Are you really saying you have to stop and think about which one to drop?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

That quote is kind of irrelevant to the point I'm making though. I'm not debating whether a fetus is the same as a baby here. That's not my point at all. The answer relevant to this discussion would be that I wouldn't drop either of them.

Your other point about rights is that nature doesn't deal in human rights. It doesn't exist. So in point of fact you're right. Otherwise there would be no stillborn babies. I'm simply trying to (though I concede perhaps not doing so well) question the morality of disallowing a child to live based on the way they were conceived. I couldn't in good conscience do that. But again; as I've said before I can only TRY and put myself in these positions. I will never be in it; and I won't feel any of the emotions that a young woman would have to feel when making this decision.

Which is why I conceded on my first paragraph on my first post, that our sex can simply not be given any credence in this discussion. And we certainly shouldn't be making decisions about something so physically and mentally personal to women. It isn't right.

[Succubus]

I'll ask you, because assuming you're female perhaps you can answer the question better than I can and you've presented it and I think it's a good point. Would you rather the child never had the opportunity to live, than have to give it away because you're unprepared? It seems like an impossible question but perhaps you can find solace in one rather than the other.

To your question I'd rather the foetus be aborted than give it away. Yes, aborting/giving away the child is both emotionally damaging but I wouldn't want to have a person, convinced by me, in someone else's care because I couldn't cater and they will probably spend some of their life questioning why it happened. But I find it odd putting me on the spot since I'm merely defending the fact that I'm pro-choice, it doesn't mean I'd personally abort myself (I don't even want kids lmao). I think it really depends on:
a) the situation
b) the carrier's feelings (since it's their body)
c) their ability to cater etc

[Wengles]

To your question I'd rather the foetus be aborted than give it away. Yes, aborting/giving away the child is both emotionally damaging but I wouldn't want to have a person, convinced by me, in someone else's care because I couldn't cater and they will probably spend some of their life questioning why it happened. But I find it odd putting me on the spot since I'm merely defending the fact that I'm pro-choice, it doesn't mean I'd personally abort myself. I think it really depends on:
a) the situation
b) the carrier's feelings (since it's their body)
c) their ability to cater etc

I was merely interested in your answer. I'm not coming at this from a place of certainty. How could I; I have (or at least I think I have) made it very clear, I couldn't be more ignorant on the idea of an emotional decision like this. And I HOPE I'm not sounding aggressive.

I can only give what I can understand of it. And I can't find any rationale in disallowing a life to be lived. I can't grasp that. I probably won't. Of course I'm pro-choice, I believe women should have the right to that choice. But does that mean I have to agree with the decision they make? Perhaps its a contradiction; I don't know.

[Succubus]

I was merely interested in your answer. I'm not coming at this from a place of certainty. How could I; I have (or at least I think I have) made it very clear, I couldn't be more ignorant on the idea of an emotional decision like this. And I HOPE I'm not sounding aggressive.

I can only give what I can understand of it. And I can't find any rationale in disallowing a life to be lived. I can't grasp that. I probably won't. Of course I'm pro-choice, I believe women should have the right to that choice. But does that mean I have to agree with the decision they make? Perhaps its a contradiction; I don't know.

Nah, you aren't sounding aggressive, your opinion dude!

I guess I understand what you mean by 'disallowing a life' but in some respect we're saving a mother from any sort of distress and possible further damage. (And as I said before about the deadlines to when women can have abortions). But of course you don't have to agree with the decision they make but at the end of the day you may not like it but it will always be the woman's decision whether she does or does not.

[despect]

I've always been against abortion simply because you haven't given that baby a chance to live their life, I just think its unfair. I think personally these days having babies is like a fashion statement and people have babies to have the spotlight on them which is ridiculous. I also don't think that people should pick and choose what gender their baby is - It doesn't give them the right to abort their baby because its not of a gender they were hoping for. They made the baby and they have to deal with the gender the baby is. It's almost like someone buying you a red jumper but you wanted the green one so you destroyed the jumper they brought you and decided to go out and get a green one.

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah babies are jumpers

[Jurv]

why would having babies be like a fashion statement lol

i can't see any sane adult having that frame of mind and teenage pregnancies are usually frowned upon so what

[God]

It's their choice and they can do whatever they wish.

On another note. WE NEED TO STOP ************ AND PERIODS. WE ARE NOT GIVING OUR SPERM AND EGGS A CHANCE TO LIVE A FULL LIFE!

[despect]

why would having babies be like a fashion statement lol

i can't see any sane adult having that frame of mind and teenage pregnancies are usually frowned upon so what

I guess fashion statement isn't the right word - I just mean teenage pregnancies are actually really common these days and most have babies because they see all their friends have them. Most don't actually understand they have the responsibility to look after that baby, that was my point haha probably didn't come across in that way.

[Shar]

I guess fashion statement isn't the right word - I just mean teenage pregnancies are actually really common these days and most have babies because they see all their friends have them. Most don't actually understand they have the responsibility to look after that baby, that was my point haha probably didn't come across in that way.
Teenage pregnancy isn't increasing, in fact its lower than it used to be (in the UK).
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/conception-statistics--england-and-wales/2011/sty-conception-estimates-2011.html
Pregnancies in women over 40 is what is now increasing if anything

[Catchy]

I guess fashion statement isn't the right word - I just mean teenage pregnancies are actually really common these days and most have babies because they see all their friends have them. Most don't actually understand they have the responsibility to look after that baby, that was my point haha probably didn't come across in that way.

'Most' you're making a judgement on something you know nothing about. I find the majority of teenage mums to be really good mums, a lot of my friends who had children young are amazing mums. I don't think it's fair saying most of them don't have the responsibility... A lot of older mums don't have the responsibility either.

[StevenWinehouse]

I'm Pro-Choice, so I believe that it's a woman's choice when considering getting an abortion. However, I do think that aborting a baby based on it's gender is a pretty ****** reason for an abortion.