# Abortion:with or against?



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

if there is no health reasons,,

========
Against,, NO NO NO

I guess most woman who think about abortion r in need for money, and they should get support..

*Staff Edit: Please click the link below and read what it says before posting.*

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/1070702498-post143.html


----------



## apx24 (Jan 31, 2012)

For. It's up to the woman and no one else.
People are so uptight about others using abortion as birth control. Sometimes unwanted pregnancies occur, parenting is a huge responsibility, if people don't feel up to it they shouldn't have to. Also, we live in an overpopulated world.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

Yes I do, because accidents happen even with protection sometimes, and I'd be ****ing terrified if I got accidentally pregnant and was forced to keep it.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Yes, I am for the choice to abort. I'd rather they abort than give birth to a baby that is unwanted.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Yes. And I'm fine with sex selective abortion too.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

DerSteppenwolf said:


> The more abortions there are the better the world will be.





komorikun said:


> Yes. And I'm fine with sex selective abortion too.


How can people be so cavalier about this? Abortion should be legal of course, but you should try to avoid getting pregnant in the first place if you don't want a baby. It's a terrible ordeal to go through.


----------



## JH1983 (Nov 14, 2013)

I definitely support abortion rights.


----------



## hazelblue (Jun 6, 2012)

In a Lonely Place said:


> For it and it should be enforced on those that are underage and/or those who can't afford kids and expect the state to pay 100% of the costs to rear them.
> 
> My parents aborted one kid and I was an accident but should have been aborted, I envy that bunch of cells that didn't have to put up with having those two ****ing imbeciles as parents.


Should never be enforced. Maybe you're joking.


----------



## UltraMagnus (Jan 25, 2014)

I really hate how all or nothing the arguments on this are.

Early term abortions are fine, but late term abortions shouldn't be allowed (without medical reason).


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

im personally against it, however i think it should be legal to get an abortion if you want/need one


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

^^why did you change your username? The previous one was better.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

I'm for it, but it should be done as humanely as possible. Also, I'd probably have moral problems going through with it if it was my own kid, but I'm not a woman and I'm 99.9% certain it's impossible for me to get pregnant, so I'll never know.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

In a Lonely Place said:


> ^ You mean me?


Yes.


----------



## hazelblue (Jun 6, 2012)

In a Lonely Place said:


> No I'm serious, maybe people would make more of an effort to prepare, mature and be better parents if it had a direct cost to them in terms of waiting till they could afford it.
> If people can just pop out sprogs knowing the state will clothe, feed and house them despite having contributed nothing to the economy, it's a bad deal for all concerned.


I sympathise with where you are coming from, but you haven't thought this through. You're saying the government should arrest and forcibly restrain an innocent woman, then force feed/inject/rape her with medical instruments? This is worse than murder and rape combined.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

In a Lonely Place said:


> Too many other 101s, I needed a change, gettin lost in the crowd :blank


 Haha, Poor Mark, I'll get the violin.... :b

I like the new username actually.


----------



## pati (Aug 15, 2012)

For. I wouldn't have one, but I don't believe in telling someone else what to do with their body.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

For. I'm all for pro-choice.


----------



## mdiada (Jun 18, 2012)

For in cases of rape. I've been there and luckily did not end up pregnant, but the thought of it makes me nauseous.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

Yes, I am pro choice.


----------



## rosecolored (May 13, 2012)

I'm pro life.


----------



## JoelNZ (Dec 20, 2013)

I'm pro life as well. Morally I would not be comfortable having an abortion at any stage. If I got someone pregnant I would encourage her to keep the baby.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

apx24 said:


> For. It's up to the woman and no one else.
> People are so uptight about others using abortion as birth control. Sometimes unwanted pregnancies occur, parenting is a huge responsibility, if people don't feel up to it they shouldn't have to. Also, we live in an overpopulated world.


 What if the father wants the child?


----------



## minimized (Nov 17, 2007)

I can think of several reasons that would strengthen my belief in abortion beyond pure logical reasons.

I probably shouldn't say them.

Wish there was as much care for underprivileged and abandoned kids as there were for fetuses. Pro-birthers always seem to desire less rights for the living. They're quick to say that a child should be born and given away. They certainly aren't there to provide assistance for sick or unwanted babies.


----------



## apx24 (Jan 31, 2012)

millenniumman75 said:


> What if the father wants the child?


The mother is the one who has to carry the foetus for 9 months and give birth to it, so it's primarily the choice of the mother. No it's not fair on the father, but that's the way biology works.


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

This may sound rude but I can't think of a better way to put it, sorry; To me opposing abortions is some kind of sick and twisted sado-masochism. I also know that abortions can be quite the head****, no one 'wants' one per-say.


----------



## dreamloss (Oct 28, 2013)

In a Lonely Place said:


> Arrest = no
> Book an appointment with a clinic = yes


And what if they don't want to go to the appointment?

Because that's crazy messed up to force someone to have an abortion.

Maybe something less drastic, like having mandatory classes on how to raise their child & helping with their decision to keep their kid or not would be better?


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

I support the freedom to choose.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

I'm against women aborting without the fathers agreement.


----------



## prettyful (Mar 14, 2013)

Schmosby said:


> I'm against women aborting without the fathers agreement.


Until the guy has to carry the child for 9 months and then give birth to it, his opinion is invalid.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

apx24 said:


> The mother is the one who has to carry the foetus for 9 months and give birth to it, so it's primarily the choice of the mother. No it's not fair on the father, but that's the way biology works.


Biology has made men stronger than women with a penis that they can put in their vagina against their will, does that make rape ok? If it's not fair on the father the law should be changed obviously.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

prettyful said:


> Until the guy has to carry the child for 9 months and then give birth to it, his opinion is invalid.


 If a woman is too lazy to carry a child she should keep her legs shut.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

apx24 said:


> The mother is the one who has to carry the foetus for 9 months and give birth to it, so it's primarily the choice of the mother. No it's not fair on the father, but that's the way biology works.


 Oh yeah, well guess what - the goal is not to get in the situation. 
If my wife ever did that to me, she'd have some divorce papers to sign!


----------



## Greenleaf62 (Aug 1, 2013)

I am completely against abortion.


----------



## Xenos (Jun 24, 2012)

Militantly pro-choice. If you want to stop abortion, you'll just have to convince all the women in the world who might be inclined to have one to choose not to. Trying to force it on people through the law will always, always backfire. Guaranteed.

Doesn't matter if you think it's murder. If you ban it, and people don't want it banned, it'll just get done illegally, and after three months of that it'll get unbanned again. The only way to reduce abortion is with greater access to birth control, sex ed and healthcare. Banning abortion in a modern western democracy is the most monumentally naive idea ever.


----------



## zomgz (Aug 17, 2009)

I am pro-choice. Most of my city is pro-life and they have billboards up everywhere that I consider very offensive.


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> Oh yeah, well guess what - the goal is not to get in the situation.
> If my wife ever did that to me, she'd have some divorce papers to sign!


it means u chose the wrong woman in the first place!


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

Wait. So if your wife got pregnant, (and btw contraception is not 100% foolproof) and she decided she did not want to put her body and mind through a pregnancy, some would divorce her for that decision?


----------



## AceEmoKid (Apr 27, 2012)

Of course abortions should be legal.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

straightarrows said:


> it means u chose the wrong woman in the first place!


 That's right!
I would think twice before ever putting myself in a position with that kind of mindset.

Second, I shouldn't have to pay for other women to do that!


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

I am completely for abortion.

I'm against any time limits set on abortion rights, and I myself would have one if I ever got pregnant.

ETA: and like Meli said in the post right after mine - I think it should be the woman's choice only, the man should have no say, and shouldn't even need to know about the pregnancy and abortion if the woman doesn't want him to.


----------



## Meli24R (Dec 9, 2008)

I don't like the idea of my uterus being owned by the government. 
Birth control is not 100 percent effective. There's still a possibility of it happening no matter how careful you are. Some of us (like myself) never want children under any circumstance. Even if I wanted kids, I wouldn't have them because I'd risk passing my screwed up genes on. I actually would get sterilized (my tubes tied..although this isn't even 100 percent) if I could, but I seriously doubt I could find any doctor willing to do this. Most won't unless you already have children. 
Pro-lifers always bring up adoption. There are countless unwanted children on this planet already. Why don't they focus their concern on them?
Because it's the woman who has to carry the embryo/fetus, it should be her decision and her decision only on whether or not to abort. And to be fair, I don't think men should be required to pay for child support.


----------



## Brad (Dec 27, 2011)

I support the right for women to make that decision, so long as the fetus isn't viable. It's something personal and the government shouldn't be involved in it - especially considering 99% of the government officials trying to ban it are doing so on a religious basis, which is absolutely unacceptable and disgusting.


----------



## Hekate (Jan 25, 2013)

I am pro choice. Even if you do not agree with abortion, I'd think you would at least want safe legal abortions to prevent the gruesome clothes hanger method, falling down the stairs etc.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

Brad said:


> I support the right for women to make that decision, so long as the fetus isn't viable. It's something personal and the government shouldn't be involved in it - especially considering 99% of the government officials trying to ban it are doing so on a religious basis, which is absolutely unacceptable and disgusting.


Not to mention, men, who completely fail to understand one very, very important aspect of the situation (which I admit I can't possible understand either, but at least I'm not naive to the fact that there is something critical to the debate which I can never understand given my gender). This poll also helps confirm this.


----------



## fanatic203 (Jun 23, 2010)

^ Yes, the discrepancy in the poll in men vs women says something. It's easy to say no abortions when you're not the one who potentially has to raise a child as a single parent.


----------



## TheAzn (Jan 13, 2012)

Yes, just as long as there are no abuse.


----------



## caelle (Sep 9, 2008)

Schmosby said:


> If a woman is too lazy to carry a child she should keep her legs shut.


If you feel that strongly about a woman possibly aborting your fetus, then maybe you should keep your junk in your pants.


----------



## dreamloss (Oct 28, 2013)

In a Lonely Place said:


> Who's paying for that?
> 
> I tell you what's crazy messed up, dumb kids having kids and trash having kids for the rest of society to pay for, kids should be wanted and cherished, not just routinely pushed out like a hot steaming turd just because stupid people got drunk and ****ed.


Abortions aren't free either.

That is a vast generalization, and a hateful one at that. I disagree with your perspective on so many levels.


----------



## caelle (Sep 9, 2008)

apx24 said:


> The mother is the one who has to carry the foetus for 9 months and give birth to it, so it's primarily the choice of the mother. No it's not fair on the father, but that's the way biology works.


This is more reason to only have sex with someone you are committed to. Either a really strong, committed relationship, or a marriage. 
I guess I can only speak for myself, but I think I would be more inclined to go through with the accidental pregnancy if I was in a stable, committed relationship or marriage. And I would be far more likely to consider what the man wants if we were serious.

But I do agree with you. I think the woman should have the final say.

I am for abortions btw. I do not like them, but I think they are necessary because of rape and contraceptives that fail.


----------



## apx24 (Jan 31, 2012)

Schmosby said:


> Biology has made men stronger than women with a penis that they can put in their vagina against their will, does that make rape ok? If it's not fair on the father the law should be changed obviously.


So what do you propose then, that a woman be forced to carry a baby, change her lifestyle and go through the pain of labour just for you?

And no, rape isn't OK, but in both cases women's bodies are being used for the needs of the man.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

apx24 said:


> So what do you propose then, that a woman be forced to carry a baby, change her lifestyle and go through the pain of labour just for you?
> 
> And no, rape isn't OK, but in both cases women's bodies are being used for the needs of the man.


Why should a woman need to be forced, she should just be a decent human and do the right thing, currently if a woman has a child against the fathers wishes, the father has to pay for that child for 16 years, so carrying a child for 9 months is pretty small in comparison.

If you were friendly with you neighbor and neither of you could afford a car, so you decided to buy one together paying half each, your neighbor didn't have a garage, but you did, so you kept the car in your garage, does that make the car 100% your property? Could you legally scrap the car if you didn't want the responsibility of owning it? The answer is obvious, the law is already clear.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

Schmosby said:


> Why should a woman need to be forced, she should just be a decent human and do the right thing, currently if a woman has a child against the fathers wishes, the father has to pay for that child for 16 years, so carrying a child for 9 months is pretty small in comparison.
> 
> If you were friendly with you neighbor and neither of you could afford a car, so you decided to buy one together paying half each, your neighbor didn't have a garage, but you did, so you kept the car in your garage, does that make the car 100% your property? Could you legally scrap the car if you didn't want the responsibility of owning it? The answer is obvious, the law is already clear.


 Really? Paying for a kid is a bigger deal than carrying it and birthing it? REALLY? :blank

And did you just create an analogy based on cars to try to make a point about abortion? :roll


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

nomi said:


> If you feel that strongly about a woman possibly aborting your fetus, then maybe you should keep your junk in your pants.


I agree of course, is this a point? I actually don't feel that strongly against a woman murdering my unborn child, in fact I'm all for it until I have agreed I want a child.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

Donnie in the Dark said:


> Really? Paying for a kid is a bigger deal than carrying it and birthing it? REALLY? :blank
> 
> And did you just create an analogy based on cars to try to make a point about abortion? :roll


What is the big deal about carrying a child, the woman doesn't actually do anything, the baby grows inside her, then it comes out, birth takes some effort, but then so does working for 16 years to support a child.

Yes a car that is 50% the property of two people, is an acceptable analogy to a child which is 50% the responsibility of two people, what would your preferred analogy involve?


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

Schmosby said:


> What is the big deal about carrying a child, the woman doesn't actually do anything, the baby grows inside her, then it comes out, birth takes some effort, but then so does working for 16 years to support a child.


Woah woah woah, hold on. You really should go read about the effects pregnancy has on a womans body.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

AussiePea said:


> Woah woah woah, hold on. You really should go read about the effects pregnancy has on a womans body.


What about 16 years of working longer hours/overtime? and that's assuming you are going to stop helping your child at 16 and that money is the only support you give your child.


----------



## Amphoteric (Sep 11, 2011)

I think that before abortion even comes a current issue in someone's life, they should have thought out a rational way of how to deal with it if it happens. As in consider if they'd be ready to go through with having a child, and not get all emotionally wrapped up and think that "oh it's murder!!!".

Because when and if the time to actually consider abortion comes, it's going to be mainly a very emotional decision, and it's always better to still have those earlier, rational thoughts, with you when making that decision so it's not purely just emotional.

No one would ever want to be put into that situation. But it's better to be mentally equipped for it, just in case you ever end up having to face it.


----------



## apx24 (Jan 31, 2012)

Schmosby said:


> Why should a woman need to be forced, she should just be a decent human and do the right thing, currently if a woman has a child against the fathers wishes, the father has to pay for that child for 16 years, so carrying a child for 9 months is pretty small in comparison.
> 
> If you were friendly with you neighbor and neither of you could afford a car, so you decided to buy one together paying half each, your neighbor didn't have a garage, but you did, so you kept the car in your garage, does that make the car 100% your property? Could you legally scrap the car if you didn't want the responsibility of owning it? The answer is obvious, the law is already clear.


No that's not a fair comparison at all. Granted it sucks for fathers to be forced to pay for their kids, but you cannot compare that to having to carry a child and raise it and look after it for most of the week (which seems to be the norm).

Well, the law would probably say that no you couldn't scrap the car without consulting or paying the other owner. But it takes much more responsibility and effort to look after a baby/child than a car. And don't say that they shouldn't have had sex in the first place either, condoms are not always effective and people don't just have sex to procreate anymore.

Out of mere curiosity, what would be the 'right thing' for a woman to do, to become a 'decent human' whatever that means?



Schmosby said:


> What is the big deal about carrying a child, the woman doesn't actually do anything, the baby grows inside her, then it comes out, birth takes some effort, but then so does working for 16 years to support a child.
> 
> Yes a car that is 50% the property of two people, is an acceptable analogy to a child which is 50% the responsibility of two people, what would your preferred analogy involve?


I'm sure many mothers would be offended with that. Also, it's not just about the birth, it's about raising the child as well, if a woman does not want to raise a child she shouldn't have to. Society seems to dictate that a child spends more time with the mother than the father in the case of a breakup/divorce of the parents. The mother would have to work too and look after the child. Don't make out as if it's only the father that financially supports the child.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

apx24 said:


> No that's not a fair comparison at all. Granted it sucks for fathers to be forced to pay for their kids, but you cannot compare that to having to carry a child and raise it and look after it for most of the week (which seems to be the norm).
> 
> Well, the law would probably say that no you couldn't scrap the car without consulting or paying the other owner. But it takes much more responsibility and effort to look after a baby/child than a car. And don't say that they shouldn't have had sex in the first place either, condoms are not always effective and people don't just have sex to procreate anymore.
> 
> ...


I think you have misunderstood, If the mother and father want the child, they share the child 50/50, if they neither want the child or are not in a position to be able to look after it etc. they both agree to an abortion and that is fine, If the mother wants the child but the father doesn't then the father signs over his half to the mother he is fully free of responsibility and she is fully responsible, If the mother doesn't wan't the child and the father does then she carries the baby as nature dictates and then hands it over to the father at birth for him to raise and she is fully free of responsibility for the child thereafter.

Not murdering somebody else's child against their will would be my idea of acting like a decent human.

I'm not sure why you are stating that condoms are not 100% effective, If people are having sex for fun that is fine, If pregnancy occurs they can both agree to emergency contraception or abortion, I'm not anti abortion, I am pro equal rights.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

I'm pro death.


----------



## Glass Child (Feb 28, 2013)

Love how people fight against abortion to 'save the baby', but don't consider what's happens after it's birth.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> I'm pro death.


Bill Maher?


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Gwynevere said:


> Bill Maher?


Well if one side gets to be pro life I guess I'm against life then.


----------



## TrippyKaz (Jul 10, 2013)

I'm not against it at all. I think if the girl was in situation where it would be hard to care for a child, like she was in school still or single or not have money, it would be okay. If I were dating a girl and were in a situation where we didnt use protection or something happened, I would not have a problem with her getting an abortion because chances are I wouldnt be ready for that responsibility either of having a child.


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

Abortions are better than unwanted, neglected children who later have severe problems of their own. So that's a yes from me.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

Schmosby said:


> *What is the big deal about carrying a child, the woman doesn't actually do anything*, the baby grows inside her, *then it comes out*, birth takes some effort, but then so does working for 16 years to support a child.
> 
> Yes a car that is 50% the property of two people, is an acceptable analogy to a child which is 50% the responsibility of two people, what would your preferred analogy involve?


:rofl

then it comes out :lol such a simple way to describe that hell.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

Schmosby said:


> What is the big deal about carrying a child, the woman doesn't actually do anything, the baby grows inside her, then it comes out, birth takes some effort, but then so does working for 16 years to support a child.
> 
> Yes a car that is 50% the property of two people, is an acceptable analogy to a child which is 50% the responsibility of two people, what would your preferred analogy involve?


I don't know if I agree with the way you put that, but your general point is pretty good.

It doesn't make sense to me that if two people make the same mistake and get a woman pregnant, she has the option of getting out of it while the guy is pretty much screwed.

I have nothing against abortion, but it would also be fair to allow male abortions, where if the man doesn't want the responsibility of providing for the kid, he can simply "abort" it and leave it for the woman, without being burdened financially for years.

Also I saw someone mention selective sex abortion or something, I think this would be bad. You're going to have people analyzing every gene of their fetus, and aborting it unless it's a genius or superstar athlete or something. Doesn't sound pleasant to me.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> I don't know if I agree with the way you put that, but your general point is pretty good.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me that if two people make the same mistake and get a woman pregnant, she has the option of getting out of it while the guy is pretty much screwed.
> 
> ...


It's a completely ignorant position about the actual experience of pregnancy. It's not like carrying a growing weight on your stomach like the poster believes it to be.

And as the case is laid out as Mary Anne Warren, I don't believe anyone should be subjected to this if they don't wish it.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

Sacrieur said:


> It's a completely ignorant position about the actual experience of pregnancy. It's not like carrying a growing weight on your stomach like the poster believes it to be.
> 
> And as the case is laid out as Mary Anne Warren, I don't believe anyone should be subjected to this if they don't wish it.


Nobody is saying women should be forced into a situation where they may get pregnant, they have intercourse of their own free will knowing full well there is a chance of pregnancy, women should simply take responsibility for their sexual activity.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> I have nothing against abortion, but it would also be fair to allow male abortions, where if the man doesn't want the responsibility of providing for the kid, he can simply "abort" it and leave it for the woman, without being burdened financially for years.


I outlined the same thing in a later post


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Schmosby said:


> Nobody is saying women should be forced into a situation where they may get pregnant, they have intercourse of their own free will knowing full well there is a chance of pregnancy, women should simply take responsibility for their sexual activity.


You should probably read the link.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Pregnancy is horrible it makes you nauseous constantly, puke several times a day, and sleep 12-14 hours a day. Zero energy. I wouldn't be able to work while pregnant.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

^it's ridiculous to compare something that wrecks your body, state of mind, and even ****s up your career, to simply paying some money from your paycheck. Hell, the child support ends at least, those permanent changes to the woman's body are, well, permanent.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

Sacrieur said:


> It's a completely ignorant position about the actual experience of pregnancy. It's not like carrying a growing weight on your stomach like the poster believes it to be.
> 
> And as the case is laid out as Mary Anne Warren, I don't believe anyone should be subjected to this if they don't wish it.


I did say I didn't agree with the way he put it exactly. And I'm not saying women should be subjected to that if they don't want to. I said I support the right to abortion, only that men should be given the same option. Why do you have such an issue with that?



> it's ridiculous to compare something that wrecks your body, state of mind, and even ****s up your career, to simply paying some money from your paycheck. Hell, the child support ends at least, those permanent changes to the woman's body are, well, permanent.


Okay, fair enough, new suggestion. In order to have an abortion, you must pay a fee (equal to a child support payment) to the government for the next 18 years. The man would have to pay this too, of course. This both helps the government and insures fair treatment. You can't have a problem with this, right?


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> Okay, fair enough, new suggestion. In order to have an abortion, you must pay a fee (equal to a child support payment) to the government for the next 18 years. The man would have to pay this too, of course. This both helps the government and insures fair treatment. You can't have a problem with this, right?


Of course I have a problem with that. You're punishing people for choosing to have an abortion. CHILD SUPPORT IS SUPPORT FOR A *CHILD*, IT IS NOT A PUNISHMENT.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

There is already too much inclination for men to have unprotected sex and then run once they hear that a baby is coming along. So many already are paying little to no child support.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> Of course I have a problem with that. You're punishing people for choosing to have an abortion. CHILD SUPPORT IS SUPPORT FOR A *CHILD*, IT IS NOT A PUNISHMENT.


It's not a punishment, but it can be a huge drain on finances and significantly impact your quality of life over the next 18 years.

What problem do you have with my original suggestion, then, of men being able to have "male abortions" (or some such) and not having to pay child support, assuming they state that they wish to do this at an early enough stage?

What I'm saying is that, in an unwanted pregnancy, a man and a woman both make the same mistake. Assuming you are forced to keep the baby, the woman obviously has it worse. But this isn't the case. Women can have abortions, put the baby up for adoption, and do any number of things to avoid having their mistake ruin their lives. Men have no such options. Does this seem fair to you?


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

komorikun said:


> Pregnancy is horrible it makes you nauseous constantly, puke several times a day, and sleep 12-14 hours a day. Zero energy. I wouldn't be able to work while pregnant.





Gwynevere said:


> ^it's ridiculous to compare something that wrecks your body, state of mind, and even ****s up your career, to simply paying some money from your paycheck. Hell, the child support ends at least, those permanent changes to the woman's body are, well, permanent.


I think you are both missing my main point, that the father should have the right to keep his child and that a woman shouldn't have the right to murder it against his will, even if pregnancy is a huge deal, as you make out, it was also avoidable by you not having sex, if I choose to skydive there is a chance that something will go wrong and I will die, that is the choice I make, you know you can get pregnant from intercourse, the fact that you think it messes with your life doesn't make it ok to kill somebody else's child.

There is no reason for pregnancy to mess your career up, women work up until their due dates and can be back in work within weeks, I can't imagine that taking even 3-6 months off would wreck your career.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> What problem do you have with my original suggestion, then, of men being able to have "male abortions" (or some such) and not having to pay child support, assuming they state that they wish to do this at an early enough stage?


The problem is that there is a CHILD out there who needs the financial support, and until the government starts taking welfare seriously, child support is the only option.



Schmosby said:


> I think you are both missing my main point, that the father should have the right to keep his child


I'm not missing your point, I'm ignoring it because it's ridiculous.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

And who is going to support you financially for one year while you are not working? 

I don't get why abortion is a big deal. I think eating meat is far far worse than abortion. Abortion is about the same as stepping on a large cockroach.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> It's not a punishment, but it can be a huge drain on finances and significantly impact your quality of life over the next 18 years.
> 
> What problem do you have with my original suggestion, then, of men being able to have "male abortions" (or some such) and not having to pay child support, assuming they state that they wish to do this at an early enough stage?
> 
> What I'm saying is that, in an unwanted pregnancy, a man and a woman both make the same mistake. Assuming you are forced to keep the baby, the woman obviously has it worse. But this isn't the case. Women can have abortions, put the baby up for adoption, and do any number of things to avoid having their mistake ruin their lives. Men have no such options. Does this seem fair to you?


Is it fair for the taxpayers to have to pay welfare for some guy's kids because he wouldn't use a condom?

I'd be more okay with forcing women to have an abortion than allowing guys to skip out on child support payments.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> The problem is that there is a CHILD out there who needs the financial support, and until the government starts taking welfare seriously, child support is the only option.


Why can't the woman support the baby? After all, she was the one who opted to have the baby. She had the choice to have an abortion or put it up for adoption, knowing full well what her financial situation would be like, and chose not to. It is now her responsibility.

You don't see it as even slightly unfair that a woman can get out of all responsibility for her mistake while a man is screwed over for 18 years?


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> Why can't the woman support the baby? After all, she was the one who opted to have the baby. She had the choice to have an abortion or put it up for adoption, knowing full well what her financial situation would be like, and chose not to. It is now her responsibility.
> 
> You don't see it as even slightly unfair that a woman can get out of all responsibility for her mistake while a man is screwed over for 18 years?


I don't see it as unfair at all. Abortion isn't getting out of the mistake, it's preventing the mistake in the first place. Abortion is not some get out of jail free card, it's simply part of a woman's birth control options. If you dislike how few BC options men have, then show your support for the male pill or better vasectomies. But don't take it out on children.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

komorikun said:


> Is it fair for the taxpayers to have to pay welfare for some guy's kids because he wouldn't use a condom?
> 
> I'd be more okay with forcing women to have an abortion than allowing guys to skip out on child support payments.


I mean, I suppose another way of doing it would be to require an abortion if either the man or the woman requests it, but I don't really like that idea too much.

I suppose what I'm arguing is for equal treatment over practicality. But I'd rather ban abortions altogether than keep it as it is now. Maybe I'll just make that my new stance on this issue.


----------



## dreamloss (Oct 28, 2013)

In a Lonely Place said:


> The one off cost of an abortion is much much cheaper than the cost of rearing an unwanted child.
> 
> Hardly hateful, just realistic evaluation of some people based on my own experience, being born of poor people that weren't interested in parenting and seeing many others that were dragged up by people with zero interest in them.


Okay, well I'd like to think you have good intentions, and while i agree that ideally all children should be loved and wanted (who wouldnt?), I don't think you realize how big of a human rights violation it would be to force someone to have an abortion. Especially when your main argument is because it costsmoney.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> I mean, I suppose another way of doing it would be to require an abortion if either the man or the woman requests it, but I don't really like that idea too much.


You know what's even better than that? Women get to decide what stays in their uterus and what doesn't, men can decide what stays in their prostate and what doesn't, and everyone involved in creating a child support the damn child.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> I don't see it as unfair at all. Abortion isn't getting out of the mistake, it's preventing the mistake in the first place. Abortion is not some get out of jail free card, it's simply part of a woman's birth control options. If you dislike how few BC options men have, then show your support for the male pill or better vasectomies. But don't take it out on children.


The difference is that it IS a get out of jail free card, or at least a variant of it. Let's keep going with the jail analogy, and say your crime is stealing. Preventing this mistake would mean not stealing in the first place. Both men and women can do this. Having an abortion is analogous to committing the robbery, then playing your get-out-of-jail-free card before you end up getting charged. Only it's been restricted so that only women can avoid being charged after committing the robbery.

So better birth control for men would not mean equal treatment unless it could somehow be applied after the act of having sex.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

Schmosby said:


> Nobody is saying women should be forced into a situation where they may get pregnant, they have intercourse of their own free will knowing full well there is a chance of pregnancy, women should simply take responsibility for their sexual activity.


You too then. Stop having sex immediately. Unless you sign a contract beforehand specifying your requirements in advance.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> The difference is that it IS a get out of jail free card, or at least a variant of it. Let's keep going with the jail analogy, and say your crime is stealing. Preventing this mistake would mean not stealing in the first place. Both men and women can do this. Having an abortion is analogous to committing the robbery, then playing your get-out-of-jail-free card before you end up getting charged. Only it's been restricted so that only women can avoid being charged after committing the robbery.
> 
> So better birth control for men would not mean equal treatment unless it could somehow be applied after the act of having sex.


It's BIRTH control, not CONCEPTION control. As long as there is no birth, no mistake was made, and the woman isn't getting out of anything. That's why your analogy is silly.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

komorikun said:


> Is it fair for the taxpayers to have to pay welfare for some guy's kids because he wouldn't use a condom?
> 
> I'd be more okay with forcing women to have an abortion than allowing guys to skip out on child support payments.


This is something I also agree with that the state should never have to pay any tax payers money towards the parenting of children, or for housing single parent's simply because they have not put any thought into their life choices, the way I would have it is that parents are always responsible for the costs of their children, if they cannot support their own children then they should be charged with child neglect and processed accordingly, why anybody would think that somebody's choice to have children should be paid for by other people (tax payers) who have not made that choice with them is beyond me.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> It's BIRTH control, not CONCEPTION control. As long as there is no birth, no mistake was made, and the woman isn't getting out of anything. That's why your analogy is silly.


Okay, yes, so abortion is a form of birth control.

But let me get this straight. According to you, having unprotected sex is not a mistake for a woman, right? As you say, "no mistake was made". Because she can just get an abortion and fix it.

But it IS a mistake for a man, because he does not have the option, and so will have to support a child for the next 18 years if the woman chooses not to have an abortion.

Therefore having unprotected sex is not a mistake for a woman, but is a mistake for a man. So woman can do this relatively without worry, but men cannot, because of the legal system we have in place.

See where the unfairness lies?


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

Persephone The Dread said:


> You too then. Stop having sex immediately. Unless you sign a contract beforehand specifying your requirements in advance.


I don't need to stop having sex, as I already stated I am pro abortion, I simply need to state clearly to a woman at the start of a relationship that I do not want children at this time, that is my obligation fulfilled, the woman then has the choice to abort any unwanted children or keep them, It's entirely her choice.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> See where the unfairness lies?


In biology, not in laws.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> In biology, not in laws.


That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to create laws to make it fair. (Also, it's more of practical than biological, considering there's nothing biological that says a man has to pay for his child).

Although you're right about one thing, it should be done in a way that avoids hurting a potential child.

I don't have any spectacular ideas at the moment, but that doesn't mean it's okay to leave it as is. You know if it were the other way around we would have already found a way to make this fair.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Remnant of Dawn said:


> That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to create laws to make it fair.


We did create laws to make it fair, by creating child support.

Also fairness should always come second to overall benefit to society. Making something 'fair' by hurting one group, rather than benefiting the other group, is wrong.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> We did create laws to make it fair, by creating child support.


That doesn't make it fair at all. In fact it's the complete opposite. It may be necessary for practical purposes, but it's exactly the reason it ISN'T fair.



> Also fairness should always come second to overall benefit to society. Making something 'fair' by hurting one group, rather than benefiting the other group, is wrong.


That's an opinion, and one that I disagree with. I would argue that fairness is possibly the most important aspect of a good society, behind a few other critical things.

And there is really no difference between benefiting one group and hurting the other. For a drastic example, consider freeing the slaves. Was this benefiting the slaves or hurting the slave owners? Or consider affirmative action. Is this benefiting minorities or hurting whites? The answer is obviously both, as it is here. There is no way to accomplish one without the other, unfortunately.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Schmosby said:


> I think you are both missing my main point, that the father should have the right to keep his child and that a woman shouldn't have the right to murder it against his will


Scenario: a woman is in an abusive relationship, and is trying to get out. She escapes, goes to a shelter, getting help, finds out she's pregnant. *In your view of things, should she have to go back to her abuser and ask permission to terminate the pregnancy?*


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

Gwynevere said:


> Scenario: a woman is in an abusive relationship, and is trying to get out. She escapes, goes to a shelter, getting help, finds out she's pregnant. *In your view of things, should she have to go back to her abuser and ask permission to terminate the pregnancy?*


I assume you mean domestic violence, in which case the father would be executed for committing a serious crime, therefore there would be no father to consult.

I would have to question the wisdom of a woman who get's pregnant by an abusive partner, unless it was through rape, I can only assume that if she chose to get pregnant, that she wanted her child to also be subject to the abuse of her partner, so I would have to say she is an unfit mother.

I'm sure the state would grant her permission to abort the child or put it up for adoption etc. due to the circumstances of the abusive father and unfit mother.


----------



## Putin (May 21, 2013)

abortion is never an issue ive felt strongly one war or another about. but id say im generally 'pro-choice.'


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

These threads always end well.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

likeaspacemonkey said:


> No. If she agrees to having the child for the father then awesome, that's really great. But you can't force a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy + possible sequels, if she doesn't want to do it then sorry dude, it's out of your jurisdiction.


There shouldn't be any force necessary, the woman should do it because it's the right thing to do, currently women force men to lose children that the men want by aborting them, they also force men to have children they don't want by not aborting children that the fathers don't want, so I'm not sure how you can think it's ok for choices to be forced on men, but not ok for women to be forced.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Schmosby said:


> There shouldn't be any force necessary, the woman should do it because it's the right thing to do, currently women force men to lose children that the men want by aborting them, they also force men to have children they don't want by not aborting children that the fathers don't want, so I'm not sure how you can think it's ok for choices to be forced on men, but not ok for women to be forced.


Because men aren't forced to incubate children inside their bodies for 9 months and their lives aren't at risk because of it.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

diamondheart89 said:


> Because men aren't forced to incubate children inside their bodies for 9 months and their lives aren't at risk because of it.


But men are forced to go through the mental trauma of having their children murdered, why is 9 months of carrying a child due to a women participating in an act that she knows has a chance of getting her pregnant more important?


----------



## apx24 (Jan 31, 2012)

Schmosby said:


> I think you have misunderstood, If the mother and father want the child, they share the child 50/50, if they neither want the child or are not in a position to be able to look after it etc. they both agree to an abortion and that is fine, If the mother wants the child but the father doesn't then the father signs over his half to the mother he is fully free of responsibility and she is fully responsible, If the mother doesn't wan't the child and the father does then she carries the baby as nature dictates and then hands it over to the father at birth for him to raise and she is fully free of responsibility for the child thereafter.
> 
> Not murdering somebody else's child against their will would be my idea of acting like a decent human.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are stating that condoms are not 100% effective, If people are having sex for fun that is fine, If pregnancy occurs they can both agree to emergency contraception or abortion, I'm not anti abortion, I am pro equal rights.


But men and women are not equal in this respect, if the man was able to carry the foetus, then I would agree with you but that's not the case. You cannot tell a woman (or anyone) what to do with their bodies. You and I will never go through pregnancy, so we'll never know the sacrifices women make to carry a foetus. Yes I feel for a man who loses his potential baby but if the woman doesn't want it there isn't anything he can do, maybe if he really wants a baby, then he should find a woman willing to have one for him, or get married.

And your jibe earlier about how she should have kept her legs shut is ridiculous. A man is just as much to blame for a pregnancy, maybe he should keep it in his pants. People don't have sex solely for procreation anymore. Abortions and other forms of contraception can help men and women be more responsible when they have sex.

You and I are not going to agree on this, because of one fundamental fact, you see abortion as murder and I don't. You see abortion as something that is intrinsically immoral and I see nothing wrong with it. I don't see a foetus as a baby, to me an abortion is a medical procedure, like removing a lump or tumour. There is thus no point in us arguing over it.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

apx24 said:


> And your jibe earlier about how she should have kept her legs shut is ridiculous. A man is just as much to blame for a pregnancy, maybe he should keep it in his pants. People don't have sex solely for procreation anymore. Abortions and other forms of contraception can help men and women be more responsible when they have sex.
> 
> You and I are not going to agree on this, because of one fundamental fact, you see abortion as murder and I don't. You see abortion as something that is intrinsically immoral and I see nothing wrong with it. I don't see a foetus as a baby, to me an abortion is a medical procedure, like removing a lump or tumour. There is thus no point in us arguing over it.


Most of the above is untrue or are points I have answered in earlier posts, have a read back through the thread.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

likeaspacemonkey said:


> The way I see it, the fetus is naturally hers until it's out of the womb
> 
> Well it's her body, she can do with her body and whatever is growing in her body whatever she wants to do.


This is where we differ, her body is hers, her egg is hers, my sperm is mine, when my sperm fertilises her egg, it becomes ours.

If I grabbed a ring off of one of your fingers and swallowed it, would it be mine since it's inside me?

If you brought gin to my party and I provided you with tonic and a glass, is the cocktail my property as its in my glass or does it belong to both of us?

I provided another analogy earlier


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

likeaspacemonkey said:


> What's untrue about what he said?


Most of it you are welcome to look through my earlier posts too.

I'm on my phone so takes a while to type things out, so I'm sure not repeating myself.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

Schmosby said:


> If I grabbed a ring off of one of your fingers and swallowed it, would it be mine since it's inside me?


Your stomach is still yours though, if you wanted to get your stomach pumped to get the ring out I couldn't force you to keep it inside. Even if that meant damaging the ring and making it worthless.


----------



## BadGirl (Jan 6, 2013)

Schmosby said:


> Most of it you are welcome to look through my earlier posts too.
> 
> I'm on my phone so takes a while to type things out, so I'm sure not repeating myself.


Nice new avatar, that's a fine-looking dawg, is she yours?


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

likeaspacemonkey said:


> We differ then. I agree that the baby after birth belongs to both parents, but not the fetus. Because of the repercussions it has on her body I say the fetus is absolutely her's regardless of the fact that you provided an ejaculation and it's half your DNA in there. Bottom line is I don't think you can impose a major lifestyle change on someone like that. It's unfortunate for men who care about that kind of stuff, but they just have to deal with it.


A major lifestyle change, like when a woman has a child against the will of the father and he then has a child for the rest of his life, that sort of thing?

Ok I'm fine with agreeing to disagree 

The things I was referring to with the other person were what they inferred and stated my views were, not the factual stuff.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

Gwynevere said:


> Your stomach is still yours though, if you wanted to get your stomach pumped to get the ring out I couldn't force you to keep it inside. Even if that meant damaging the ring and making it worthless.


The point I was making is that something being inside of you does not make it yours as he was stating, that was not meant to be representative of the full conception, growth and birth of a child.

But I do think if I did swallow his ring he would be quite within his rights to get the police to arrest me and take me to the hospital and pump my stomach by force if I don't agree, since I chose to swallow his property and he is entitled to his property.


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

BadGirl said:


> Nice new avatar, that's a fine-looking dawg, is she yours?


Thanks, no sadly not, I've got a cute kitty though


----------



## Schmosby (Jan 26, 2014)

In a Lonely Place said:


> My parents aborted one kid and I was an accident but should have been aborted, I envy that bunch of cells that didn't have to put up with having those two ****ing imbeciles as parents.


Lol I'm totally with you, they make bad choices and we have to live with the consequences for the next 80 years or whatever.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> Your stomach is still yours though, if you wanted to get your stomach pumped to get the ring out I couldn't force you to keep it inside. Even if that meant damaging the ring and making it worthless.


The debate is whether or not a fetus should be considered a "human life" At 3 weeks it's just a clump of cells and the answer is obviously "*no*". At 9 months, it's *identical *to a newborn baby so I don't understand why it's okay to kill a 9 month old fetus, but it's murder to kill a newborn baby. You can't have it both ways. It's a logically inconsistent position.

*Question*: If I were to take a newborn baby and implant it into your uterus, does that give you the right to kill it?

If no, then why should a late-term fetus that's old enough to be viable outside the womb be killed just because you are inconvenienced by it?


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

arnie said:


> The debate is whether or not a fetus should be considered a "human life"


Why? That's not what the debate is. The debate is 'abortion: with or against?'


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

^^ You didn't answer my question.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

I don't plan on. I consider your question a derail. It's not relevant to my opinion on abortion.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> I don't plan on. I consider your question a derail. It's not relevant to my opinion on abortion.


You don't plan on it because you know that there is no good answer.

If you answer "Yes" then you are saying infanticide is okay.

If you answer "No" then you are saying late-term abortion is wrong.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

arnie said:


> You don't plan on it because you know that there is no good answer.
> 
> If you answer "Yes" then you are saying infanticide is okay.
> 
> If you answer "No" then you are saying late-term abortion is wrong.


Fine you want an answer, the answer is yes. I don't give a **** what the status of the thing inside me is, the ONLY part I care about is that there is something inside an unwilling woman and she should have every right to remove. I don't care if it's a lump of cells, a newborn surgically placed back in her, or a midget shoved up inside her. It's fine to remove it even if that means killing it.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> Fine you want an answer, the answer is *yes*. I don't give a **** what the status of the thing inside me is, the ONLY part I care about is that there is something inside an unwilling woman and she should have every right to remove. I don't care if it's a lump of cells, a *newborn surgically placed back in her, or a midget shoved up inside her. It's fine to remove it even if that means killing it.*


So you support killing a human being so a woman doesn't have to be inconvenienced. :yes


----------



## KelsKels (Oct 4, 2011)

I will have an abortion if I get pregnant, its absolute. Luckily I havent needed one but if I ever do I will abort with or without anyones consent. I dont think its such a crime to abort when someone else wanted a child, if its not wanted by one party it shouldnt come to into this earth. I think its absolutely terrible when women have children without the fathers knowledge or support. I cant believe it happens so often. Id be absolutely pissed if someone decided to have half my DNA live on this earth without my permission.

Also.. LOL @ all these guys saying that pregnancy aint no thang.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

arnie said:


> So you support killing a human being so a woman doesn't have to be inconvenienced. :yes


Would you support mandatory organ donation? If you went to the doctor with a broken finger and while you were they held you down and took out your kidney to give to someone who needed it, would you be making the same argument 'you support killing a human so you don't have to be inconvenienced'? Pregnancy is not simply an inconvenience. It comes with permanent health consequences and a risk of death.


----------



## KelsKels (Oct 4, 2011)

likeaspacemonkey said:


> I might be wrong but I think "all these guys" was just one guy.


I didnt mean all the guys in this thread. I just dont really think its right for any man to say that a woman has to have a baby if she doesnt want it. I was referring to every man that believes that way.

EDIT: But I think that men deciding a woman has to keep an unwanted baby is just as bad as a woman keeping a baby without the mans permission. Both are equally unfair and a s***ty thing for someone to do/say.

I guess I believe the opposite of Shmosby, if the pregnancy is unwanted by either end, it should be terminated. Pretty sure that will also be an unpopular opinion though.


----------



## hazelblue (Jun 6, 2012)

Abortion, in my opinion, MUST be facilitated in the legal and healthcare system. It's illogical and cruel to deny it. Ireland is one of the worst countries in the world in this regard. 100% of the 21st century culture of sex... 0% options for abortion. 

You can't get a termination for rape, suicidality or anything. Only if the mother is dying, even then some doctors play it safe and leave it too long and she dies.

One story was of a wanted pregnancy but the baby was terminally ill (unable to survive outside the womb). She carried it to full term, by which point it was dead, and had to give birth. The babies head came off in front of the parents and medical staff. 

Mind you, a lot of young people are not worried... a trip to Great Britain is their back up plan. I don't know how the legislaters just ignore this fact. It's not as if the island is subsequently "innocent" or free from the "murder" of foetuses. In fact it's descrimination against those who can't go on a trip (maybe alone and afraid) to get an abortion. What happens to women in that situation can't be pretty.


----------



## shyvr6 (Feb 18, 2008)

Please stay on topic and don't turn this into a gender war or the thread will be locked.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

Gwynevere said:


> Pregnancy is not simply an inconvenience. It comes with permanent health consequences and a risk of death.


We are talking about late-term abortion here. Of course I support the right to terminate the pregnancy in the beginning. However *after 9 months*, when the baby is *identical *to a new born infant, the woman has already been through 9 months of pregnancy. It's in the past.

At that point the baby has to come out somehow. Dead or alive. The risk to the mother is the same either way. In fact one method of late-term abortion is actually the same as giving birth. They induce labor of a dead baby. 
Intact dilation and extraction

Should a mother be allowed to kill her baby right before giving birth to it? or is that wrong?


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

I'm not getting banned over this thread, so sorry, you'll have to ask the other users who posted in here.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

I voted everything. I fully support all options provided in the poll.


----------



## Grog (Sep 13, 2013)

Idea 
Mandatory with out a licence to have children 
The planet is over populated as is


----------



## KelsKels (Oct 4, 2011)

likeaspacemonkey said:


> Well, you could see it like that, you could say that she's doing something bad because many men would care about having someone with his DNA jumping around somewhere on Earth and maybe more importantly, the idea of being "guilty" of a fatherless son. I wouldn't say it's "equally" unfair, as the woman is forced to carry the damn thing around for months while the guy just gets the mental/emotional weight of it. Which for me personally means absolutely nothing, at least in theory. It's just genes. But I think most guys would indeed be bothered by it for social reasons. I mean I get the feeling that if some guy gets away with not being a part of his unwanted child's life he'll be seen as a complete dochebag, even if he was against keeping the thing.
> 
> *On the other hand, it could also be seen as: the guy is forcing that woman to abort a child she wants. And that is also true.* So while your position is makes sense and is understandable, I think I stand by my initial position. It should be totally the woman's choice but the guy shouldn't be obligated to be part of it, legally of morally.


Yeah, exactly. Thats why I was sure most people wouldnt at all agree with me. I just think the only way children should come into this world is if theyre wanted from both sides instead of just one. But that would only work if we lived in a perfect world where people would either agree 100% or not go through with bringing life onto this planet.. which will never ever happen. People will act unfairly no matter what. Im sure most people would not agree that having a woman abort a baby she wants and he doesnt, is as fair as aborting a baby he wants and she doesnt, but I think it is.

Having a woman keep a baby because he wants it is just as selfish as having a baby that the father doesnt want. In my opinion anyways.

EDIT: And because Im sure someone will assume the worst, Im not saying that abortions should be mandatory for any woman whos partner disagrees with having a child. People should be able to do whatever they want, and they will. I just personally believe that a woman shouldnt have a baby thats unwanted by the father.. but it should not be enforced. Abortion should always be legal and people can use it however they see fit. These are only my views.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

diamondheart89 said:


> Because men aren't forced to incubate children inside their bodies for 9 months and their lives aren't at risk because of it.


Yes, I only incubated my child for 6 and a half months.


----------



## zomgz (Aug 17, 2009)

shyvr6 said:


> Please stay on topic and don't turn this into a gender war or the thread will be locked.


Seconding this. Take it easy with the debate guys.


----------



## burgerchuckie (May 31, 2012)

AGAINST! People should be aware of the consequences and must be willing to take it the minute they decided to have sex without protection.


----------



## Xenos (Jun 24, 2012)

burgerchuckie said:


> AGAINST! People should be aware of the consequences and must be willing to take it the minute they decided to have sex without protection.


Is that really the reason you're against it? Because if it is, then you should support a rape exception, at least in theory. Right?


----------



## JustThisGuy (Mar 24, 2012)

Pro-choice.


----------

