(May 20, 2014 at 2:46 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Not being personally affected by something doesn't mean you should have no say in it. That's probably why it gets on a lot of people's nerves. If someone is cutting themselves all the time, you should have no say in the debate. His body, his choice. Close down all the suicide prevention agencies.

You want to kill something that could live for 80+ years, because you don't want to be inconveniences for 6-10 months, and you don't understand why some people have a problem with that?

1. Developing a child places the woman at risk, up to and including death

2. Raising a child is expensive

3. Fetuses do not have capability for intelligence up to a point in development months later.

As far as I can see, allowing abortion freely up to the interval specified in point 3 is consistent.


You do not have the standing to force someone else to risk their life against their will. (Contractual agreements constitute a wilful agreement)

(May 20, 2014 at 2:22 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I know a lot of people take offense to the statement I'm about to make, but I really don't care in this instance. If you're not a woman, you should have no say in this debate at all.

I'll say it again: If you're not a woman, you should have no say in this debate.

Now, on an individual basis, I think most of the time the father's opinion should be considered, but that's as far as it goes.

My body, my choice. Fuck off if you think you have any right to tell me otherwise.

Sure guys can be involved in a discussion about whether it's right or wrong. I don't have any problem with that, because it's just a discussion. When it's actually time for a real person to make this decision no one else's opinion counts except hers. Not men or women. Maybe the father, I think that really depends on their relationship.

(May 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 1. Developing a child places the woman at risk, up to and including death

Eating is risky too....you might choke to death. If someone one chooses not to eat....you should not force feed them. Don't make your kids eat their peas.

(May 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Losty Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 2:22 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I know a lot of people take offense to the statement I'm about to make, but I really don't care in this instance. If you're not a woman, you should have no say in this debate at all.

I'll say it again: If you're not a woman, you should have no say in this debate.

Now, on an individual basis, I think most of the time the father's opinion should be considered, but that's as far as it goes.

My body, my choice. Fuck off if you think you have any right to tell me otherwise.

Sure guys can be involved in a discussion about whether it's right or wrong. I don't have any problem with that, because it's just a discussion. When it's actually time for a real person to make this decision no one else's opinion counts except hers. Not men or women. Maybe the father, I think that really depends on their relationship.

That's basically what I'm saying. But the fact that men can even be involved in voting to legislate abortion either way, to me, is wrong. If a debate came up about whether men should be circumcised or have a vasectomy, I have the right to weigh in, but I don't think I should have the right to vote on the matter.

(May 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 2:46 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Not being personally affected by something doesn't mean you should have no say in it. That's probably why it gets on a lot of people's nerves. If someone is cutting themselves all the time, you should have no say in the debate. His body, his choice. Close down all the suicide prevention agencies.

You want to kill something that could live for 80+ years, because you don't want to be inconveniences for 6-10 months, and you don't understand why some people have a problem with that?

1. Developing a child places the woman at risk, up to and including death

2. Raising a child is expensive

3. Fetuses do not have capability for intelligence up to a point in development months later.

As far as I can see, allowing abortion freely up to the interval specified in point 3 is consistent.


You do not have the standing to force someone else to risk their life against their will. (Contractual agreements constitute a wilful agreement)

I am aware of that, and have addressed them earlier in the thread. I know pregancies still take place in third world countries, but if we had a first world country where the government will pay for the procedure and we had good foster care funding, is it really still such a risk to the mother that it bears mentioning?

Not that we really have either of those things in USA, but I'd still rather work on that than see a bunch of abortions.

(May 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Losty Wrote: Sure guys can be involved in a discussion about whether it's right or wrong. I don't have any problem with that, because it's just a discussion. When it's actually time for a real person to make this decision no one else's opinion counts except hers. Not men or women. Maybe the father, I think that really depends on their relationship.

I've given a lot of thought to what you've said. The rights of the father are limited, but perhaps can be clarified if we consider conception of a child is a contract with negative rights - the right to cancel out within reason.

Perhaps we should try another thread?

We limit the right of abortion past a point - this affects women as they must choose if they want a child before a deadline.

Fathers don't have that deadline. Perhaps they should be able to decide if they will raise the child well before the abortion deadline to give the mother ample notice and warning to reconsider having a child.

This would necessitate making a public fund to ensure poor women, who decided to have a child despite knowing the father has knowingly been against said child, can raise the child regardless.

I say this to carefully remove the ability to force child support from potential fathers if it can be shown that there was no intent to father a child, while granting prospective mothers the chance to decide.

This in an attempt to preserve maximum freedom for all parties by demanding notice be given.

(May 20, 2014 at 3:13 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I am aware of that, and have addressed them earlier in the thread. I know pregancies still take place in third world countries, but if we had a first world country where the government will pay for the procedure and we had good foster care funding, is it really still such a risk to the mother that it bears mentioning?

Yes, absolutely. Having top notch doctors does not negate risk, nor does access to medical care magically mean risk is gone.

Only when you can show the risk is zero, not near zero, can you avoid consideration thereof.

To do so otherwise with non zero risks denies a patient from making decisions about their medical care and self determination.

(May 20, 2014 at 3:13 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Not that we really have either of those things in USA, but I'd still rather work on that than see a bunch of abortions.

The problem with your statement is you lump all timescales of abortion together, while also ignoring access to information to make informed consent.

(May 20, 2014 at 2:46 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 2:22 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I know a lot of people take offense to the statement I'm about to make, but I really don't care in this instance. If you're not a woman, you should have no say in this debate at all.

I'll say it again: If you're not a woman, you should have no say in this debate.

Now, on an individual basis, I think most of the time the father's opinion should be considered, but that's as far as it goes.

My body, my choice. Fuck off if you think you have any right to tell me otherwise.

Not being personally affected by something doesn't mean you should have no say in it. That's probably why it gets on a lot of people's nerves. If someone is cutting themselves all the time, you should have no say in the debate. His body, his choice. Close down all the suicide prevention agencies.

I don't mind suicide prevention agencies and I don't mind pregnancy support clinics like Options Now. I have no problem with people kindly and thoughtfully presenting what they feel are better choices and offering to help you if you are interesting in taking some other path. In both circumstances I think someone who is mentally competent and at least 18 should have the final say in their choice regardless.

Quote:You want to kill something a potential person that could live for 80+ years, because you don't want to be inconveniences for 6-10 months, and you don't understand why some people have a problem with that?

I edited your argument for you, just because I don't want to have debates on whether or not you should be allowed to kill cockroaches in your own home.
I completely understand why some people would have a problem with it. I really do. Just like I have a problem with people who choose not to donate their organs when they're going to be dead anyways. I also understand that even though I think it's wrong, I have no right to try to force them allow the use of their body.

---

(May 20, 2014 at 3:22 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Losty Wrote: Sure guys can be involved in a discussion about whether it's right or wrong. I don't have any problem with that, because it's just a discussion. When it's actually time for a real person to make this decision no one else's opinion counts except hers. Not men or women. Maybe the father, I think that really depends on their relationship.

I've given a lot of thought to what you've said. The rights of the father are limited, but perhaps can be clarified if we consider conception of a child is a contract with negative rights - the right to cancel out within reason.

Perhaps we should try another thread?

We limit the right of abortion past a point - this affects women as they must choose if they want a child before a deadline.

Fathers don't have that deadline. Perhaps they should be able to decide if they will raise the child well before the abortion deadline to give the mother ample notice and warning to reconsider having a child.

This would necessitate making a public fund to ensure poor women, who decided to have a child despite knowing the father has knowingly been against said child, can raise the child regardless.

I say this to carefully remove the ability to force child support from potential fathers if it can be shown that there was no intent to father a child, while granting prospective mothers the chance to decide.

This in an attempt to preserve maximum freedom for all parties by demanding notice be given.

I've had this conversation in a thread at TTA already actually. I personally don't see the need for a new thread considering that the OP isn't even participating. I love to talk about that stuff though so if you want to or have already started a new thread let me know!

(May 20, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 1. Developing a child places the woman at risk, up to and including death

Eating is risky too....you might choke to death. If someone one chooses not to eat....you should not force feed them. Don't make your kids eat their peas.

Another strawman from King Strawman himself, Heywood!

(May 20, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 1. Developing a child places the woman at risk, up to and including death

Eating is risky too....you might choke to death. If someone one chooses not to eat....you should not force feed them. Don't make your kids eat their peas.

Heywood if you have anything of value to add go for it