Abortion: What's your stance on it and why?

[PersonWithTime]

Whoa, Serious Discussion indeed.

I don't know, maybe I just feel like throwing my thoughts on a controversial subject at the moment. Not that abortion will ever really be a thing in my life due to a number of reasons, number 1 being the fact that I'm a dude.

But yeah, maybe I am "pro-choice" because my official stance is, "whatever, do what you gotta do." But I've noticed on the internet, and the dark corners of tumblr that some people say they're "pro-choice" but they're really pro-abortion, and they talking about getting abortions left and right just for fun, and that's pretty messed up. I personally think abortion should be the last thing you go towards. Like if there's a father in the picture, the parents may not be dating but the mother doesn't want the child and the father does and has the means to support the kid, then I think the kid should go to the father because he helped create it to, eh?

Also I know that sometimes abortions can cause serious depression for some of the women who get them. I don't think that's a reason to ban it, that'd be dumb, but it's something to seriously consider before getting one. As well as something to be looked for after it happens.

But yeah, that's all the stuff I really think I gotta say. Do whatever you need to do, not my business.

[Rezzy]

i don't believe it's moral to force my beliefs onto somebody else, or anybody for that matter.

It's not strictly a moral argument. The main argument is where "personhood" begins. Many people think unborn children are people and deserve legal protection. Where to draw the line is the question. Is a person sentient only after birth? Probably not, there's much evidence that a baby has thoughts and feelings long before then. Is it viability? Babies can be born months premature now and survive. Third trimester? Heartbeat? Conception? These are all tough questions, but it's not a strictly moral argument.

Whoa, Serious Discussion indeed.

I don't know, maybe I just feel like throwing my thoughts on a controversial subject at the moment. Not that abortion will ever really be a thing in my life due to a number of reasons, number 1 being the fact that I'm a dude.

But yeah, maybe I am "pro-choice" because my official stance is, "whatever, do what you gotta do." But I've noticed on the internet, and the dark corners of tumblr that some people say they're "pro-choice" but they're really pro-abortion, and they talking about getting abortions left and right just for fun, and that's pretty messed up. I personally think abortion should be the last thing you go towards. Like if there's a father in the picture, the parents may not be dating but the mother doesn't want the child and the father does and has the means to support the kid, then I think the kid should go to the father because he helped create it to, eh?

Also I know that sometimes abortions can cause serious depression for some of the women who get them. I don't think that's a reason to ban it, that'd be dumb, but it's something to seriously consider before getting one. As well as something to be looked for after it happens.

But yeah, that's all the stuff I really think I gotta say. Do whatever you need to do, not my business.

I feel men's opinions are just as valid on the matter. I don't think the discussion should be a "girl's only" club.

Also, I think fathers should have some voice over what happens to their children. If during my pregnancy scare, the tables had been turned, and I had no voice in what happened to my flesh and blood? I don't know what I would have done if that baby had been terminated without my say-so.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Rezzy

[Res]

I don't think the other partner's opinion is as valid, myself.

I'm not saying they should be denied a voice; just that the decision is ultimately up to the pregnant person. It's not fair, but abortion is never going to be a fair issue; either the pregnant person has autonomy, or they don't. As much as I'd love the non-pregnant person to have an equal say from a theoretical perspective, they're not going to be the ones going through the physical throes of pregnancy.

The other problem comes with rapists then having a say. We already have cases in the U.S. where rapists have successfully gained parental rights. (And of course, most rapists aren't strangers in dark alleys. Issues are a lot more nuanced in the cases where a person is trapped in a marriage or partnership with an abusive partner).

[CyborgZeta]

I don't want to touch on the topic of abortions, especially since I'm not sure where I stand.

I do believe it is important that people are educated on safe sex and the use of condoms and contraceptives. Sex is an activity that has consequences, so it's important that people are responsible about it.

[Rezzy]

I don't think the other partner's opinion is as valid, myself.

I'm not saying they should be denied a voice; just that the decision is ultimately up to the pregnant person. It's not fair, but abortion is never going to be a fair issue; either the pregnant person has autonomy, or they don't. As much as I'd love the non-pregnant person to have an equal say from a theoretical perspective, they're not going to be the ones going through the physical throes of pregnancy.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. It may sound far off right now, but I think we'll eventually reach a time where we have artificial wounds or incubators, obviating the need for an unwilling woman to carry the baby to term. Maybe even a fetal transplant to a willing recipient. But until we get there, I still feel both parents should have a say, except in rape.

The other problem comes with rapists then having a say. We already have cases in the U.S. where rapists have successfully gained parental rights. (And of course, most rapists aren't strangers in dark alleys. Issues are a lot more nuanced in the cases where a person is trapped in a marriage or partnership with an abusive partner).

That's an unfortunate oversight in the law, that hopefully can be addressed to disallow any rapists from parental rights. Passing laws is never easy, but passing laws in this case can address this injustice.

[PersonWithTime]

I feel men's opinions are just as valid on the matter. I don't think the discussion should be a "girl's only" club.

Also, I think fathers should have some voice over what happens to their children. If during my pregnancy scare, the tables had been turned, and I had no voice in what happened to my flesh and blood? I don't know what I would have done if that baby had been terminated without my say-so.

I wish more people felt the same way you do.

I don't think the other partner's opinion is as valid, myself.

I'm not saying they should be denied a voice; just that the decision is ultimately up to the pregnant person. It's not fair, but abortion is never going to be a fair issue; either the pregnant person has autonomy, or they don't. As much as I'd love the non-pregnant person to have an equal say from a theoretical perspective, they're not going to be the ones going through the physical throes of pregnancy.

The other problem comes with rapists then having a say. We already have cases in the U.S. where rapists have successfully gained parental rights. (And of course, most rapists aren't strangers in dark alleys. Issues are a lot more nuanced in the cases where a person is trapped in a marriage or partnership with an abusive partner).

With all due respect, I don't entirely trust Salon, they've have some questionable articles in the past. Not saying you're point is invalid because I think it is valid and the world is a crazy place and anything can happen in it. I just don't trust Salon.

I know I personally would ideally like to trust the justice system, but I know it has its faults.

But I really do feel like the father should have a say in it, I mean there can be an agreement where the mother is 100% void of all parent responsibilities, so legally speaking she isn't even a mother. And damn, there wasn't going to be something else I was gonna say but I have to work now dammit....

Half-ideas, nothing is expressed quite right at the moment.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Pro-choice. If your pro-life, I respectfully disagree but that's your choice and forcing people who are pro-choice to go through a pregnancy they don't want is not something I can agree with.

[Balcerzak]

It's not strictly a moral argument. The main argument is where "personhood" begins. Many people think unborn children are people and deserve legal protection. Where to draw the line is the question. Is a person sentient only after birth? Probably not, there's much evidence that a baby has thoughts and feelings long before then. Is it viability? Babies can be born months premature now and survive. Third trimester? Heartbeat? Conception? These are all tough questions, but it's not a strictly moral argument.

Eh, I'd say defining personhood is pretty squarely a matter of morality. (My two cents on that matter is when a being can demonstrate self-awareness through meaningful communication it has become a person.)

I feel men's opinions are just as valid on the matter. I don't think the discussion should be a "girl's only" club.

Also, I think fathers should have some voice over what happens to their children. If during my pregnancy scare, the tables had been turned, and I had no voice in what happened to my flesh and blood? I don't know what I would have done if that baby had been terminated without my say-so.

Very much in agreement here. I look forward to the day when technology advances to the point where if a father wants an unwanted child instead of the woman going through with an abortion procedure against his will, there could be a surrogacy procedure of some sort instead. That way both the bodily integrity of the woman and the parental rights of the man can be respected.

[Rezzy]

Eh, I'd say defining personhood is pretty squarely a matter of morality. (My two cents on that matter is when a being can demonstrate self-awareness through meaningful communication it has become a person.)

I respect your opinion, but I'm not quite sure what you mean there. Do you mean by actually talking, because then personhood wouldn't be accomplished until toddlerhood, and infants are almost universally deemed as people.

[Balcerzak]

I acknowledge it's a radical position, and I'm a little fuzzy on whether "googoogaga"s should count as communication, but I like the definition because it also rules out the comatose and brain-dead as non-persons as well.

[Res]

I wish more people felt the same way you do.

With all due respect, I don't entirely trust Salon, they've have some questionable articles in the past. Not saying you're point is invalid because I think it is valid and the world is a crazy place and anything can happen in it. I just don't trust Salon.

I know I personally would ideally like to trust the justice system, but I know it has its faults.

But I really do feel like the father should have a say in it, I mean there can be an agreement where the mother is 100% void of all parent responsibilities, so legally speaking she isn't even a mother. And damn, there wasn't going to be something else I was gonna say but I have to work now dammit....

Half-ideas, nothing is expressed quite right at the moment.

Honestly, I pulled the first link that came up in Google. It's a fact that several states have parental rights for rapists. Here's a link to a CNN article if CNN is more believable: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/

The mother is never going to be 100% void of responsibilities if her responsibility involves having to carry and birth the child (which will always carry greater bodily risk than legal abortions). Like I said, it's not fair, but until we have a way to remove a fetus and place it in an artificial womb, it's never going to be 'fair'.

[Life]

I acknowledge it's a radical position, and I'm a little fuzzy on whether "googoogaga"s should count as communication, but I like the definition because it also rules out the comatose and brain-dead as non-persons as well.

That's a very radical position if I'm reading this right.

Is a baby that is immediately born and has taken its first breath considered as a person? Before knowing if it fully functional?

Raven:

Sex is socially irresponsible when it is done to feel pleasure and not for procreation as it is designed for biologically. Any aversion of the biological function is socially irresponsible since there is always a chance for procreation. Your turn.

Bear in mind that I accept that I myself am socially irresponsible and I accept that my actions can lead to consequences. And I continue to do so because I choose to for my own pleasure.

As for why I don't believe that it should be publicly funded, it goes like this.

If I have no right to comment on an abortion (because only the women gets to make the decision), I don't believe I should pay for it.

Now if you want to know if I personally believe it should be publicly funded, that is a different matter and I have not stated my own position. Nor do I care to.

That's not a very Right Wing Nut Job type of response I would've expected, in an abortion topic.

That's why I always laugh at my username.

I like to joke to my best friend that I am a right wing nut job and he's a bleeding heart liberal. The truth is that I'm conservative but pragmatic. And what's funny about it is that I'm 25 years old, educated and moved right politically in the past 5 years. Before that, I was center-left due to growing up in Canada under liberal governments.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Time the Crestfallen]

Sex is socially irresponsible when it is done to feel pleasure and not for procreation as it is designed for biologically. Any aversion of the biological function is socially irresponsible since there is always a chance for procreation. Your turn.

There's more to human life than simple biological function, and there's more to sex than reproduction and pleasure. Setting aside my douchey feel-good arguments, it's not socially irresponsible if they take every possible precaution to reduce chances of pregnancy. If a pregnant couple uses every means of birth control realistically available to them, then I don't see how they could be labelled as irresponsible.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Phillius

[Life]

There's more to human life than simple biological function, and there's more to sex than reproduction and pleasure. Setting aside my douchey feel-good arguments, it's not socially irresponsible if they take every possible precaution to reduce chances of pregnancy. If a pregnant couple uses every means of birth control realistically available to them, then I don't see how they could be labelled as irresponsible.

Abstinence is 100% effective in warding off pregnancy.

That's right, I said it. Only abstinence from sex is being socially responsible. Even if you use every birth control option, the act of sex itself is being socially irresponsible if you are trying to subvert pregnancy.

I'm not saying "don't have sex". I'm saying that you should admit that you are being socially irresponsible. I can do that.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Time the Crestfallen]

Abstinence is 100% effective in warding off pregnancy.

That's right, I said it. Only abstinence from sex is being socially responsible. Even if you use every birth control option, the act of sex itself is being socially irresponsible if you are trying to subvert pregnancy.

I'm not saying "don't have sex". I'm saying that you should admit that you are being socially irresponsible. I can do that.

The Virgin Mary disagrees. Boom, checkmate! XD

The combined effectiveness of the pill and a condom gives a failure rate of about 0.006%. I think you'll find that most cases of unwanted pregnancy occur when birth control is either not employed or used incorrectly i.e. skipping pills or using oil-based lubrication, which is socially irresponsible. If you're saying that it's irresponsible because of the risk factor, than I could counter by saying that almost everything a person can do comes with a risk factor and being responsible is all about minimising those risk factors. If the only responsible course of action is one that carries a 0% chance of failure, than we all might as well lie in bed and do nothing for our entire lives.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Phillius

[Rezzy]

As stated, I've experienced condom breakage 3 times, either I'm being too rough or the effectiveness of them is overstated. Before forgoing birth control completely and starting my family, not counting lesbian sex, I had sex where condoms were used roughly 1000 times, taking an average of having sex once a day for 3 years, give or take, taking out the times I was single or with another girl during that decade.

So I guess that would be an effectiveness of 99.7% assuming there weren't times where there were microtears or holes that weren't detected. I was always cautious, but always has that in the back of my mind, but I liked sex too much to forego it completely.

[Time the Crestfallen]

As stated, I've experienced condom breakage 3 times, either I'm being too rough or the effectiveness of them is overstated. Before forgoing birth control completely and starting my family, not counting lesbian sex, I had sex where condoms were used roughly 1000 times, taking an average of having sex once a day for 3 years, give or take, taking out the times I was single or with another girl during that decade.

So I guess that would be an effectiveness of 99.7% assuming there weren't times where there were microtears or holes that weren't detected. I was always cautious, but always has that in the back of my mind, but I liked sex too much to forego it completely.

http://kidshealth.org/en/teens/condom-tore.html

Also, if you have long nails or try to take the wrapper of with your teeth, that can damage them as well.

[Rezzy]

http://kidshealth.org/en/teens/condom-tore.html

Also, if you have long nails or try to take the wrapper of with your teeth, that can damage them as well.

I never use teeth and I have to keep my nails short for surgery. I didn't do anything other than my usual routine when they broke.

[Rapier]

I'm really sleepy but I'm too stubborn to give up on commenting at this hour, so bump me if I say anything wrong.

The statistics are still important. "Too lazy to raise the kids" is much different than "I am working a full time job and I am unable to raise the kid and provide him with daycare." There's a lot more factors than just "I don't want the kid."

That argument, among with the "they're going to live with a disability that will cause pain/will live poor/will face hardships in life", have made me thinking if it applies or not.

I can understand for disabilities like being locked in a vegetative state forever or anything as nasty as that, but for cases such as autism, Down Syndrome, slight mental retardation or average normal retardation, being born without a certain limb or limbs, among other types that don't come to mind right now, I start to wonder where this argument should draw a line.

I think many people prefer to keep living in spite of their suffering, and they find a meaning in life despite their hardships. Taking another life just because they'll face hardships (that they might prefer facing instead of never existing at all) simply doesn't seem that appealing anymore. There are poor people who, despite their hardships, are pretty much glad they're alive, and wouldn't prefer not having been born at all.

----

As for the question in the title, I think it depends. I fail at biology forever, so correct me if I'm wrong, but until two months fetuses lack a nervous system, can't feel pain and it is not even known if they'll develop to become human or not, so they're basically just glorified "protozoaries" (not literally, of course). I see nothing wrong with aborting then. If there was a problem, then we should be against "killing" plants as well, and treat sperms just the same.

After that, as they become more and more human and develop the ability to sense, feel pain and respond to it, I find abortion abominable because that act not only denies the opportunity of a being who could, in a way or another, leave an impact on the world and live through an unique, incredible and unreplicable experience that no one has the prerrogative to take away, but it also causes pain for the fetus, as well as trauma to some women who chose to go through that procedure. Thus, I am against abortion after the fetus develops its nervous system. I find it much more humane and possible to go through with birth and then give the baby for adoption, so this unique experience of birth isn't wasted.

However, regardless of the case, I think it should be allowed in cases of any extreme disability/rape/threat to the woman's life. The life of someone who's already alive matters much more to that of someone who hasn't even been born, and who won't miss it. And on cases of extreme disability, since their life is going to be wasted anyway, it's better to end it prematurely.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I never use teeth and I have to keep my nails short for surgery. I didn't do anything other than my usual routine when they broke.

That wasn't targeted at you specifically; you just wondered if it was roughness or they weren't as effective as stated and my ego swells from I like being informative. As it stands, they're pretty tough...if you don't do anything during the act that could decrease their effectiveness (not enough lube, use oil-based lube), do anything that could even theoretically damage them maybe once in a blue moon, don't open the packet incorrectly and maybe pray to your deity of choice for good luck.

I don't remember where I saw the statistic, but 97% effectiveness is just the theoretical effectiveness. In practice, it comes to around 82%.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Phillius

[Rezzy]

As for the question in the title, I think it depends. I fail at biology forever, so correct me if I'm wrong, but until two months fetuses lack a nervous system, can't feel pain and it is not even known if they'll develop to become human or not, so they're basically just glorified "protozoaries" (not literally, of course). I see nothing wrong with aborting then. If there was a problem, then we should be against "killing" plants as well, and treat sperms just the same.

The fetus is like this from 1-2 months http://www.baby2see.com/development/month2.html

That wasn't targeted at you specifically; you just wondered if it was roughness or they weren't as effective as stated and my ego swells from I like being informative. As it stands, they're pretty tough...if you don't do anything during the act that could decrease their effectiveness (not enough lube, use oil-based lube), do anything that could even theoretically damage them maybe once in a blue moon, don't open the packet incorrectly and maybe pray to your deity of choice for good luck.

I don't remember where I saw the statistic, but 97% effectiveness is just the theoretical effectiveness. In practice, it comes to around 82%.

It may have been roughness, but they should be able to take what I can dish out.

[Time the Crestfallen]

It may have been roughness, but they should be able to take what I can dish out.

Apparently LELO HEX condoms are pretty good for that, but I only have the word of the internet to go on for that.

[Rezzy]

Apparently LELO HEX condoms are pretty good for that, but I only have the word of the internet to go on for that.

I looked those up, but if they're endorsed by Charlie Sheen, I don't think that bodes well for them, especially considering his recent medical history.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I looked those up, but if they're endorsed by Charlie Sheen, I don't think that bodes well for them, especially considering his recent medical history.

Really? I didn't know about that. For the sake of fairness though, Charlie Sheen doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would use condoms regardless of their qualities.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on IUDs?

[Rezzy]

Really? I didn't know about that. For the sake of fairness though, Charlie Sheen doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would use condoms regardless of their qualities.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on IUDs?

Nothing against them personally, but not something I'd want myself. I don't even like wearing contacts.

Why do you ask?