«

[DeathDude]

I'm all for choice that a woman can have when it comes to Abortion, they are the ones who should have a say in whether or not they want to bring a child into this world, it's their call in the end, and if they feel they don't want to have a baby, then they should be allowed to terminate the preganancy.

Here the issue right now where I live actually with regards to abortion isn't about choice, it's actually about cost, should a woman have to pay for the abortion themselves or as it is right now should the taxpayers pay for the abortions that happen in the province, that's the main issue that we've been hearing about here.

[marko river]

You can't leave everything to the girls. It takes two for baby.

What if my girlfriend is young, but she gets pregnant and SHE wants to abort? Well, sure she's gonna go through pregnancy if i want the baby. What made the baby her own property?

[Chuck the plant]

What made it YOURS, you chauvinistic pig? What gave YOU the right to decidde over HER body and wellbeing? What made HER YOUR propery? I can only pity your girlfriend if you really meant what you said.

and about your previous post: Yeah, because everyone wants to adopt children and it' so easy, too... wake up! Must children that are free to adoption never get adopted. I guess that makes them feel REALLY good. But yeah, let them live through living hell for some 10-20 years before they kill themselves... that's really philantropic of you.

If you are aware that baby will mess you up, naturally, take care in sex. But if girl is pregnant, than you'll have to face the consequences.

If you don't even bother to read what's been said, than also please don't bother to engage in the discussion anymore. Thank you.
It has been said a MILLION times that there is absolutely NO way of a 100% proof in contraception. Forcing people to get a baby because the condom split or the pill didn't work would be like sentencing you because you drove over someone because the brakes on your car were broken allthough you just came from an inspection.

[Kon-Tiki]

I partially agree with Marko, actually. At least, if I understand it like he meant.

I see a child as meant to be the work of two people who love each other. There're emotional ties to it from both the father and the mother. You'd be well unworthy as a human being if you'd just shrug as a dad and say: "Whether a kid of ours lives or not doesn't matter to me." If a child's the product of such two people, I think it's only fair if they discuss the matter with each other. Of course, the mother'll have a bigger say in it, as the kid's inside her, and it involves her body that'll get fiddled with, and the father'll have to keep that into account, but honestly, to me, it seems like he'd be more monster than human if it wouldn't affect him as well, if it left him indifferent. In my eyes, it should be discussed, but with the mom having a way bigger say in it.

Of course, that's only in case the child's from two people who love each other. In other cases, there's usually nothing to be discussed, and it's fully up to the mother to decide.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

And it's somewhat curious to ask whether something is legally defensible when it has already been proven in courts that it is in fact legally defensible

Abortion is legally defensible, yes, but the question (which may have been poorly worded) was not about the defensibility of abortion in general - it was about whether one can really argue for the general legalization of something based solely on special cases. In short, I don't think one can. Here's my position, plain and simple: I think abortion is an inherently abhorrent procedure that should be strongly discouraged at all times, but I think rape victims and other special cases should be entitled to have one if they so choose. As much as I hate leaving things in the hands of lawyers, these "other special cases" would have to be decided upon by the courts, just like justifiable homicide is decided upon presently (thus the analogy).

It is, but isn't it just as hypocritical to complain about the hypocrisy of others when you can't offer a viable and acceptable solution to the actual problem (overpopulation)?

Strictly speaking, complaining about hypocrisy is only hypocritical if I claim to not be a hypocrite, and I don't recall making such a claim. :bleh:

If overpopulation and decadance of culture threaten our ability to sustain, then it should be dealt with, either via preventative methods (through education, birth control and abstinence) or proactive measures (the morning after pill, abortion).

I completely agree, as I imagine that most people do. Where we differ is in our preferences for certain of those methods over others, and most likely in our reasoning behind those preferences. Because many of us feel very strongly about such things, this will always be a messy topic.

I apologize to all for being so argumentative.

Truth be told, I wish everyone here were as "argumentative" as you. I've read plenty of posts by you in this and other debates, and you conduct yourself with class regardless of what's tossed your way. Very nicely done.

[Puffin]

So. Let's pretend for a while that I have a boyfriend. We're in a good relationship, we think we love each other (but remember, people don't often realize what love is. I have thought I was in love, but found out later it wasn't true.). We have sex. I get pregnant.

He want's the baby, I don't.

The odds of a young man, that goes to school, taking care of and looking after a baby that got concieved outside of marriage, a kid that was a mistake, are really slim. Especially if that guy lives with his parents. In like.. 99% of the cases, the kid ends up with the mother.

Ok, so i'm stuck with the kid, had to drop out of school.
Then me and my boyfriend break up because i was angry 'cause he didn't show much attention to me and our baby. We stop talking. I find out I didn't really love him, i was just a stupid puppy.

Then I'm stuck with that baby, no education, no boyfriend, crappy job, and that's a baby i never even wanted. Is that fair?


In the meanwhile, children are waiting in lines for being taken up to adoption. My step-cousin waited for years untill my aunt adopted him. That kid has gone through stuff you can't even imagine.
He had bad parents.
It will affect him his whole life.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

This is going waaaay out of hand.

Agreed. That's pretty much par for the course where this topic is concerned, however.

What about jerks (men) who seduces woman after woman claiming her to be "the one", getting her pregnant in the most romantic settings ever... just to suddenly disappear and find another woman? Should the mother be forced to go through with the birth?

I don't think this situation would qualify as a "special case" - not to me, anyway. I feel that to call it such would imply that the woman had no control over her own actions in being seduced by this lothario, and that would clearly be demeaning to her. If she truly had no control over her actions (because he drugged her or otherwise incapacitated her), then she could not have consented to sex and consequently was raped. Then she would indeed be a special case, and the man would be more than a jerk - he would be a colossal jerk and a criminal.

Should the man be unpunished for his acts?

Certainly not. If the woman chooses to keep the child, he should be forced to pay child support (as he is under current law, at least here). If he does not pay, he is once again a criminal. Assuming abortion remains legal and the woman chooses to abort, he should be made to pay for half of the costs associated with the procedure. (If she was actually raped as above, he should be forced to pay the entirety.)

In the case of the latter, let me just warn you that in order to actually get a case to the court there is a long waiting time with lots of paperwork.

That's a valid point. I think that the waiting time would be decreased as legal precedents were set for special cases, but that is still a concern.

If the girl should be forced (by the male population) to go through with the birth because she had casual sex for pleasure (without protection), then it would only be fair that the guy (who naturally didn't use protection either, and also had sex just for pleasure) should get a vasectomy at once.

That doesn't quite follow, because a vasectomy precludes the possiblity of conceiving a child in the future, whereas an abortion does not (unless something goes horribly wrong). The sentiment is certainly valid, though.

[taikara]

Originally posted by FPJ
Abortion is legally defensible, yes, but the question (which may have been poorly worded) was not about the defensibility of abortion in general - it was about whether one can really argue for the general legalization of something based solely on special cases.

Ahh, yes, I see what you mean, now. I was a little confused as to how (my interpretation of) your original statement was even a question :P

However, I think that it's still defensible. Giving people the right to kill without fear of repercussions in instances of war and self-defense still does not automatically give all people everywhere a license to kill in any circumstances. The same is true for abortion. It's a specialized circumstance that only one part of society will even have the possibility of encountering, and of those that have the possibility, only a percentage will actually have to make that decision. And continuing, of that percentage, a smaller percentage will actually decide to actually go through with an abortion.

Conversely, in instances of war and self-defense, combatants and victims have the *option* to kill, which is also parallel to the abortion argument. A combatant can choose to throw down his weapons in the face of fire and not return fire, just as a victim can choose not to retaliate against his attacker.

I don't think the choice to take life of any sort is something that many people take lightly, whether they are hardened soldiers, victimized citizens, or mothers-to-be of undesired children. In fact, I think that of those three "special scenarios," those women who are forced by circumstance to consider abortion would probably be the most hesitant to make the choice.

To me, it seems like people who are pro-life are panicking that "legalizing" abortion in general will cause bedlam and chaos and the extinction of our species, because obviously, if it's available, everybody will want to have one.

If the number of abortions increases, it is most likely directly proportional to the general increase of population, not the increase of legalized abortion clinics. And, really, if a pregnant woman is scared and desperate enough to get rid of her baby, she'll find ways, regardless of what the laws have to say about it.

But all in all, I think education (and I don't mean handing out condoms to 10 year olds) is our best bet for preventing unwanted pregnancies. But as it's been mentioned, numerous times, accidents do happen, and such accidents, given a high enough percentage of them throughout the spread of a population, decrease the quality of living for all members of a society.

[Kon-Tiki]

Originally posted by taikara@Sep 22 2005, 09:01 PM
(...)
If the number of abortions increases, it is most likely directly proportional to the general increase of population, not the increase of legalized abortion clinics. And, really, if a pregnant woman is scared and desperate enough to get rid of her baby, she'll find ways, regardless of what the laws have to say about it.
(...)

That reminds me... back in my last year of highschool, we saw a video 'bout this, 'bout abortion in Russia, and why people wanted it to be legalized there. Right now, it's illegal there, but there're still alot of girls that want to have an abortion, and are helped by old housewives, who take care of it by putting lipstick on a knitting needle, and performing an abortion like that. The reason why they all want it to become legal to perform abortions, is because how it currently is, doesn't avoid the practice anyways, and if they'd do it legally, it'd be done by professionals, with equipment made for it, drastically decreasing the number of accidents that now happen during these illegal abortions.

[marko river]

Originally posted by Chuck the plant@Sep 22 2005, 06:56 PM
What made it YOURS, you chauvinistic pig? What gave YOU the right to decidde over HER body and wellbeing? What made HER YOUR propery? I can only pity your girlfriend if you really meant what you said.

Read carefully what i said before posting. I never said i OWN HER BODY, but it is not only her body you know. There's a baby inside. And if i consider it my child, and i also consider abortion as life termination, wich means death, what a f**k do you excpect me to do?????? "Yeah, sure, you can abort darling, it is just small embrio, so i won't care about it"

What in the world has got into you? She wants to abort because she's gonna have a hard time? What made her the center of the world? And when have we actually became more important than our children??? I don't care is it born or unborn, child is child.


And Puffin, i can't say that baby is mistake, that someone get stuck with it or so. If father wants a baby, give it to him. If you don't want a baby nor father, give it for adoption.

How can you say that it is better not to be born than having a hard life. Life itself means chance. I know that people can have hard time and get depressed (me myslef can't say that i'm living great life, not in this country) but i can't understand that someone regrets because parents didn't aborted. If you take care in sexm it is unlikely to happen. But if it does happen, then i can't say that baby is some sort of curse.

If you can't love your own child, don't ever born. If you get pregnant, give him for adoption and give him a CHANCE to live.

When have everything else became more important than life itself????