Would you force someone to do something to save someone else?

[columbus]

You do know how that works, right? It takes two. What do we do with the other participant?

Well, if the female parent decides that the clump of cells is a Blessed Gift from God the male parent is on the hook for about 20 years worth of child support. It's just one of the perks of female privilege. That's how we hold the male parent accountable.

How about, if neither parent wants to raise the baby that they chose to make, they both have to ante up for support. The male parent rather more, since the female parent did gestation duty.
A parent who is not willing or able to provide gets sterilized. I don't expect the Justice system to change the past, but it can change the future.
Tom

 

[RESOLUTION]

What?

The problem when you start off from your own personal take on a topic is that it can become very tunnel vision. Where you ask a question which is designed to force
an answer you want rather than a persons personal views. If you want pro-life to be about abortion then say so. When it comes to abortion a baby is already alive in the womb and it does not need
saving by another. The woman has a choice to keep or kill the baby within her. My reply would be this. :- In an age where unwanted pregnancy is not an issue why get pregnant to kill it? People should be made to pay for their abortions if there is no assault or underage pregnancy. Women having unwanted pregnancy is not acceptable. They should be made to pay if they want an abortion as contraception is available.


Ethical questions surrounding abortion show that it is no longer any reason for any unwanted pregnancy outside rape and abusive partners. Also children underage sex. I see the point in abortion for those but not for people who have the means to avoid pregnancy - getting pregnant. Make them pay full cost of abortion then it might make them stop getting pregnant the right way.Do we have the right to tell others what to do with their body? NO but we have the right to make them pay for what they have done if they ignore the proper way to avoid it.

The morning after pill is freely available here in the UK, even for under 16s.

I am sure that wherever you are a pill can be made available.

 

[JJ50]

I am sure that wherever you are a pill can be made available.

What are you talking about now?

 

[RESOLUTION]

Good, you're pro-choice. I'm glad you're displaying some rationality.

Pro-choice has nothing to do with rationality.
Everyone has the right to make their own choices. Your personal opinion has no weight in these matters. [/QUOTE]

It's only irrational if it's no and then yes to the questions. This is definitely not tunnel vision.

You miss the point.

It does. If we could keep a fetus alive without the mother, we would. However, this is not the case. Since the mother is in control of her body, removing the baby is not killing for a number of reasons. The mother is keeping the fetus alive and by removing it, it dies. Fetuses outside the womb bellow 22 weeks don't survive. One could argue that the mother kills the fetus, or likely kills it, if they use a method of abortion that destroys the fetus if it has a good possibility of survival outside the womb. However, this argument is self defeating, because (1st) it promotes pro-choice and emphasises abortions that keep the fetus alive (2nd) by doing abortions that have intentions to save the fetus removes the possibility of killing even if the fetus dies. Though this this argument has some contention, because just by removing to fetus prematurely is already damaging enough to the fetus, even when done by professionals. And now, apparently, you want women to pay for it. Eh, not given this much thought, huh?

Of course removing the fetus is killing it. Unless the fetus has already died then no amount of excuses changes the fact
you have murdered a fetus. As legal as that may be. What about women who mis-carry who want their babies? They have my sympathy but
women who elect to have an abortion they chose it. The fact is women who have more than one abortion should be made to pay.
teenagers who are children are a different matter the parent makes their choice.

Made to pay, huh? How? You understand that the abortion process is not exactly a pleasant one and I have no idea how you'd differentiate between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted pregnancy that happened even when precautions were taken or that you even care.

The pill might fail if you forget to take it, or you use antibiotics but in those cases the morning after pill or extra protection is
available. Always be safe.

Yeah, and contraceptives aren't perfect and sometimes things just go wrong.

That is the chance you take. Your responsible for your own life and your actions you know things can go wrong so the morning
after pill is available so use it.

lol

LOL is that really all you have?

You pass the rationality test. So, that's something. *clap*

There is no rational approach just an honest and well thought out reason for human beings being responsible in their actions.

 

[RESOLUTION]

What?

The problem when you start off from your own personal take on a topic is that it can become very tunnel vision. Where you ask a question which is designed to force
an answer you want rather than a persons personal views. If you want pro-life to be about abortion then say so. When it comes to abortion a baby is already alive in the womb and it does not need
saving by another. The woman has a choice to keep or kill the baby within her. My reply would be this. :- In an age where unwanted pregnancy is not an issue why get pregnant to kill it? People should be made to pay for their abortions if there is no assault or underage pregnancy. Women having unwanted pregnancy is not acceptable. They should be made to pay if they want an abortion as contraception is available.


Ethical questions surrounding abortion show that it is no longer any reason for any unwanted pregnancy outside rape and abusive partners. Also children underage sex. I see the point in abortion for those but not for people who have the means to avoid pregnancy - getting pregnant. Make them pay full cost of abortion then it might make them stop getting pregnant the right way.Do we have the right to tell others what to do with their body? NO but we have the right to make them pay for what they have done if they ignore the proper way to avoid it.

Sooo...how much should we charge the one that impregnated her in the first place? Oh, I forgot, the woman should have known better. Right?

Is this it? Are we really going to hit the morality button and make this bigger than it needs or ought to be?

Do you think the man and woman should go 'dutch' on abortion cost? What if a 'one night stand' do you advertise for the person to come forward?
Is there really a 'know better'? It is ridiculous to answer in this manner just to have something to say.

 

[JJ50]

Pro-choice has nothing to do with rationality.
Everyone has the right to make their own choices. Your personal opinion has no weight in these matters.

You miss the point.


Of course removing the fetus is killing it. Unless the fetus has already died then no amount of excuses changes the fact
you have murdered a fetus. As legal as that may be. What about women who mis-carry who want their babies? They have my sympathy but
women who elect to have an abortion they chose it. The fact is women who have more than one abortion should be made to pay.
teenagers who are children are a different matter the parent makes their choice.



The pill might fail if you forget to take it, or you use antibiotics but in those cases the morning after pill or extra protection is
available. Always be safe.



That is the chance you take. Your responsible for your own life and your actions you know things can go wrong so the morning
after pill is available so use it.



LOL is that really all you have?


There is no rational approach just an honest and well thought out reason for human beings being responsible in their actions.[/QUOTE]

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Augustus]

If it would be murder to kill the child when he is for example 5 years old, then logically it is murder if the baby is for example 5 months old.

If it's paedophilia to have sex with a 5 year old, it's paedophilia to have sex with that same 5 year old now that she's 28.

 

[JJ50]

If it's paedophilia to have sex with a 5 year old, it's paedophilia to have sex with that same 5 year old now that she's 28.

Good post.

 

[charlie sc]

People should not be banging each other if they're not mature enough to face the consequences of "accidentally" getting pregnant. If they can't deal with that, then they shouldn't be having sex. Doesn't take an Einstein to work that out.
Best you can do, is go against nature further and make stronger birth control pills or stronger condoms etc.
Just don't have sex, touch each other sure, but don't bang. Easy. Simple. Solved. No abortions needed and everyone is happy.

Eh, well, in response to your reply, I can just say that people who refuse to give abortions aren’t mature enough to understand the rights of females. It doesn’t take Einstein to figure that out. Pro life activists can’t deal with gender equality and the natural right to do what we want to do with our own body. Simple, solved. They need to grow up.

Ah, nice talk.

 

[charlie sc]

Pro-choice has nothing to do with rationality.
Everyone has the right to make their own choices. Your personal opinion has no weight in these matters.

You miss the point.

Nope. If someone answered no and then no, or yes and then yes, they wouldn’t be logically inconsistent = irrational. The OPs questions is about irrationality. If you don’t get it, it’s not my problem.

Of course removing the fetus is killing it. Unless the fetus has already died then no amount of excuses changes the fact
you have murdered a fetus. As legal as that may be. What about women who mis-carry who want their babies? They have my sympathy but
women who elect to have an abortion they chose it. The fact is women who have more than one abortion should be made to pay.
teenagers who are children are a different matter the parent makes their choice.

Eh, you didn't understand my point. I'll create an analogy I don't particularly like but... Imagine a leech attached to you. If you pull it off, it dies. If you leave it, it lives. Are you killing it by removing yourself from it or does it just die without you?

The pill might fail if you forget to take it, or you use antibiotics but in those cases the morning after pill or extra protection is
available. Always be safe.

That is the chance you take. Your responsible for your own life and your actions you know things can go wrong so the morning
after pill is available so use it.

LOL is that really all you have?

There is no rational approach just an honest and well thought out reason for human beings being responsible in their actions.

I don't know how you want me to reply to your judgemental and apathetic attitude to the problems females go through. You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[BSM1]

Punishing women? Carrying an unwanted child to term is an inconvenience at best.
Women have children every single day. It is really no big deal.

Moreover, there are women all over the place who cannot have children who would want that child more than anything in the world. That child could be loved and have a life. Instead, children are slaughtered by the millions just for convenience.

What about the guy that made the baby? What should we do with him? And orphanages around the world are full of unwanted children just waiting for a loving family. You're argument is specious at best.

 

[BSM1]

Well, if the female parent decides that the clump of cells is a Blessed Gift from God the male parent is on the hook for about 20 years worth of child support. It's just one of the perks of female privilege. That's how we hold the male parent accountable.

How about, if neither parent wants to raise the baby that they chose to make, they both have to ante up for support. The male parent rather more, since the female parent did gestation duty.
A parent who is not willing or able to provide gets sterilized. I don't expect the Justice system to change the past, but it can change the future.
Tom

Not that I disagree, but good luck with that. This, however, brings up a small question of allowing the male half the option of demanding an abortion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you answered no to this question, here is another question: are you pro-life? If it's yes to this question, how do you reconcile your irrationality?

Side note: this is about abortion Pro-life vs pro-choice *edited

Oh good. We never had a thread like this on the forum before.

But I digress. No, I would not force someone to do something to safe someone else.

Am I pro-life? I'm afraid I don't fit neatly into either camp. I'm pro-reason.

 

[columbus]

Not that I disagree, but good luck with that. This, however, brings up a small question of allowing the male half the option of demanding an abortion.

Heaven forbid that feminists support gender equality
Tom

 

[JJ50]

Heaven forbid that feminists support gender equality
Tom

When men are able to get pregnant and give birth, they should have an equal say in whether or not their partner should have an abortion, until then it is the woman's right to have the final say in the matter.

 

[columbus]

When men are able to get pregnant and give birth, they should have an equal say in whether or not their partner should have an abortion, until then it is the woman's right to have the final say in the matter.

That's not what I was referring to.
The way things are now, the female parent decides whether the fetal child is a human being or just a clump of cells. The male parent has no Choice, if she decides she wants 20 years of cash payments from him she's legally entitled to it. If he wants the child she can kill him/her anyways.

You can't possibly describe that as gender equality.
Tom

 

[JJ50]

That's not what I was referring to.
The way things are now, the female parent decides whether the fetal child is a human being or just a clump of cells. The male parent has no Choice, if she decides she wants 20 years of cash payments from him she's legally entitled to it. If he wants the child she can kill him/her anyways.

You can't possibly describe that as gender equality.
Tom

Until the foetus is viable, the welfare of the mother must always come first.

 

[columbus]

Until the foetus is viable, the welfare of the mother must always come first.

I can understand why you skipped over the point to my post and went straight to another topic. You prefer to believe that you support gender equality when you don't.
Tom

 

[JJ50]

I can understand why you skipped over the point to my post and went straight to another topic. You prefer to believe that you support gender equality when you don't.
Tom

Probably because your post doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[columbus]

Probably because your post doesn't make any sense to me.

Because you don't support gender equality, but you want to believe that you do.
Tom