Abortion

Pexbo said:
Yet an act of sex that has the potential to conceive life involves both a male and a female body. So yes, the risk is all on the woman but the responsibility falls on both and in the case of rape falls entirely on the man. We’re discussing this in the context of a modern, socially conscious society, so the Neanderthal position of “it’s the women who have the ovaries so it’s the women who have the problem” is entirely redundant when trying to figure out a balanced solution where both sexes take equal responsibility.
Click to expand...

We do have the exact same way of reproducing as Neanderthals, so no, it is not redundant. The poster I originally quoted was trying to come up with an example to prove a point that there is a double standard. My claim is that there is no double standard, as the biological realities of women and men are vastly different and there is nothing that you could ethically do to a man that would make him split the biological burden of reproduction equally.

Talking about society and how the legislation is so harsh on woman, how about this:

A man and a woman have sex, she gets pregnant. She wants to keep it, he has no say in the matter. Well, sucks to be you Romeo, it may be her body her choice, but now you have to pay child support for 18+ years. As you, in my opinion, should.

The point is that the differences between us mean that we will face different possible consequences of sex. Yes, it sucks more for women that they have to go through abortions when they don't want the babies, but they have the benefit of deciding to keep the baby when they want to. Men, on the other hand, have no say in the matter. Or what if the man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't? What if he feels that abortion is murder? Again, sucks to be you Romeo, your baby is going bye-bye.

I am not trying to say that one gender has it better or worse, I am just trying to point out that the two sexes face different challenges in situations such as this. And a lot of those differences are dictated by biology.

Fingeredmouse said:
It's a rhetorical device to demonstrate how legislating over the bodies of all men is shocking and draconian.

Yes, but it is a societal thing that society legislates to prevent all woman making the choice they deem correct about their own biology.
Click to expand...

Which is fine and well, but I wasn't arguing against abortion, I was arguing against mandatory vasectomy.
 
Hound Dog said:
I am not trying to say that one gender has it better or worse, I am just trying to point out that the two sexes face different challenges in situations such as this. And a lot of those differences are dictated by biology.

Which is fine and well, but I wasn't arguing against abortion, I was arguing against mandatory vasectomy.
Click to expand...
One gender clearly does have it worse in these matters and is actively legislated against.

This was the point of @Pexbo 's thought experiment.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
I'm struggling to see why people are missing that this is what you were doing.
Click to expand...

I do see what he is doing, I am pointing out why his analogy is invalid.

What he suggested would be akin to suggesting mandatory (mostly) reversible sterilization for women. Such a thing does not exist.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
clearly does have it worse in these matters and is actively legislated against.
Click to expand...

I have given two examples of abortion where women have rights that man do not, so sorry, I really don't see how one gender clearly has it worse. I am talking about the current situation in most of the Western world, with abortion legal and readily available. If abortion was not legal then yes, I would agree with you.
 
Funny how the 'both sides' argument is dished out in every single debate on equally and fairness as soon as the oppressor is attacked.
 
Moby said:
Funny how the 'both sides' argument is dished out in every single debate on equally and fairness as soon as the oppressor is attacked.
Click to expand...

What other argument can one dish out if he believes that there is no opressor in a given situation?
 
Hound Dog said:
We do have the exact same way of reproducing as Neanderthals, so no, it is not redundant. The poster I originally quoted was trying to come up with an example to prove a point that there is a double standard. My claim is that there is no double standard, as the biological realities of women and men are vastly different and there is nothing that you could ethically do to a man that would make him split the biological burden of reproduction equally.

Talking about society and how the legislation is so harsh on woman, how about this:

A man and a woman have sex, she gets pregnant. She wants to keep it, he has no say in the matter. Well, sucks to be you Romeo, it may be her body her choice, but now you have to pay child support for 18+ years. As you, in my opinion, should.

The point is that the differences between us mean that we will face different possible consequences of sex. Yes, it sucks more for women that they have to go through abortions when they don't want the babies, but they have the benefit of deciding to keep the baby when they want to. Men, on the other hand, have no say in the matter.

I am not trying to say that one gender has it better or worse, I am just trying to point out that the two sexes face different challenges in situations such as this. And a lot of those differences are dictated by biology.



Which is fine and well, but I wasn't arguing against abortion, I was arguing against mandatory vasectomy.
Click to expand...

If you were so certain you didn’t want kids, why not get a vasectomy to avoid getting someone pregnant and having to pay child support?
Hell, why have sex at all considering there are other ways to achieve the end goal.
 
villain said:
If you were so certain you didn’t want kids, why not get a vasectomy to avoid getting someone pregnant and having to pay child support?
Hell, why have sex at all considering there are other ways to achieve the end goal.
Click to expand...

I agree with both of your points. Which doesn't change the fact that most people do want kids at some point and the vast majority of sex is not had with the goal of reproduction. So the situation that I described is quote common, sadly.

Regarding not having sex at all, you could make the same point for women. That leaves the victims of rape, but wait, men can also be sperm-jacked. Or raped. It happens far less than with women, but it does.

So no, the discussion is not nearly as cut as dry as some on here, so eager to call names and be patronizing, are making it out to be.
 
Hound Dog said:
I do see what he is doing, I am pointing out why his analogy is invalid.

What he suggested would be akin to suggesting mandatory (mostly) reversible sterilization for women. Such a thing does not exist.
Click to expand...
No, that's be a literal comparison.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
No, that's be a literal comparison.
Click to expand...

I actually had to look analogy up.

anal·o·gy | \ ə-ˈna-lə-jē \
plural analogies
Essential Meaning of analogy
1: a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way
He drew/made an analogy between flying a kite and fishing. [=he compared flying a kite to fishing; he said that flying a kite was like fishing]
2: the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way

I fail to see how aborting a fetus and
being sterilized are alike in any way. Ok, they do stop reproduction, but so does suicide.
 
Pexbo said:
Yet an act of sex that has the potential to conceive life involves both a male and a female body. So yes, the risk is all on the woman but the responsibility falls on both and in the case of rape falls entirely on the man. We’re discussing this in the context of a modern, socially conscious society, so the Neanderthal position of “it’s the women who have the ovaries so it’s the women who have the problem” is entirely redundant when trying to figure out a balanced solution where both sexes take equal responsibility.
Click to expand...


So we don't start on the wrong footing I'm not missing your argument or why you are making it you clarified that in a later post. Its a discussion point.

I am disagreeing with the argument its validity and foundation and so your conclusion.

Your argument is that forced vasectomy is the same as voluntarily taking a pill to limit fertility which has some known health implications. I think these two things are not the same. Which is why I think your argument is wrong.

I also think that if we are discussing this in the context you lay out then the first bolded part is wrong because in that setting the financial risk /burden if the laws are followed is designed to be to some extent shared.

The health risks of pregnancy cannot be shared unless you want to go further, in the same spirit of argument, that the introduction of widower strangling in the case of death of the women during childbirth is the same as dying in child birth?

The final bolded part assumes that equal responsibility is the fair aiming point to place responsibility which given the inequality in the authority of both parties in the consequent decision making process might not be fair at all. Or perhaps that inequality in authority has to weigh somewhere.

I don't support shortening the abortion window and it is a retrograde step but I think going extreme in either direction on this would be retrograde.
 
Hound Dog said:
I have given two examples of abortion where women have rights that man do not, so sorry, I really don't see how one gender clearly has it worse. I am talking about the current situation in most of the Western world, with abortion legal and readily available. If abortion was not legal then yes, I would agree with you.
Click to expand...

i) Most People exist outwith the Western World. Abortion is not legal in many places and has not been historically even in the West.
ii)Only one sex is consistently being legislated against and, even in the West, rights to choice are under attack and being eroded. No-one is actually proposing or implementing mandatory vasectomies anywhere as far as I know.
iii) Clearly is the word I use because it is clear that one sex is consistently disadvantaged both globally and in the West. See Texas and its theocratic governance. And not just regarding the right to abort too.
iv) The examples you give are not equivalent to being forced to give birth to and raise a child, or even close, to my mind although that is clearly subjective.
 
Hound Dog said:
I actually had to look analogy up.

anal·o·gy | \ ə-ˈna-lə-jē \
plural analogies
Essential Meaning of analogy
1: a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way
He drew/made an analogy between flying a kite and fishing. [=he compared flying a kite to fishing; he said that flying a kite was like fishing]
2: the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way

I fail to see how aborting a fetus and
being sterilized are alike in any way. Ok, they do stop reproduction, but so does suicide.
Click to expand...
Holy crap. Are you always this literal?
"Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?
No, that's be ridiculous as a day is merely the length of a single revolution of the Earth and Summer an atmospheric effect of the Earth's tilted axis and thou art a bipedal mammal"
 
Hound Dog said:
I agree with both of your points. Which doesn't change the fact that most people do want kids at some point and the vast majority of sex is not had with the goal of reproduction. So the situation that I described is quote common, sadly.

Regarding not having sex at all, you could make the same point for women. That leaves the victims of rape, but wait, men can also be sperm-jacked.

So no, the discussion is not nearly as cut as dry as some on here, so eager to call names and be patronizing, are making it out to be.
Click to expand...

The example you gave is that if a man gets a woman pregnant and he doesn’t want the child, he’s stuck having to pay child support.
In said situation, if a man is so set against having a child at that time - why not get a vasectomy? Why have sex at all, even if it’s done for pleasure alone & not the purposes of reproduction - it’s still a possibility, so the man should take ownership of his actions in that situation.

Also it’s important to remember that abortions aren’t only done in a situation where a woman doesn’t want to have a child. Abortions can be necessary in order to save the life of the mother in a variety of circumstances too, so it’s not a like for like comparison.
 
Hound Dog said:
I actually had to look analogy up.

anal·o·gy | \ ə-ˈna-lə-jē \
plural analogies
Essential Meaning of analogy
1: a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way
He drew/made an analogy between flying a kite and fishing. [=he compared flying a kite to fishing; he said that flying a kite was like fishing]
2: the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way

I fail to see how aborting a fetus and
being sterilized are alike in any way. Ok, they do stop reproduction, but so does suicide.
Click to expand...

Just stop man. For gods sake. I had you on ignore and there’s almost no content of any worth here as people are exhausting themselves indulging you.

If you had to Google ‘analogy’ you’re probably lucky not the guy to lecture people on language, debate and nuance. You’ve literally pasted a dictionary definition and are now explaining it to people.

For the love of god just take a day and really try and fully form a thought. This scatter gun reply to everything approach isn’t working.

You would be right to say I have no right to tell you how to behave, but you also seem to think you’ve got a valid voice when it comes to women’s bodies so I reckon we’re near quits.
 
I'm convinced there's a special place in hell for parents who are against abortion for others, knowing well how insane parenthood it. Especially forcing those socially disadvantaged to have the kid.
Just can't imagine it in a place like the states without social safety nets either of good maternity pay, benefits etc.
 
Pregnancy is the most risky thing a woman can ever do in this life. The amount of medical conditions that can occur during pregnancy, that can kill the woman during pregnancy, or can leave her with serious medical problems for the rest of her life, are insane.

Abortion should 100% be legal and accessible for any woman at any point during her pregnancy. No woman should ever be forced to go through pregnancy and delivery unless she is entirely sure she wants to.

One of the patients that stands out the most to me in my memory is a 30 something year old woman who got a peripartum cardiomyopathy. Her heart function was almost entirely destroyed. She ended up needing an ICD, and then there was just complication after complication until she died, still in her 30s. All from just getting pregnant.
 
Cloud7 said:
Pregnancy is the most risky thing a woman can ever do in this life. The amount of medical conditions that can occur during pregnancy, that can kill the woman during pregnancy, or can leave her with serious medical problems for the rest of her life, are insane.

Abortion should 100% be legal and accessible for any woman at any point during her pregnancy. No woman should ever be forced to go through pregnancy and delivery unless she is entirely sure she wants to.

One of the patients that stands out the most to me in my memory is a 30 something year old woman who got a peripartum cardiomyopathy. Her heart function was almost entirely destroyed. She ended up needing an ICD, and then there was just complication after complication until she died, still in her 30s. All from just getting pregnant.
Click to expand...

That’s so sad… and I completely agree with your overall point.
 
WI_Red said:
So this thread turned dark
Click to expand...

Didn't mean it tbh. Just my standard response whenever someone chimes in with "What if your mother had aborted you?" crap which is almost everytime.
 
Opposition to abortion seems to largely be motivated by a religious belief that a person is created at fertilisation (or thereabouts - sometimes when a "soul" is created). IMO it impossible to have a rational discussion about abortion if someone brings a supernatural criteria to the table. Yet another good reason that government and laws should be totally secular.

So the next things are to decide a) when foetus becomes a person and b) after that point when the woman's bodily rights to control her own body become equal to that of the (now) person she is carrying. A big (often unstated) part of this seems to be that we mostly accept that the rights of the baby/foetus gradually increase over the pre-birth period. I strongly suspect that we are are usually making an emotional decision based on the appearance of the foetus. Basically it looks like a baby so it must be a person runs the logic.

Survivability also isn't a satisfactory criteria as we can now treat very premature births even if sometimes they suffer life long health issues due to a lack of foetal development prior to birth. Pain isn't a good criteria either as nerves may develop but that doesn't meant the brain is developed enough to really feel pain - not to mention most abortions are carried out under a general anaesthetic so no pain is possible.

Arguing against abortion on the grounds of it preventing a future person also strike me as flawed as wearing a condom prevents a future person, so it only works as an argument if you are religious and believe that fertilisation is where life is created and/or a soul is created (or occupies the fertilised cell/cells).

So I guess current laws are inevitably a compromise (unless you are in Texas or other places that do or plan to prohibit abortion). The UK limited of 24 weeks seems reasonable if quite restrictive to me.

As for a man's say, I'd say it is minimal to none. It isn't developing in his body so he can have an opinion but no actual say IMO.
 
Wibble said:
Opposition to abortion seems to largely be motivated by a religious belief that a person is created at fertilisation (or thereabouts - sometimes when a "soul" is created). IMO it impossible to have a rational discussion about abortion if someone brings a supernatural criteria to the table. Yet another good reason that government and laws should be totally secular.

So the next things are to decide a) when foetus becomes a person and b) after that point when the woman's bodily rights to control her own body become equal to that of the (now) person she is carrying. A big (often unstated) part of this seems to be that we mostly accept that the rights of the baby/foetus gradually increase over the pre-birth period. I strongly suspect that we are are usually making an emotional decision based on the appearance of the foetus. Basically it looks like a baby so it must be a person runs the logic.

Survivability also isn't a satisfactory criteria as we can now treat very premature births even if sometimes they suffer life long health issues due to a lack of foetal development prior to birth. Pain isn't a good criteria either as nerves may develop but that doesn't meant the brain is developed enough to really feel pain - not to mention most abortions are carried out under a general anaesthetic so no pain is possible.

Arguing against abortion on the grounds of it preventing a future person also strike me as flawed as wearing a condom prevents a future person, so it only works as an argument if you are religious and believe that fertilisation is where life is created and/or a soul is created (or occupies the fertilised cell/cells).

So I guess current laws are inevitably a compromise (unless you are in Texas or other places that do or plan to prohibit abortion). The UK limited of 24 weeks seems reasonable if quite restrictive to me.

As for a man's say, I'd say it is minimal to none. It isn't developing in his body so he can have an opinion but no actual say IMO.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with most of this, although I would say that the idea that human life begins at conception is not necessarily a religious belief - it just happens to be a belief that is held by a lot of religious conservatives. The issue of when a fetus becomes a person is obviously key, and why I think it can difficult to defend the pro-choice stance. The limit can seem extremely arbitrary and emotionally driven, which is not usually a good basis for policymaking. From a logical point of view it is much easier to defend the pro-life stance. Just to be clear, I am very much pro-choice, but I would have a hard time explaining why an abortion after 10 weeks is ok, but 30 weeks is not.

As for men's rights, they should have no say in the decision on whether to carry the baby to term, but I am firm believer that they should be able to get a paper abortion - opting out of rights and responsibilities, as long as they have made their position clear in time for the woman to make a decision with that information.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Just to be clear, I am very much pro-choice, but I would have a hard time explaining why an abortion after 10 weeks is ok, but 30 weeks is not.
Click to expand...
At 10 weeks, you might not even realise that you're pregnant, particularly if you aren't a particularly thin woman. Sure, you miss your period but that can happen for multiple different reasons, and during pregnancy you can bleed anyway which might get mistaken for menstruation (though I admit it's unlikely in most cases).

At 30 weeks, you must be aware of the pregnancy and had plenty of time to consider the potential ramifications and come to a decision. It could be argued that by not exercising your option to terminate the pregnancy up until that point, you imply your consent to carrying it to term, absent any medical emergencies.

Yes, it's true that any restriction places a limit on bodily autonomy, something that normally shouldn't be done. Which is why any and all restriction must leave a generous amount of time for a women to consider her options and exercise her right to bodily autonomy with as much information available to her as possible.
 
Mike Smalling said:
I am firm believer that they should be able to get a paper abortion - opting out of rights and responsibilities, as long as they have made their position clear in time for the woman to make a decision with that information.
Click to expand...

How does this work? If they didn't want a child why didn't they do more steps to prevent getting someone pregnant?
 
It's bonkers that we have to debate for abortion rights in 2021. It's surely just human rights.

I don't quite get the vasectomy angle though.
 
villain said:
How does this work? If they didn't want a child why didn't they do more steps to prevent getting someone pregnant?
Click to expand...

I'm late in the discussion and I might be missing context, but doesn't that go both ways? As in, a woman could have done more to prevent an unwanted pregnancy too. Doesn't always work and unwanted pregnancies do happen. Unwanted by either man or woman (or both). I assume we're on the same page and we agree that women should be in full control of their bodies and be able to have an abortion without requiring consent from anyone else including the prospective father. Or to put it in better terms, there shouldn't be any forced pregnancies because of a failure in contraception. Going through with pregnancy and motherhood, should require the mother's consent.

Similarly though, you shouldn't be able to drag someone else into fatherhood without their consent, because of a failure in contraception.
 
Last edited:
same people against abortion at any stage because of the sanctity of 'life' are also in favour of capital punishment and carpetbombing countries full of brown people wearing turbans.
 
MadMike said:
I'm late in the discussion and I might be missing context, but doesn't that go both ways? As in, a woman could have done more to prevent an unwanted pregnancy too. Doesn't always work and unwanted pregnancies do happen. Unwanted by either man or woman (or both). I assume we're on the same page and we agree that women should be in full control of their bodies and be able to have an abortion without requiring consent from anyone else including the prospective father. Or to put it in better terms, there shouldn't be any forced pregnancies because a failure in contraception. Going through with pregnancy and motherhood, should require the mother's consent.

Similarly though, you shouldn't be able to drag someone else into fatherhood without their consent, because of a failure in contraception.
Click to expand...

Of course it goes both ways, but abortion should really be a last step - and if you're unsure of whether or a not someone is willing to carry a child to term should they get pregnant, meanwhile you're adamant that you wouldn't want those responsibilities, why are you not taking precautions yourself to avoid that situation?

Men can do a lot more to prevent getting someone pregnant if they truly want to avoid fatherhood.
 
Last edited:
villain said:
Of course it goes both ways, but abortion should really be a last step - and if you're unsure of whether or a not someone is willing to carry a child to term should they get pregnant, meanwhile you're adamant that you wouldn't want those responsibilities, why are you not taking precautions yourself to avoid that situation?

Men can do a lot more to prevent getting pregnant if they truly want to avoid fatherhood.
Click to expand...

I agree abortion should be the last step. I just believe that a failure to contracept appropriately shouldn't burden either partner for the rest of their lives with parenthood (and in the case of a woman the burden of a pregnancy too). They should both be granted options to back out of a mistake. So long as these options physically exist they shouldn't be out of reach due to legal reasons.

Generally speaking what men can and should do, is use condoms routinely. It's also a matter of sexual health. There is no male pill yet and vasectomy is not really a solution due to the very high risk of it becoming irreversible (you might not want kids now, or from that relationship but that doesn't mean you don't want kids ever). But condoms are the way. The statistical chances of both a condom failure and a successful impregnation are very very low. I don't understand why people not cool with having kids or vasectomies don't use them more.
 
MadMike said:
I agree abortion should be the last step. I just believe that a failure to contracept appropriately shouldn't burden either partner for the rest of their lives with parenthood (and in the case of a woman the burden of a pregnancy too). They should both be granted options to back out of a mistake. So long as these options physically exist they shouldn't be out of reach due to legal reasons.

Generally speaking what men can and should do, is use condoms routinely. It's also a matter of sexual health. There is no male pill yet and vasectomy is not really a solution due to the very high risk of it becoming irreversible (you might not want kids now, or from that relationship but that doesn't mean you don't want kids ever). But condoms are the way. The statistical chances of both a condom failure and a successful impregnation are very very low.
Click to expand...

But again - if someone truly feels that strongly about being burdened with parenthood, they should've done a lot more earlier in the process to avoid getting someone pregnant.
A law that allows men to write away all responsibilities in the event they get someone pregnant is as reckless as i've heard and will only lead to a growth in single mothers who are unable to even get child support, or an increase in abortions - and if you live in an area where abortion is illegal, that just leads to dangerous abortions more often than not.
Condoms, abstinence, non-penetrative sex, vasectomy, masturbation - if someone hasn't taken any of these measures while being so sure that they don't want to be a father why should they be granted the right to sign away all responsibilities?
 
villain said:
Of course it goes both ways, but abortion should really be a last step - and if you're unsure of whether or a not someone is willing to carry a child to term should they get pregnant, meanwhile you're adamant that you wouldn't want those responsibilities, why are you not taking precautions yourself to avoid that situation?

Men can do a lot more to prevent getting someone pregnant if they truly want to avoid fatherhood.
Click to expand...

If we exclude rape from the discussion, I would say men and women have about the same opportunities to prevent pregnancy - you might even argue women can do more with the pill. Of course, abortion is the last step, but shit does happen. Contraceptives fail, misunderstandings can happen, and drunken accidents are definitely also a thing. And if a pregnancy does happen inadvertently and there is disagreement between the man and the women on whether to carry the baby to term, the decision power is heavily skewed towards the woman. I think it makes sense to give the man some rights as well - as long it leaves enough time for the woman to make an informed decision.
 
Mike Smalling said:
If we exclude rape from the discussion, I would say men and women have about the same opportunities to prevent pregnancy - you might even argue women can do more with the pill. Of course, abortion is the last step, but shit does happen. Contraceptives fail, misunderstandings can happen, and drunken accidents are definitely also a thing. And if a pregnancy does happen inadvertently and there is disagreement between the man and the women on whether to carry the baby to term, the decision power is heavily skewed towards the woman. I think it makes sense to give the man some rights as well - as long it leaves enough time for the woman to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

Do you not see how something like that can be abused? In the worst case scenario a man wears a condom, a woman is on birth control - she still wounds up pregnant and then decided to change her mind and keep the baby while the man has maintained he doesn't want a child.
Sure that makes sense in that scenario.

How often do you really think that would happen if a law like that were to happen?
Realistically it would just end up being men signing away responsibilities for fatherhood after drunken nights where they can't remember wearing a condom, or sleeping with someone they regret etc. It becomes a very slippery slope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.