Banning abortions increase the rates of unsafe abortions and allowing abortions increases the number of safe abortions. Those are the only increases we can be sure of.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ireland will hold a Referendum on Repealing the Eighth Amendment (Abortion) on Friday the 25th of May
- Thread starter NovumAngel
- Start date
Banning abortions increase the rates of unsafe abortions and allowing abortions increases the number of safe abortions. Those are the only increases we can be sure of.
Yes because being terminated/killed is always preferred to living! Sorry, that’s a pathetic argument.
I’m sure if you gave each unborn baby that was going to be terminated the choice of life or termination they’d pick life. But your against that person having any voice, protection or choice at all - which I find difficult to accept.
You keep trying to tie abortion to allowing deadbeat men to abandon their financial responsibility to children they helped create. You haven't yet shown how those two things are related. If anything, the only thing you've shown is that you think it's unfair that women have so many birth control options and that we should deny them for the sake of parity with men; this is so silly (to say the least).
Zog
Banned
What percentage of abortions occur because the women isn't ready to be a parent or the woman doesn't want the child?
Last edited:
Cite your sources.
Abortion has nothing to do with this, no matter how much you want to distract from the debate.
If a woman wants to continue with a pregnancy but the man doesn't, he doesn't get a way out of his financial responsibility. At no point is abortion a part of this discussion until you bring up the argument that "women have too many options that men don't and that just unfair"; this is biology, we can't help it.
I want to bring up again that I agree the men get the short end of the stick. But again, the only acceptable solution to this (at least that I can see right now) is good birth control for men, not denying women abortions.
1 abortion = 1 dead baby = 1 less baby born.
Sorry, I meant for this part:
"It seems logical if we continue to normalise and accept abortion as a form of birth control, the frequency of abortions will only increase"
Cite your sources, especially as they pertain to birthrate, because an abortion does not indicate that that woman will never give birth in the future.
also just lol at the idea that all women who have abortions actually wanted to have the baby. Like, if they had safer sex, or if protection hadn't failed them, a baby also wouldn't be born. Are you against people having sex outside of the purpose of procreation? Because I've gotta tell you, that's a losing battle.
Last edited:
Firstly I wasn’t stating a fact.
Secondly the above assumption is based on abortion being accepted by society as a form of birth control, rather than better birth control measures/education being inacted.
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
At the very least, as a premise, we can't deny that (subsidized, easy, "hygienic", confidential, and de-stigmatized) abortion completely changes the game, and rearranges all expectations around sex. This phenomenon is true in economics as well, where the mere existence of a new legal option is known to alter the perception of costs / benefits, sometimes in a way that -- while giving a new choice to the few -- ends up harming a far greater number, by changing the meaning of not taking that option.
Illustration: the "right to die." It intends to offer a new route for the few willing and cognizant, but quickly ends up pushing an implicit guilt onto other elderly / severely disabled people who do not elect to use it -- because it is now communicated to them that remaining alive through later phases is entirely their own choice, and hence their fault alone if they remain a burden on loved ones. Countries that have made euthanasia a standard and normalized option, the way we have with abortion, have seen great rises in euthanizing those with dementia, severe disabilities, and so on.
That's the deepest cut abortion makes, by rearranging the meaning of following the natural course of pregnancy, so that it is now implicitly understood by the potential father (and others -- employer, etc) to always be a kind of willful choice by the woman. Instead of pregnancy being given respect as something self-enfolding that the rest of us need to arrange around, and make room for, it becomes a privatized matter that the woman is fully responsible for, since she now can always be understood as "choosing" to keep the child all of her own volition, and is therefore the sole person responsible when she keeps it. This damages our understand of children, family, and respect for pregnancy beyond repair. We have absolutely seen a dramatic retreat of paternal responsibility over the past decades.
In all these cases, it is by no means a consequence-free benefit to carve up natural realities into many separate choices, and to say that something like abortion merely makes our options more flexible. No, it changes expectations, changes the meaning of actions, and ends up sacrificing something crucial about life on the altar of a kind of market libertarianism, implicating and affecting all of us.
Earlier I noted that merely teaching abstinence to a group of kids today isn't at all effective, because the material reality of the sexual market inevitably determines our actions far more than what we're taught in response to it. So on a certain level, I agree. Yet the sexual market we have now is by no means some automatic consequence of being "too connected." Plenty of close-knit societies long maintained extremely robust kinship / marriage cultures and avoidance of illegitimacy. Abortion (institutionalized, subsidized, always available, private, etc), on the other hand, is a major component of the material circumstances shaping our reality today, and that's why this debate is critical and not merely a matter of individual choices.
That's a horrible assumption, frankly. The people who are fighting to give women a choice are also the ones fighting to make healthcare, birth control, and sex education more accessible to both women and men.
People aren't out here just rawdogging, waiting a few weeks, and then going to a clinic, and then starting all over again. Not on purpose, anyways.
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
Just repeating yourself isn't helping. You say that abortion has nothing to do with opting out of parenthood. Women can abort for any reason and studies show that abortions of convenience are the most common. Abortion absolutely is being used as an opt out of parenthood.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
- Rape or Incest (1%)
- Mother has health problems (3%)
- Possible fetal health problems (3%)
- Unready for Responsibility (21%)
- Is too immature to have a child (11%)
- Her parents want her to abort (<0.5%)
- Relationship problems or doesn't want to be a single mother (12%)
- Husband or Partner wants her to abort (1%)
- Has all the children she want, doesn't want more children (8%)
- Can't afford baby now (21%)
- Concern about her life changing (16%)
- Doesn't want others to know she is pregnant (1%)
- Other (3%)
Now I have bolded the ones I consider an abortion for convenience (an opt out of parenthood). If we add these up we see that 78% of abortions in this survey were done out of convenience, to opt out of parenthood.
...and here you are admitting that abortion is used as an opt out of parenthood.
Last edited:
Huh? I'm sorry but I can't make sense at all of what you wrote here.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here either. Abortion has changed the way women think about casual sex? I would think so; having another option to not become a mother after sex changes things, yes.
Clearly there are plenty of people out there rawdogging, getting pregnant and then terminating the baby. If there wasn’t so many people out there doing this, there wouldn’t be such a deman for abortions.
Women who engage in unprotected sex and get pregnant and then seek out abortions are not taking any responsibilities for the choice they made to have u protected sex, to get pregnant, to start a new life inside them - yet you and others believe she is the only person important to make the choice to kill the unborn child!
If you are so pro choice - why have you no empathy or regard for the life of the unborn child? Why does that unborn child not have a choice to be born? Why is killing that unborn child seen as a better choice to you than allowing it the right to its life?
I don't necessarily see the following as a moral failing: women are having unprotected sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions. I see this as a need to educate them on birth control and safe sex to prevent having to get an abortion, which is more expensive and can carry more risks, and also prevent the spread of STIs.
There is no "life of the unborn child" when it comes to the vast majority of abortions. You have yet to establish the fetus has personhood, which is the central problem with your arguments.
They aren't doing it for the purposes of getting an abortion, is my point. Nobody WANTS to purposely have abortions. In an ideal world, birth control and protection work 100% of the time and people can just fuck all the time and not have to worry about it.
Also, in my eyes, anything before 12 weeks isn't even really a 'person', and I sure as fuck wouldn't put what it might want over the opinions of my partner, who is an actual grown ass human being.
Zog
Banned
Not wanting to be a mother is the same as not wanting to be a father. Both can be summed up as not wanting to be a parent.
It's crazy how you spin things, is 2 not going to be the same as 2 next?
You're the one spinning things. You use the phrase "opt out of parenthood" very differently for men and women. For men, you want them to be able to give up their responsibilities as fathers. For women, you say they opt out when they decide to use birth control. These are not the same at all.
Zog
Banned
Different procedure, same result. It's the best we can do unless you have a better way for men to legally opt out?
Zog
Banned
It's a central problem to your argument too because men don't help make a child using your logic. They help make a clump of cells and tissue that has so little value that it can be eliminated at will.
That clump of cells eventually becomes a child that requires resources. That women are the only ones who get to decide whether that clump of cells gets interrupted is not unfair, it's the nature of pregnancy. I don't like it any more than you do but I cannot abide by human rights violations or abandoning children.
Zog
Banned
I admire you repeated use of the word 'deadbeat' to describe someone who doesn't want to be a parent.
Zog
Banned
Does killing the child not count as a deadbeat?
for a woman, using the abortion birth control, it is giving up their responsibilities as a mother by killing their baby. You are right, the two are very different.
Also a mother, in all 50 states of the US, can give up her baby no questions asked, and not need to provide support or even identification.
There is no child being killed because the clump of cells has no personhood.
EDIT: In fact, sometimes women getting abortions is the opposite of running away from their responsibilities because they recognize they can't take care of a child and thus don't bring nne into the world.
Last edited:
See above.
You can believe that women are killing babies when they get abortions, if you want, but unless you can come up with a compelling argument in your favor, then that's just your opinion.
Zog
Banned
So what did the man contribute that makes him responsible if she doesn't abort?
Zog
Banned
You mean that low value clump of cells that could be eliminated at her will and only her will and his opinion has no legal value? That clump of cells?
Autoignition
Member
Oh. So, you want things to go back to it being illegal and unsafe and place women at a far, far higher risk of death for getting it done. And then punish the ones who do live through it with jailtime.
Because abortions won't go away if you outlaw them. So, in a way, you're advocating for an increased chance of likelihood of the death of women.
Do you see how easily your moral high horse topples with this argument?
I can't watch the video because it'll give me a panic attack, but here's what I can tell you:
My doctor (who actually performed the procedure) told me that the "ripping limb from limb" thing is just not accurate. He said it's a simple removal, the same way any surgery to remove a foreign object in the body is made. You get a Matchbox car stuck up your ass during foreplay? Congrats, it's the same removal procedure as having an abortion.
Zog
Banned
Yes it is a very simple concept. The only way that low value clump of cells becomes a living, breathing baby is if the women chooses that course. Got nothing to do with the man as his legal choices after conception do not exist. Her body, her choice alone, her responsibility alone.
It really is a very simple concept. You morally object to a man opting out but really that's just about the money. When a woman opts out, it's about life itself.
Last edited:
It is in all 50 states actually. Every state has safe haven laws. none require child support after leaving a child.
Zog
Banned
How do you feel about the Safe Haven laws?
Zog
Banned
Now that sounds like an anti-choice argument.life is sometimes unfair and facts don't care about your feelings
Hmm, I don't remember ever hearing about this. I'm looking into it now. So far, however, this has nothing to do with abortion.
EDIT: Also, this doesn't have to do with your argument either. You're saying men should be able to abandon their financial responsibilities with the excuse that the mother wanted the baby, not them. If a person can't take care of a child and has to let the state take care of them then that's a different discussion.
Last edited:
safe haven laws have nothing to do with the person not being able to take care of the child, only not wanting to take care of the child. There was even a case of a family dropping off all 9 of their kids aging from 1 to 17.
Be that as it may, this has nothing to do with abortion. This would be a separate discussion.
Zog
Banned
Now you are going to make excuse for women abandoning their child. Double standards galore.
Not really, you brought child abandonment and that is exactly what Safe Havens allow. They were started because women were throwing unwanted babies in dumpsters and the like.
Last edited:
The context of my statement is eminently clear. He wants to allow men to abandon their financial responsibility for their children because women getting abortions is otherwise unfair. You trying to change the conversation to safe haven laws is noting short of distracting from the discussion.
Vicetrailia
Member
Sex education, better access to the morning after pill, and more birth control options reduce the need for abortions.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked