Abortion Discussion

Dan_Solo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You can be pro life or pro choice but only as far as the decision over your own body. You have no say over whether or not a woman terminates her pregnancy, the same way as nobody could force a pro life to have an abortion against their will.

Biologically, a baby is also part of the father's body as it contains some of his stuff too. Your statement also allows for abortions on the baby's delivery day. Why even stop there? A baby isn't a self sufficient individual for years so may as well be subject to abortion until they can support themselves.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Biologically, a baby is also part of the father's body as it contains some of his stuff too. Your statement also allows for abortions on the baby's delivery day. Why even stop there? A baby isn't a self sufficient individual for years so may as well be subject to abortion until they can support themselves.

The father isn't the one who's puking left right and centre for the best part of three months, the father isn't the one who'll get puffy ankles, sore backs, sciatica, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, or be cut down their genital areas, or be the one having to undergo major abdominal surgery. The womans right over her own body should be paramount. When men can be the ones to carry a child to term then they can dictate to a woman about her own body.

When a child can survive independent of its mother it is its own person and should be protected as such. It's barbaric that you would suggest otherwise.

pauldla

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The father isn't the one who's puking left right and centre for the best part of three months, the father isn't the one who'll get puffy ankles, sore backs, sciatica, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, or be cut down their genital areas, or be the one having to undergo major abdominal surgery. The womans right over her own body should be paramount. When men can be the ones to carry a child to term then they can dictate to a woman about her own body.

When a child can survive independent of its mother it is its own person and should be protected as such. It's barbaric that you would suggest otherwise.

I think it was on one of them there BBC science shows that they said the amount of energy a man uses in bringing a child into the world is enough to boil an egg; the amount of energy a woman uses is enough to run 37 marathons.

These figures may be inaccurate, or even totally made up; so vote no! :pac:

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Biologically, a baby is also part of the father's body as it contains some of his stuff too. Your statement also allows for abortions on the baby's delivery day. Why even stop there? A baby isn't a self sufficient individual for years so may as well be subject to abortion until they can support themselves.

What a complete misunderstanding of basic biology.
Or maybe it's basic English that's your problem?

Either way, the point being made isn't about some sort of life and death power over one's descendants, such as Roman men (not women, obviously) had, it's a simple recognition that while the woman is pregnant, there is no child, only a future child, embryo/fetus, whatever. Pregnant women are often referred to as "mums-to-be". The minute the baby's born, that term couldn't possibly be used about her.

And, far more crucially, the point is that the woman's life and health are in play during even a perfectly normal pregnancy in a way that the man's can never be.

Dan_Solo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The father isn't the one who's puking left right and centre for the best part of three months, the father isn't the one who'll get puffy ankles, sore backs, sciatica, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, or be cut down their genital areas, or be the one having to undergo major abdominal surgery. The womans right over her own body should be paramount. When men can be the ones to carry a child to term then they can dictate to a woman about her own body.

When a child can survive independent of its mother it is its own person and should be protected as such. It's barbaric that you would suggest otherwise.

None of which unfortunately negates the cast iron but seemingly unacceptable fact that there is some of the father in the baby all the same.
Care to try again?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Dan_Solo wrote: »

None of which unfortunately negates the cast iron but seemingly unacceptable fact that there is some of the father in the baby all the same.
Care to try again?

Excuse me? Try what again? A man has no choice over a woman's body.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

What a complete misunderstanding of basic biology.
Or maybe it's basic English that's your problem?

Either way, the point being made isn't about some sort of life and death power over one's descendants, such as Roman men (not women, obviously) had, it's a simple recognition that while the woman is pregnant, there is no child, only a future child, embryo/fetus, whatever. Pregnant women are often referred to as "mums-to-be". The minute the baby's born, that term couldn't possibly be used about her.

And, far more crucially, the point is that the woman's life and health are in play during even a perfectly normal pregnancy in a way that the man's can never be.

If you think there is no part of the father in a child I think it's you that needs the Biology 101. Most of us were taught that in the birds and bees talk at about 10 years old TBH.
The fact that the pregnant woman's is at risk when the father isn't can also be lumped into the pile of "not relevant as to whether some of the father is in the child." Sorry about that.

Dan_Solo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Excuse me? Try what again? A man has no choice over a woman's body.

That would depend on the law at the time. To state it as a universal truth is simply a fantasy.
Try again to refute what I was saying, which you utterly failed to do. I thought that was fairly well understood in a debate scenario where you are arguing against me?
Is any of the father in a child or not? Be specific now.

recedite

Dan Solo makes a valid point, which comes to the fore in cases such as this.

Dan_Solo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

When a child can survive independent of its mother it is its own person and should be protected as such. It's barbaric that you would suggest otherwise.

So for abortion one minute before birth is OK but one minute after is wrong?
BTW I didn't suggest it was OK, it was a logical extension of the the "woman's body, woman's choice" statement. But you knew that and went ahead with your "barbaric" personal abuse anyway, didn't you?

lazygal

My pregnancies were aborted and my children are here and healthy. Not dead anyway. Abortion or termination of pregnancies doesn't always mean killing de baybies.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So for abortion one minute before birth is OK but one minute after is wrong?
BTW I didn't suggest it was OK, it was a logical extension of the the "woman's body, woman's choice" statement. But you knew that and went ahead with your "barbaric" personal abuse anyway, didn't you?

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, how can an abortion be performed post-birth?

Dan_Solo

SW wrote: »

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, how can an abortion be performed post-birth?

That's a pretty pointless terminology nazi attempt really. I can only assume you couldn't actually argue with the point.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a pretty pointless terminology nazi attempt really. I can only assume you couldn't actually argue with the point.

how's it pointless? you questioned if it was okay to carry out abortions one minute after birth. If it reads as a confused question, what's the problem in asking for clarity before responding?

as to abortion one minute before or infanticide after delivery, I don't support either.

Dan_Solo

SW wrote: »

how's it pointless? you questioned if it was okay to carry out abortions one minute after birth. If it reads as a confused question, what's the problem in asking for clarity before responding?

as to abortion one minute before or infanticide after delivery, I don't support either.

Since you have amply demonstrated in this very post you knew exactly what I was saying, you have pretty much proved my case that it was easily understood by everybody in the first place.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That would depend on the law at the time. To state it as a universal truth is simply a fantasy.
Try again to refute what I was saying, which you utterly failed to do. I thought that was fairly well understood in a debate scenario where you are arguing against me?
Is any of the father in a child or not? Be specific now.

This is an abortion discussion. This is not a biology discussion. If you don't understand where babies come from and how they are made then that's your problem. I'm discussing abortion and women's rights over their own body. If men want men's genes to make it in life then Id suggest they carry them in their own body or hire an incubator, and not force someone else's body to act as a vessel

Dan_Solo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

This is an abortion discussion. This is not a biology discussion. If you don't understand where babies come from and how they are made then that's your problem. I'm discussing abortion and women's rights over their own body. If men want men's genes to make it in life then Id suggest they carry them in their own body or hire an incubator, and not force someone else's body to act as a vessel

You have made no case whatsoever that I don't understand the biology. You have also failed to make any case whatsoever that some of the father isn't present in the foetus/child. You can certainly say these things but the utter absence of supporting evidence is telling.
I also note you have no problem whatsoever with people you perceive to be agreeing with you discussing biology. Wonder why that is?
Of course "incubators" CAN be hired. You do know what a surrogate is?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You have made no case whatsoever that I don't understand the biology. You have also failed to make any case whatsoever that some of the father isn't present in the foetus/child.

Has anyone said that isn't the case? That's not what the discussion is about.

If someone has been trying to make a case that merely providing genetic material is comparable to potentially requiring medical treatment due to a pregnancy, then surely grandparents should also have the same rights, shouldn't they?

Only I haven't seen anyone make that case, apart from you.

The other problem with your "genetic material" argument is it means a rapist should have the same say over his child's upbringing as his victim. Is that really what you think?

aloyisious

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Biologically, a baby is also part of the father's body as it contains some of his stuff too. Your statement also allows for abortions on the baby's delivery day. Why even stop there? A baby isn't a self sufficient individual for years so may as well be subject to abortion until they can support themselves.

From Wikipedia:Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its own. Nothing post-term about abortion at all.

Your last sentence is something beyond a debate about abortion, and i reckon you knew/used it to get angry replies from people who've had abortions.

Dan_Solo

aloyisious wrote: »

From Wikipedia:Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its own. Nothing post-term about abortion at all.

In the context of the sentence I posted though there was absolutely no confusion whatsoever apart from that invented to attempt a lame attack. Everybody knew what was meant, which is incredibly obvious considering the fact that nobody at all is really "confused". QED.

aloyisious wrote: »

Your last sentence is something beyond a debate about abortion, and i reckon you knew/used it to get angry replies from people who've had abortions.

Ah yes, can't address the point so let's make vague allegations of trolling. How predictable.
So you think the ability of the foetus/baby to survive without the mother is irrelevant to a debate on abortion? Apparently you do.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Has anyone said that isn't the case? That's not what the discussion is about.

If someone has been trying to make a case that merely providing genetic material is comparable to potentially requiring medical treatment due to a pregnancy, then surely grandparents should also have the same rights, shouldn't they?

Only I haven't seen anyone make that case, apart from you.

I didn't say they were equivalent investments of material or effort. Can you illustrate where you imagine/pretend I have?
Saying the foetus/child is entirely the "woman's body", which was the claim, is simply incorrect. Nothing that has been said by you or anyone else disputes that it is incorrect.

robindch

Mod:

aloyisious wrote: »

[...] Your last sentence is something beyond a debate about abortion, and i reckon you knew/used it to get angry replies from people who've had abortions.

That's an insinuation about another poster. Not exactly against the charter, but in the context of an emotive debate, it's something that's best left at the door.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah yes, can't address the point so let's make vague allegations of trolling.

Trolling is a determination made by a moderator when posting as moderator, not by one poster commenting upon another while discussing an emotive topic. Also something best left at the door.

Thanking youze.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I didn't say they were equivalent investments of material or effort. Can you illustrate where you imagine/pretend I have?
Saying the foetus/child is entirely the "woman's body", which was the claim, is simply incorrect. Nothing that has been said by you or anyone else disputes that it is incorrect.

where has anyone said that? I've seen people say that a woman should have a choice regarding her own body and whether to continue with the pregnancy or abort.

I really doubt anyone has suggested that women somehow reproduce asexually.

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a pretty pointless terminology nazi attempt really. I can only assume you couldn't actually argue with the point.

I don't/am not capable of understanding...it must be Nazis!!!

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

I don't/am not capable of understanding...it must be Nazis!!!

You are going to surreal lengths to engineer something to take offence at there. Above and beyond. Well done. Here, I'll help you out:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Terminology+Nazi
It wasn't me that was claiming not to be able to understand anyway BTW (which turned out also to be an invention), but don't let that stop you.

eviltwin

Dan unfortunately there can be no equality in a situation involving bodily autonomy. If I want an abortion and the father doesn't there is no middle ground there, no compromise. Why should the father have the right to dictate the outcome? Why does he get the final say and how would you enforce it? And what if he wants the abortion and she doesn't, does he get the final say then?

Frito

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I didn't say they were equivalent investments of material or effort. Can you illustrate where you imagine/pretend I have?
Saying the foetus/child is entirely the "woman's body", which was the claim, is simply incorrect. Nothing that has been said by you or anyone else disputes that it is incorrect.

I read Lexie's "woman's body = woman's choice" argument differently. The location of the foetus is the issue, it's genetic background is not the determining factor.
Your argument is slightly different, but for argument's sake a man could have all of his genetic material within a woman's body (maybe not as far up as the uterus, I'll concede) and said woman is within her rights to insist upon it's removal as she chooses.

Dan_Solo

eviltwin wrote: »

Dan unfortunately there can be no equality in a situation involving bodily autonomy. If I want an abortion and the father doesn't there is no middle ground there, no compromise. Why should the father have the right to dictate the outcome? Why does he get the final say and how would you enforce it? And what if he wants the abortion and she doesn't, does he get the final say then?

Where did I say I thought the father has or should have any say? You made that leap all on your own I'm afraid. I've simply corrected the falsehood that a baby is entirely a "woman's body" and raised the as yet unanswered question as to why, if as is claimed the woman is the only person who has any say what happens to her own body, would anybody object to an on demand termination one minute before delivery time.
It's so cliquey and militant here though the immediate assumption is "you don't agree with me on something.... must attack attack attack!". If *I* made a joke like the one above about a penis being a man's genetic material you'd be hitting the nuke button. Don't deny it.
Since you asked, I'm for abortions on demand up to possible survival outside the womb time.

eviltwin

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where did I say I thought the father has or should have any say? You made that leap all on your own I'm afraid. I've simply corrected the falsehood that a baby is entirely a "woman's body" and raised the as yet unanswered question as to why, if as is claimed the woman is the only person who has any say what happens to her own body, would anybody object to an on demand termination one minute before delivery time.
It's so cliquey and militant here though the immediate assumption is "you don't agree with me on something.... must attack attack attack!". If *I* made a joke like the one above about a penis being a man's genetic material you'd be hitting the nuke button. Don't deny it.
Since you asked, I'm for abortions on demand up to possible survival outside the womb time.

Right well I must have misunderstood all your references to the father then. A woman should be able to end her pregnancy at any stage, that doesn't always mean abortion though. I wasn't attacking you either btw.

aloyisious

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Biologically, a baby is also part of the father's body as it contains some of his stuff too. Your statement also allows for abortions on the baby's delivery day. Why even stop there? A baby isn't a self sufficient individual for years so may as well be subject to abortion until they can support themselves.

I've seen and read the Mod's criticism to me and it was deserved. I just didn't understand your last above then, so felt enjoined to comment on how one would view what was written about aborting an individual some years out of the womb. having read your further posts here, I understand now that your's was a question not to be read literally, but one with sarcasm at it's base to make a point about points of view. My apologies.