Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Electric Sex Pants

rainbow kirby wrote: »

At the end of the day, the simple biological reality is that the one with the uterus is the one that carries it - so at the end of the day it *is* their choice.

And it was the fathers sperm who fertilized the egg. Its as much his child as it is hers.Who carries it doesnt mean anything. The choice is both of theirs. The day a woman gets herself pregnant with no sperm involved THEN it will be her choice

Electric Sex Pants

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Okay you sound genuine in your non-belief but common sense tells me that the majority of supposedly atheist-agnostic online pro-lifers aren't...

Why?? because we think that killing babies is not such a good thing?? I think abortion should be legal(making it illegal just leads to the ridiculous situation we have in Ireland where women are let die), however I detest this idea that it is not seen as killing a baby. If your conscience can handle that reality then who am I to judge but this whole push to make it seem like nothing is just nonsense.

One eyed Jack

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

Who carries it doesnt mean anything.

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

this whole push to make it seem like nothing is just nonsense.

You've right, this whole push to make it seem like it doesn't matter who is pregnant is nonsense!! :rolleyes:

Cabaal

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

And it was the fathers sperm who fertilized the egg. Its as much his child as it is hers.Who carries it doesnt mean anything. The choice is both of theirs. The day a woman gets herself pregnant with no sperm involved THEN it will be her choice

You're right, that why all rapists that get a women pregnant should have say in what healthcare choices the women has (abortion, or if it goes to term opt for c-section or natural), if the fetus comes to term then they should also have say in where it is raised, where it goes to school and most importantly they should have complete visitation rights.

If we're going to claim that its not the "childs" fault and claims it takes two people then its only fair a rapist can do this to a women. Unfair for the women to decide all of the above and ignore the wishes of the father surely?

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

You're right, that why all rapists that get a women pregnant should have say in what healthcare choices the women has (abortion, or if it goes to term opt for c-section or natural), if the fetus comes to term then they should also have say in where it is raised, where it goes to school and most importantly they should have complete visitation rights.

If we're going to claim that its not the "childs" fault and claims it takes two people then its only fair a rapist can do this to a women. Unfair for the women to decide all of the above and ignore the wishes of the father surely?

There's nothing in Irish law that actually prevents a person who fathers a child as a result of rape from applying to the Courts for their parental rights. It's an ongoing issue in the States where in some states there are no laws that prevent a person who fathers a child as a result of rape from applying for their parental rights:

https://rewire.news/article/2008/04/10/parental-rights-for-rapists/

I understand you were being facetious, but you're working off the assumption that every woman who becomes pregnant as the result of rape would want to abort her pregnancy.

Loafing Oaf

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

Why?? because we think that killing babies is not such a good thing??

Because given that the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers you meet in the real world, why should the virtual world be so massively different?

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Because given that the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers you meet in the real world, why should the virtual world be so massively different?

It's as though you can't tell the difference between the two. There are so many religious people who are pro-life because there are so many people who are religious in the world. That's why the number of people who are pro-life who are non-religious is smaller - because the number of people who are non-religious in the real world is smaller.

I'm sure someone can work up an intersectional Venn diagram to demonstrate the above, and the difference between how people present themselves online, and who they are in reality offline.

eviltwin

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

And it was the fathers sperm who fertilized the egg. Its as much his child as it is hers.Who carries it doesnt mean anything. The choice is both of theirs. The day a woman gets herself pregnant with no sperm involved THEN it will be her choice

Who carries it matters a great deal because you cannot prevent a woman having an abortion on the say of the father and rightfully so. Unless you're advocating that the fathers has the final say?

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understand you were being facetious, but you're working off the assumption that every woman who becomes pregnant as the result of rape would want to abort her pregnancy.

I'm certainly not, some may choose to keep the fetus and thats their decision but without a doubt women should be free to choose when they've had their bodily integrity violated in such a manner if they wish to abort the rapists off-spring.

I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to claim a women is not the sole person involved in a pregnancy and as such she does not get the only say then by that logic you must also apply that to a rape and its after effects.

If a women's life is going to be ruined by a rape then you might as well keep ruining her life long after the rape has occurred by allowing the rapist to dictate her life for years afterwards.

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb as they say.

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

Who carries it matters a great deal because you cannot prevent a woman having an abortion on the say of the father and rightfully so. Unless you're advocating that the fathers has the final say?

Sure we could bring in such a change, why not sure,

While we're at it we can also bring back husbands right to rape their wife and not be prosecuted for doing so, ah the good old times when women had no say
:rolleyes:

Some people just want women to sit in the corner and do as their told.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm certainly not, some may choose to keep the fetus and thats their decision but without a doubt women should be free to choose when they've had their bodily integrity violated in such a manner if they wish to abort the rapists off-spring.

I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to claim a women is not the sole person involved in a pregnancy and as such she does not get the only say then by that logic you must also apply that to a rape and its after effects.

That's not consistent logic at all though as rape, and abortion are two very different things.

You're actually using backwards rationalisation and the only effect of that is introducing legislation that will only allow a woman to have an abortion after it was proven that she was raped.

If a women's life is going to be ruined by a rape then you might as well keep ruining her life long after the rape has occurred by allowing the rapist to dictate her life for years afterwards.

You're again working on the default assumption that a woman's life is ruined by having been raped, and that she was even raped by a person unknown to her. This is why I have such an issue with people using rape as the basis for their argument to legislate for abortion. Because they aren't automatically related issues, at all! It's the same assumption that assumes a woman is traumatised for life by having had an abortion.

It perpetuates both the social stigma about women who are raped, and the social stigma about women who have had an abortion.

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb as they say.

Legally, they're treated differently though, just as rape and abortion are treated differently as two unrelated issues.

Electric Sex Pants

Cabaal wrote: »

You're right, that why all rapists that get a women pregnant should have say in what healthcare choices the women has (abortion, or if it goes to term opt for c-section or natural), if the fetus comes to term then they should also have say in where it is raised, where it goes to school and most importantly they should have complete visitation rights.

If we're going to claim that its not the "childs" fault and claims it takes two people then its only fair a rapist can do this to a women. Unfair for the women to decide all of the above and ignore the wishes of the father surely?

I never said anything about rape. that is a whole other issue, when two people had consensual sex then yes the father has a say!!!

Electric Sex Pants

Cabaal wrote: »

Sure we could bring in such a change, why not sure,

While we're at it we can also bring back husbands right to rape their wife and not be prosecuted for doing so, ah the good old times when women had no say
:rolleyes:

Some people just want women to sit in the corner and do as their told.

Aaaaaaaand rape brought up yet again. i dont want women to do that at all, i would like a say if my child lives or dies thats all, call me crazy

eviltwin

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

Aaaaaaaand rape brought up yet again. i dont want women to do that at all, i would like a say if my child lives or dies thats all, call me crazy

You have an opinion that's all. You can't force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want to keep.

Electric Sex Pants

eviltwin wrote: »

You have an opinion that's all. You can't force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want to keep.

So she has the right to kill a child?

One eyed Jack

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

I never said anything about rape. that is a whole other issue, when two people had consensual sex then yes the father has a say!!!

And consensual sex is a whole other issue to pregnancy, where the woman bears all the responsibility and therefore has the ultimate say in whether she is to remain pregnant or not.

eviltwin

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

So she has the right to kill a child?

Do you believe a man should be able to force a woman to keep a child she doesn't want?

How would that work exactly?

One eyed Jack

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

So she has the right to kill a child?

No, nobody has the right to kill a child, anywhere, in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.

Cabaal

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

So she has the right to kill a child?

She can legally travel to the UK for an abortion, which will obviously stop the fetus coming to term.

If you don't like that then perhaps lobby to deny women this freedom

Electric Sex Pants

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you believe a man should be able to force a woman to keep a child she doesn't want?

How would that work exactly?

You never answered my point, does a woman have the right to kill a child?

Electric Sex Pants

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, nobody has the right to kill a child, anywhere, in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.

Well isn't that all abortion is, killing a child?

One eyed Jack

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

You never answered my point, does a woman have the right to kill a child?

No, because that would be murder. Nobody has the right to commit murder.

eviltwin

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

You never answered my point, does a woman have the right to kill a child?

A woman has the right to have an abortion. As OEJ said it's not a child. No country that has abortion is okay with people killing children.

Now would you care to answer me about whether men should be able to prevent women having abortions?

Electric Sex Pants

Cabaal wrote: »

She can legally travel to the UK for an abortion, which will obviously stop the fetus coming to term.

If you don't like that then perhaps lobby to deny women this freedom

Once again I would vote to have abortion made legal here to stop the crazy system we have here, but my point is that abortion is just killing a child and personally i do not believe it is the right thing to do, accept responsibility for your actions and if you do not want the baby there are plenty of couples who want to adopt. Thats just my personal opinion and like i said it should be legal but i struggle to see how people can be so dismissive about killing.

Loafing Oaf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's as though you can't tell the difference between the two. There are so many religious people who are pro-life because there are so many people who are religious in the world. That's why the number of people who are pro-life who are non-religious is smaller - because the number of people who are non-religious in the real world is smaller.

I'm sure someone can work up an intersectional Venn diagram to demonstrate the above, and the difference between how people present themselves online, and who they are in reality offline.

I'm talking about the proportion of pro-lifers who are agnostic/atheist. In the real world, as far as I can tell, this is negligible, whereas on the Internet it appears to be very high. The only reasonable explanation of this that I can see is that a significant number of the cyber-warriors are telling porkies...

One eyed Jack

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

Well isn't that all abortion is, killing a child?

No, it isn't.

Not in any legal sense, which is the definition that matters. Abortion is abortion, murder is murder, two completely different legal terms.

Electric Sex Pants

eviltwin wrote: »

A woman has the right to have an abortion. As OEJ said it's not a child. No country that has abortion is okay with people killing children.

Now would you care to answer me about whether men should be able to prevent women having abortions?

Yes it is a child, and before you say anything i am not religious and do not believe in a soul, but it is a child in there. And i do not believe that a woman has the right to kill a mans child against his wishes. Both parents need to be in agreement.

Cabaal

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

Thats just my personal opinion and like i said it should be legal but i struggle to see how people can be so dismissive about killing.

Indeed it is,
But earlier in this thread didn't you state you think women should be allowed use the morning after pill. To many pro-lifers that is also "murder",

You're also referring to a fetus as a child incorrectly. It isn't a child, even catholic hospitals have argued in court that a fetus is not a child.

eviltwin

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

Yes it is a child, and before you say anything i am not religious and do not believe in a soul, but it is a child in there. And i do not believe that a woman has the right to kill a mans child against his wishes. Both parents need to be in agreement.

And if they are not?

Electric Sex Pants

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it isn't.

Not in any legal sense, which is the definition that matters. Abortion is abortion, murder is murder, two completely different legal terms.

I never said it was murder, i said it was killing, the child is alive and after the abortion its dead, thats killing a child.