Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[noxious.sunshine]

Probably a can of worms I shouldn't open, but. I done did.

How do you feel about abortion?

[Unknown Entity]

It is a difficult subject to talk about because you have no idea who you may offend, and I don't think many people grasp exactly how it must feel to have a decision as such weighing them down, or even being haunted by the decision that was made. I think my beliefs lay with prevention before pro-life and pro-choice.

First and foremost, I believe that if two people that are having sex don't want to have kids, then it's their responsibility to make sure they don't. That is the only way to avoid the subject. In this day and age, it's not as though there aren't enough contraception advice and methods available. There's condoms, pills, injections, patches, and those disgusting implants and inserts with spermicide things.

I wouldn't say I was pro-life, but I believe that abortion should be thought of as a last resort. I guess what is considered a "last resort" differ from person to person, and I won't judge what people think their options are or could be. If it were me, I'd just want to have the pill and be done, but I'd probably take some time off to think about it, hear what my partner had to say, and see if maybe adoption was an option. With adoption, even though it'd be considered, I'm not too sure if I'd be strong enough to have my kid raised by someone else - once that baby is out, you feel differently from what I hear.

So I guess I'm pretty much pro-choice, but not the feminist-y version where I grab my signs and pitchforks, go on marches and preaching about it being my body, and what I know nothing about. I believe men should have a voice in the matter, if their girlfriend or wife considers abortion. While I agree that my body is my body, and that I'm the only person who gets to choose what I do with it, I don't think I could go ahead without agreeing, or coming to an agreement with my boyfriend. After all, my choice would ultimately decide whether or not he becomes a father. It kind of says it all about your partner if they're prepared to walk away if you went through with an abortion, and you'd need their support as much as they need yours.

I don't think abortion is a bad thing, and I don't frown upon people who have been faced with that decision and gone through with it. How can I? I'm not in their shoes, and they know what's best for them more than anyone. I think the best time to have an abortion is as soon as possible. It doesn't take too long to work it out, depending when the next period is due. I think the choice needs to be made as soon as possible to avoid the emotional trauma. I'd rather have the pills to initiate miscarriage, or the vacuum aspiration thing. The idea of having a late abortion distresses me enough to either get it over with as soon as, or prevent pregnancy until I'm good and ready. Dealing with a miscarriage (intended or not) has got to easier than seeing what could have become.

It can be avoided, and so I think I'm pro-prevention.

[Lacquer Head]

Well, if an accident WERE to occur, at the moment, I would have to opt for an abortion. I can't afford a child and the adoption system is faaar too ****ed these days. I'd hate to do it, but it would be the best choice, in my opinion. But this is just what I would want, outside of that, I'm entirely pro-choice, simply because it's none of my business what someone does with their body.

[Sinister]

I am Pro-Life...but I support Pro-Choice. The sort of factors that influence that particular decision are the exact factors that no one should be able to legislate or mandate as a standard for all peoples and situations. The factors that affect that are morals. It has always been a personal opinion and maxim of mine that morality should never be legislated. People have tried in the past. Drugs, prohibition, prostitution...etc... But in the end, you simply make the people that don't share that particular moral more desperate. Desperate people do stupid, damaging things. From a damage control perspective, it is far less costly to make it legal and let people make up their own minds.

It could be said that abortion is murder, depending on your definition of murder, death and life. But ah, you see, we are the ones that write those definitions. Death, life and murder are up to us and us alone, as a species, to define. If legalizing is put to a majority vote and either voted in or shot down, then I would think the nature of those definitions to be in-evidence.

With that out of the way, I do believe it is murder. I would never stay with anyone who had undergone an abortion unless they were penitent about said abortion. I would never give my consent to an abortion under my roof, should I ever chance to have a family. But I do not look down upon others because of my beliefs, as my beliefs are personal and do not apply to people who are not me. I could be accused of being hypocritical for saying that I would not give my wife or daughter consent to have an abortion under my roof. So be it, not giving consent does not equal stopping it by any means necessary and, as always, there are mitigating factors.

-Sin

[Rowan]

Abortion isn't murder anymore than ejaculating into oblivion. Its not a human, it doesnt have life nor has this parasite had the chance too. The poor rape victims who have to bring up bastard children from a rapist because people like you enforced abortion laws. I'm assuming most people here dont have a problem with killing animals and eating animals? What gives you the right to take a living thing such as an animal's life away, but not that of an unborn child? You believe animals dont have feelings or intellect therefor they are not worthy of life, simple. I agree. I believe the same about a fetus. They are not developed, they are merely parasites evolving into a human and therefor have no less right to die than any animal. It would be harsher to force a birth into a family or to a mother that did not want them. Especially if the father raped the mother.

[Sinister]

Abortion isn't murder anymore than ejaculating into oblivion. Its not a human, it doesnt have life nor has this parasite had the chance too. The poor rape victims who have to bring up bastard children from a rapist because people like you enforced abortion laws. I'm assuming most people here dont have a problem with killing animals and eating animals? What gives you the right to take a living thing such as an animal's life away, but not that of an unborn child? You believe animals dont have feelings or intellect therefor they are not worthy of life, simple. I agree. I believe the same about a fetus. They are not developed, they are merely parasites evolving into a human and therefor have no less right to die than any animal. It would be harsher to force a birth into a family or to a mother that did not want them. Especially if the father raped the mother.

If you are responding to me, then save your breath. I've already cemented it as my opinion and you trying to convince me that your opinion is fact will have little effect on me and should have just as little effect on other readers. I cast my vote in favor of Pro-Choice. What I believe from thence forth has little to do with your convictions or anyone else's. Also, needing to justify myself very little, I barely feel the need to express the difference between gametes and zygotes and the point of something genetically unique as being a creature unto itself. Once again those are definitions that have yet to be defined. Also note that using emotional appeals such as "poor rape victims" is beneath the average debate in the ID forum, and that is, I'm afraid, saying something.

Respectfully,
-Sin

[Rowan]

If you are responding to me, then save your breath. I've already cemented it as my opinion and you trying to convince me that your opinion is fact will have little effect on me and should have just as little effect on other readers. I cast my vote in favor of Pro-Choice. What I believe from thence forth has little to do with your convictions or anyone else's. Also, needing to justify myself very little, I barely feel the need to express the difference between gametes and zygotes and the point of something genetically unique as being a creature unto itself. Once again those are definitions that have yet to be defined. Also note that using emotional appeals such as "poor rape victims" is beneath the average debate in the ID forum, and that is, I'm afraid, saying something.

Respectfully,
-Sin

Asserting that I view my opinion as fact is misleading and viperous, as well as untrue. And you pointing out appeals to emotion doesn't make my points any less valid, perhaps maybe a little low, but equally valid. Im not here to convince anybody of anything, Im here to see what arguments people can come up with to refute, not to be snide pricks. If a mother does not want her child, who are you to say she must and force an unwanted child into the world?

[Sinister]

Asserting that I view my opinion as fact is misleading and viperous, as well as untrue. And you pointing out appeals to emotion doesn't make my points any less valid, perhaps maybe a little low, but equally valid. Im not here to convince anybody of anything, Im here to see what arguments people can come up with to refute, not to be snide pricks. If a mother does not want her child, who are you to say she must and force an unwanted child into the world?

I do not assert; you inferred. If that is not your intention, you failed in making that clear. I would also watch the borderline flame-speak, tis not appreciated by mods also you may wound my sensitive fragile ego. I would never ever even begin to think myself fit to tell a mother what to do with her baby. I know what I would say about my daughter and my potential grandchild or alternatively, my wife and my potential child. I think that is a fair sentiment to echo in this thread. If you indeed were merely expressing your opinion, I simply challenge you, and everyone in this thread, to make that safely clear. And yes, emotional appeals in Intellectual Discussion are unwanted and unwelcome.

-Sin

[Halie]

So I guess I'm pretty much pro-choice, but not the feminist-y version where I grab my signs and pitchforks, go on marches and preaching about it being my body, and what I know nothing about.

I don't mean this as like an attack on you or anything, but the way you speak of feminists makes me think that you don't really understand what feminism is. We aren't people who run around with pitchforks and fire, preaching of things we don't know about. Actually, feminists argue exactly the same points that you've just made in your post.

But I'm off-topic. I'm 100% Pro-choice. I don't ever want to be in the situation where I'll have to have an abortion because I imagine it'd be a pretty traumatic experience, but I'd rather have an abortion than give birth to a child that I can't raise properly. Like Gemma, I'd much rather prevent the situation in the first place.

I don't even know why I'm answering this I never get laid anyway.

[Rowan]

I do not assert; you inferred. If that is not your intention, you failed in making that clear. I would also watch the borderline flame-speak, tis not appreciated by mods also you may wound my sensitive fragile ego. I would never ever even begin to think myself fit to tell a mother what to do with her baby. I know what I would say about my daughter and my potential grandchild or alternatively, my wife and my potential child. I think that is a fair sentiment to echo in this thread. If you indeed were merely expressing your opinion, I simply challenge you, and everyone in this thread, to make that safely clear. And yes, emotional appeals in Intellectual Discussion are unwanted and unwelcome.

-Sin

Aside from me saying "This is fact" , how else could you possibly blame me for your thought process? Just as you couldnt blame me for taking your 'advice' as just plain insults. Dont think that calling someone an 'idiot' or a 'dickhead' or any other kind of slur is the only way to pass insults. I find your kind, the smarmy undertones of pretention to be the most insulting, especially since you are allowed to get away with it because its not obvious.

Aside from all of that, and all the ego bashing going on, I dont care about your personal decisions with your family because while it may be a 'fair' sentiment, it is certainly not a useful one. Pro-life and Pro choice are directly in contradiction with each other in this scenario. If being pro-choice means being able to have an option to have an abortion, you are taking away any choice the fetus had of having a life, therefor pro-choice doesnt really exist. If you are pro-life, you are against choice is this regard. I think everyone should have a choice if they are able to make one.

[Sinister]

Aside from me saying "This is fact" , how else could you possibly blame me for your thought process? Just as you couldnt blame me for taking your 'advice' as just plain insults. Dont think that calling someone an 'idiot' or a 'dickhead' or any other kind of slur is the only way to pass insults. I find your kind, the smarmy undertones of pretention to be the most insulting, especially since you are allowed to get away with it because its not obvious.

You find my attitude as an "insult" or insulting? Ah well, there again at the mercy of vague definitions and my intentions. The latter of which, at least, I know for a fact you are having trouble with. This has already gone on longer than I intended to bother with it.


-Sin

[Rowan]

I am considering the possibility that my opinion on the matter of life and the necessity of abortion may not be correct or at least, true for everyone. In this case, if it goes to court and Pro-Choice is legalized, people's souls are in their own hands(as it should be) and I don't marginalize people or situations I may not understand. You seem to have omitted this possibility with regards to your own "opinion".

So im marginilizing people now? Can you please stop with your assertions, they make me look bad and suposedly I already do a good job of that.

And please, souls? really?
I guess we are going to have a fundemental disagreement on this subject... as If it wasn't already apparent.

You find my attitude as an "insult" or insulting? Ah well, there again at the mercy of vague definitions and my intentions. The latter of which, at least, I know for a fact you are having trouble with. This has already gone on longer than I intended to bother with it.

Yes, because we all know you had the best of intentions when you started down this road with me.

[Sinister]

So im marginilizing people now? Can you please stop with your assertions, they make me look bad and suposedly I already do a good job of that.

I did not assert, I inferred. We do need a dictionary at this debate.

And please, souls? really?

I chose my metaphor, don't like it, choose yours. Conscience, I believe is the reigning secular term. Either way it is a decision that belongs to each individual situation and person. The point of morality is that it belongs to the person who owns it. Ever hear of Loki's Wager? There are somethings that will never be agreed upon...the definition of life...the definition of death. Until then, it's best left to the philosophers or each individual person.

Yes, because we all know you had the best of intentions when you started down this road with me.

Well, we all know what use good intentions are...

-Sin

[Rowan]

I chose my metaphor, don't like it, choose yours. Conscience, I believe is the reigning secular term. Either way it is a decision that belongs to each individual situation and person. The point of morality is that it belongs to the person who owns it. Ever hear of Loki's Wager? There are somethings that will never be agreed upon...the definition of life...the definition of death. Until then, it's best left to the philosophers or each individual person.

-Sin

This^

Okay, at what point is the soul (or conscience) inserted into the fetus? It seems like the basis for your argument relies heavily on the unborns awareness of itself. I could settle on outlawing abortions when the mother is 6 months + In, because then it has become an irresponsibilty on behalf of her and now the fetus has come to a point in which it may have either of the aforementioned qualities of human and therefor, a right to live. A choice.

[Sinister]

This^

Okay, at what point is the soul (or conscience) inserted into the fetus? It seems like the basis for your argument relies heavily on the unborns awareness of itself. I could settle on outlawing abortions when the mother is 6 months + In, because then it has become an irresponsibilty on behalf of her and now the fetus has come to a point in which it may have either of the aforementioned qualities of human and therefor, a right to live. A choice.

Oh, I don't pretend to state that souls or conscience, or consciousness, for that matter, is my basis for defining life. Such a thing would never be provable within the foreseeable future and (with regards to souls)may not even be true. I have no idea and no intention of using my religion to back up my beliefs about abortion. My basis for declaring something alive is simply that two people combine and at some point it results in a couple of cells that are genetically unique. The potentiality of making a unique organism has, at that point, been realized. But these, once again, are merely personal beliefs. It is up to everyone to make their choice and to deal with it.

I don't even like killing spiders or bugs. I'm not morally up to killing unique cells which are people or people-in-the-making.

-Sin

[Alpha]

I'm in the same space of thought as Sin on this one. I think it is a moral decision everyone is entitled to make for themselves, whether they'd support it. Legislating that decision is unwise, especially given it's affinity with religion, and secularism is up there with an accountable police force and representative parliamentary democracy as the three things I think are the most important in society.

New Zealand inhabits a funny legal space on this issue. Abortions are illegal at all times here, unless a doctor is able to determine that carrying a child to term will cause significant harm to the mother. However many doctors are willing to say that any child is able to give any woman significant mental harm if the child is unwanted. So abortions can be obtained on demand. A doctor not willing to do this is required to refer you to a doctor who will. It's a weird, happy medium. Conservatives are happy because by the letter of the law it is not legal. Liberals are happy because you can still get an abortion if you want one. This situation has stood since the 1980s and no one has seriously clamoured to change it since. I'm happy with this, given my personal misgivings on the practice of abortion, but my feelings that it is still not my decision to make for other people. It also means that the type of people who support strong pro-life politics do not really have a platform for their other agendas, which I feel would be strongly anti-secular. Their are no classically socially-conservative parties in Parliament. The only one that is polled around 4% in the last election (its first election), which is 1% too few to get any seats in the national assembly.

I do think that getting an abortion is a decision for a couple, if there is a couple involved. If the male wants to abdicate his child raising responsibilities, and the female does not, the male is currently legally bound to pay child support until the child comes of age. That many men don't despite the requirement is beside the point; if a woman is entitled to choose, so is the male. That's only equitable.

My personal perspective is that abortion kills something living. Rowan asked earlier why I care if some assortment of cells in a uterus dies when I am happy to eat animals. I think that any unique arrangement of human genetic information in a cell capable of cell division is a unique human person. As I consider all human persons to be equal, I extend the same rights and protections to this person as I reserve for myself. In particular, no one has the right to kill me. As this person is equal to me, I do not think people should have the right to kill it. However, as I concede that this is an opinion clearly open to debate, I feel that people are entitled to make their own decisions regarding it, so I do not want my opinions legislated for. I am willing to eat animals that are killed by others on my behalf because those animals are not human, and not subject to the same protection as humans. As to the contention that an abortion is OK because the being that is being destroyed is not self-aware... well, I can take you to a hospital or a school for disabled people who are not entirely self-aware and/or incapable of feeling pain. Why don't we kill them? Because they're still human, and they are our equals. I do not see the distinction between them and an unborn person. One is just older. They are both (depending on the nature of the disability) incapable of feeling pain, not self-aware, and entirely dependent on others.

[Rowan]

My personal perspective is that abortion kills something living. Rowan asked earlier why I care if some assortment of cells in a uterus dies when I am happy to eat animals. I think that any unique arrangement of human genetic information in a cell capable of cell division is a unique human person.

Purely out of curiosity, does that include sperm? Also, if it doesn't, at what point would you consider it? Once its hit the egg?

[Alpha]

Purely out of curiosity, does that include sperm? Also, if it doesn't, at what point would you consider it? Once its hit the egg?

A sperm is only one half of the genetic information required for a person, and is not capable of cell division. Same with an egg. So conception is when I personally consider life to begin, because I can't see a different moment that is more reasonable. However I'm happy to concede that is is debatable, so again, pro-choice because I'm happy for others to decide for themselves. I don't have to like their decisions, but we should be free to decide.

A sperm is only one half of the genetic information required for a person, and is not capable of cell division. Same with an egg. So conception is when I personally consider life to begin, because I can't see a different moment that is more reasonable. However I'm happy to concede that this is debatable, so again, pro-choice because I'm happy for others to decide for themselves. I don't have to like their decisions, but we should be free to decide.

[HeroZero]

I am Pro-Life...but I support Pro-Choice. The sort of factors that influence that particular decision are the exact factors that no one should be able to legislate or mandate as a standard for all peoples and situations. The factors that affect that are morals. It has always been a personal opinion and maxim of mine that morality should never be legislated. People have tried in the past. Drugs, prohibition, prostitution...etc... But in the end, you simply make the people that don't share that particular moral more desperate. Desperate people do stupid, damaging things. From a damage control perspective, it is far less costly to make it legal and let people make up their own minds.

It could be said that abortion is murder, depending on your definition of murder, death and life. But ah, you see, we are the ones that write those definitions. Death, life and murder are up to us and us alone, as a species, to define. If legalizing is put to a majority vote and either voted in or shot down, then I would think the nature of those definitions to be in-evidence.

With that out of the way, I do believe it is murder. I would never stay with anyone who had undergone an abortion unless they were penitent about said abortion. I would never give my consent to an abortion under my roof, should I ever chance to have a family. But I do not look down upon others because of my beliefs, as my beliefs are personal and do not apply to people who are not me. I could be accused of being hypocritical for saying that I would not give my wife or daughter consent to have an abortion under my roof. So be it, not giving consent does not equal stopping it by any means necessary and, as always, there are mitigating factors.

-Sin

I am pro choice but you have certainly put forth your reasoning soundly and with no agression towards others choices. You did not say you would 'forbid' a family member from abortion but would not support it. I think that is very fair and your choice in life.

Abortion isn't murder anymore than ejaculating into oblivion. Its not a human, it doesnt have life nor has this parasite had the chance too. The poor rape victims who have to bring up bastard children from a rapist because people like you enforced abortion laws. I'm assuming most people here dont have a problem with killing animals and eating animals? What gives you the right to take a living thing such as an animal's life away, but not that of an unborn child? You believe animals dont have feelings or intellect therefor they are not worthy of life, simple. I agree. I believe the same about a fetus. They are not developed, they are merely parasites evolving into a human and therefor have no less right to die than any animal. It would be harsher to force a birth into a family or to a mother that did not want them. Especially if the father raped the mother.

Rowan you have started your discussion from a very agressive standpoint, even to the point of antagonizing someone who put forth their views very candidly and with no malice. Even though I agree with your basic stand of Pro-Choice I think you are someone who is either a terrible person, or just cannot put forth your views in a calm collected manner. Instead you continuously attempt to cause Sin to lash back at you which they have not done. This seems to have only made you angrier and have started to make you look rather silly.

TL; DR I am Pro-Choice but I think Sin has every right to his views on this matter, they have not said they would forbid an abortion, they would merely not condone such a choice. They even went so far as to address mitigating circumstances.

[Rowan]

Rowan you have started your discussion from a very agressive standpoint, even to the point of antagonizing someone who put forth their views very candidly and with no malice. Even though I agree with your basic stand of Pro-Choice I think you are someone who is either a terrible person, or just cannot put forth your views in a calm collected manner. Instead you continuously attempt to cause Sin to lash back at you which they have not done. This seems to have only made you angrier and have started to make you look rather silly.

TL; DR I am Pro-Choice but I think Sin has every right to his views on this matter, they have not said they would forbid an abortion, they would merely not condone such a choice. They even went so far as to address mitigating circumstances.

Nothing truly malicious in my posts, and Sin knows. Thank you for your concern.

I was just thinking further, how can pro choice and pro life coincide? Example. "I have the right to choose to end your life" In this case, we consider the unborn, living, or at least a potential life (not in the sense of glorified sperm).

Its a paradox, isn't it? Or have I just presented it as a paradox?

[HeroZero]

Yes because snide comments such as "Ejaculating into oblivion" are totally not being malicious. But everyone has an opinion, even if they are a jerk about it.

[NikkiLinkle]

Prevention is definitely the best option.. but sometimes things go wrong. Rape for example and sometimes the preventive measures fail. I am pro-choice. There is a lot more to having a child than simply having one. To me having a child is a privilege and I think it is very important that people are fully capable of being a good parent and being able to raise a human being into adulthood. Loving and nurturing it. Giving it support and giving it chance at having a well adjusted life where they can achieve whatever they want.

Some people aren't capable of that. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have kids and.everyone should have abortions. Just that there are very valid reasons why people do choose to abort.

I haven't got anything 'intellectual' to say. I can only speak from experience.

I have had an abortion. (I wasn't going to say because I know there will be judgement, but it happened and I'm not a terrible person because of it). At the time the choice didn't affect me, not emotionally. I felt bad that I let it happen. In my case the preventive measures failed. I did the right things yet this happened. I wasn't ready to be a parent. I was mentally not ready. I feared I didn't have the capacity to be able to love my child or care about it the way you're supposed to. I was in a deep depression, I was in a relationship I didn't want to be in. I couldn't bring a child into the world like that. To me that would be horrible and to me I think it would've been more traumatic to carry a child I didn't want than to have an abortion.

Make of that what you will. But that was my choice. My choice doesn't affect you and those are my reasons.

In saying that, I fully understand and see the reasoning behind pro-choice and pro-life. It's a difficult situation/issue. There are reasons for it, there are reasons against it.

[RamesesII]

I'm for pro-pane.






STAFF EDIT: RamesesII was already aware of the ramifications of this post prior to hitting the submit button, and knew in advance he would receive warning. As he put it, he "couldn't resist the opportunity." Friendly reminder to all, we have no issue with this delightful sarcasm in any other section of the forums, but please leave the ID forum to topical debate.

[Unknown Entity]

I don't mean this as like an attack on you or anything, but the way you speak of feminists makes me think that you don't really understand what feminism is. We aren't people who run around with pitchforks and fire, preaching of things we don't know about. Actually, feminists argue exactly the same points that you've just made in your post.

But I'm off-topic. I'm 100% Pro-choice. I don't ever want to be in the situation where I'll have to have an abortion because I imagine it'd be a pretty traumatic experience, but I'd rather have an abortion than give birth to a child that I can't raise properly. Like Gemma, I'd much rather prevent the situation in the first place.

I don't even know why I'm answering this I never get laid anyway.

I wouldn't have viewed it as an attack.

I don't mean "feminists" as the whole group (sorry, I have a habit for not pointing stuff out). You do get those hardcore, "supirior to men" lot who give all feminists a bad name. I have the misfortune to know a few, or at least the mockeries of them. If they frown upon Fathers 4 Justice, then I frown on them types, for example. I firmly believe that abortion is something to be discussed as a couple, not just one person making the decision. Unless they're alone, then I guess there's not really much of a discussion to have.

Plus, you can't post on TFF without a little controversy!

And Rameses, please? It would be nice if you could add a little more to your post?

EDIT: I'm on my break at work, so if no one posts, I have a few other points I'd like to add. This is just a "watch" this space" message.

[Sasquatch]

Before any abortion issue is settled, we need to standardize a few things: the rights of the father in regards to the unborn child; and the definition of "life".

As it stands now, the father has absolutely no rights over an unborn child, but still every obligation. If the mother wants the child but not the father, the father is forced by law to submit a portion of every paycheck, whether in percentage or fixed amount, to the mother for care of the child. Whether the father wants the child or not is completely irrelevant under law -- the father's paternal rights are completely ignored in favor of maternal rights, yet he still carries the burden of financial support. The mother is always more likely to be awarded majority custody -- and, thus, child support from the father -- because courts in the United States are extremely biased in favor of child custody (yet, we don't hear feminists complaining about "traditional gender roles" when it comes to custody bias). If the mother does not want the child, she may legally abort it -- this is done without required permission, or even notification, of the father. The father has no right to refuse, but must allow the death of his own child -- this has been challenged multiple times in court, and the mother's case has always prevailed. In many cases, the father is forced to pay for a portion of the abortion procedure.

If a man and a woman are sexually irresponsible and a pregnancy results, the man may be forced to pay for it for the next eighteen years, whereas the woman may choose to either carry the child to term and raise it (with money from the father, enforced by law), give it up for adoption, or kill it in the womb. The mother is the sole decision-maker in this process, with the father's rights to his own child being completely ignored. In the United States, co-owners of a pet have more rights than fathers of unborn children.

We have also never set a definition for life, or defined when life begins. The (extremely shameful) result is that right now in the United States, most courts have used the mother's whim as the sole factor in whether or not an unborn child is considered alive. If the mother does not want the child, it is considered absolutely nothing, just another part of her body. There are even people who are shitty enough to consider an unborn human child to be nothing more than a parasite. There are "doctors" whose careers revolve around the killing and removing of unwanted children from the womb, like they are tumors. But if the mother wants the child, it's considered a life -- this is why people who kill unborn children (against the mother's will) are convicted of murder, or at least manslaughter. (Remember the case of Scott Peterson, who killed his pregnant wife Laci around Christmas in the early 2000s? He was tried for, and convicted of, not one murder, but two -- that of his wife and his unborn child.)

So what defines life? The will of its mother? The ability to survive without assistance? The benefit to society or economy? There are myriad people with much less in the way of qualifications than unborn children, yet it is illegal to kill them -- why should unborn children receive less legal protection?

[Alpha]

If a man and a woman are sexually irresponsible and a pregnancy results, the man may be forced to pay for it for the next eighteen years, whereas the woman may choose to either carry the child to term and raise it (with money from the father, enforced by law), give it up for adoption, or kill it in the womb. The mother is the sole decision-maker in this process, with the father's rights to his own child being completely ignored. In the United States, co-owners of a pet have more rights than fathers of unborn children.

This is an important issue, and largely I agree with you. But I have a question because I find it surprising how fervently you seem to hold this opinion.

I'm going to begin by assuming that you are pro-life. That is, you would prefer if abortions were either illegal in most or all cases, or that you opt to strive for a world where abortion is not necessary.

So my question is, given your pro-life views, why would support 'male abortion' when such a right would be likely to result in quantitatively more abortions? I don't have figures, but it stands to reason that if more potential mothers are unable to financially support children by themselves, more children will be aborted.

If your response is that male reproductive rights trump the rights of an unborn child, then I'd suggest that you've essentially arrived at the feminist position, but for males.

However it's probably important now to see your response before commenting further.

[Sasquatch]

So my question is, given your pro-life views, why would support 'male abortion' when such a right would be likely to result in quantitatively more abortions?

Pushing morality aside, yes, I would support it, if abortion remained legal. If the law regards an unborn child as absolutely nothing, it should not be a benefit to one person but a legally binding burden on another; one person should not be able to use another person to force a third person to give them money. It would be like buying a car and then forcing somebody else to chip in for gas.

I don't have figures, but it stands to reason that if more potential mothers are unable to financially support children by themselves, more children will be aborted.

I honestly don't know, and it would be interesting to see figures on that, if any were to exist. I would imagine that, for those not in the financial situation to be able to afford a child, the few hundred dollars in child support wouldn't make much of a difference. Besides, in the cases of child negligence or malnourishment we do see in countries like the United States, it's not an issue of a parent not being able to afford food or care, it's an issue of a parent with higher financial priorities (booze, drugs, etc.).

If your response is that male reproductive rights trump the rights of an unborn child, then I'd suggest that you've essentially arrived at the feminist position, but for males.

That was exactly my point -- why is it that female rights trump the rights of an unborn child, but male rights don't? The male cannot choose whether or not to kill the child, only whether or not he will financially support it. He still won't have as many rights in regards to the child, at least while it's in the womb, but he would at least have some, which is more than he has now.

[Lacquer Head]

Though I disagree on the moral side of things (pro-choice) I agree 100%. Though, there are cases where the father takes care of the child and pays child support, but it doesn't seem to be enforced nearly as much. My mother never paid a dime for child support, yet no action was taken. I don't think a father should be able to force the mother to have an abortion, but if he wants it and she refuses, he should be legally exempt from all responsibilities. I'm not sure what kind of person could just turn their back on their child, but morality shouldn't play a part in the law.

[OnOneRyder]

Shockingly enough, I agree with many of the points mentioned by Sasquatch. My position is one of a minority as a pro-life atheist, I just thought I'd mention that from the get go that my stance is not defined by religion.

My primary reasoning is that I believe life begins at conception. I believe this because I feel any point beyond this moment being labelled the point at which life first exists is decided by arbitrarily, and any point before conception is simply raw materials with no potential to create life on their own.

As for male reproductive rights, they're horrid. The law puts the entirety of the future of the baby in the mothers hands, yet the father remains responsible throughout the same period. The mother has a way out, yet the male is bound by law? The same law which allows a legally protected procedure to remove a baby from her mother at the same period of gestation that if she were assaulted could and has resulted in differing levels of murder charges. A very foolish system, which again hinges on arbitrary definitions.

[Tiffany]

Shockingly enough, I agree with many of the points mentioned by Sasquatch. My position is one of a minority as a pro-life atheist, I just thought I'd mention that from the get go that my stance is not defined by religion.

My primary reasoning is that I believe life begins at conception. I believe this because I feel any point beyond this moment being labelled the point at which life first exists is decided by arbitrarily, and any point before conception is simply raw materials with no potential to create life on their own.

As for male reproductive rights, they're horrid. The law puts the entirety of the future of the baby in the mothers hands, yet the father remains responsible throughout the same period. The mother has a way out, yet the male is bound by law? The same law which allows a legally protected procedure to remove a baby from her mother at the same period of gestation that if she were assaulted could and has resulted in differing levels of murder charges. A very foolish system, which again hinges on arbitrary definitions.

Father's rights are definitely crap. One of my friends has been fighting to get custody of his daughter for 11 years now. She's turning 12 next year and will have the choice of where she wants to live (she's wanted to live with him for as long as she could figure out what that meant) and yet its all on the mother.

I suppose, in some small aspect I understand why all the law is on the mother's side. It is the Mom that goes through pregnancy (it sucks, btw ) and more often than not the Mother is the one left with the baby. Its a shame though that our laws aren't evolving with the father's along with it. It used to be so rare to see a father who was actively interested in his paternal rights when it came to having a baby before marriage (just an example I'm throwing out - I know there's more situations that just that) but nowadays I know more father's who WANT their children as opposed to those who don't. Criminal that they have no rights.

I'm pro-choice however. But in saying that, I'm pro-choice if that's BOTH what the parents want. If one wants to keep it and the other doesn't then I think a compromise is in order. Of course, that'll never be simple. Its incredibly expensive to raise a kiddo, I don't know many people who'd be able to go it alone without some sort of support. But I don't find it fair to have say, a mother want to keep it... the father not and then yet the father is expected to pay for the child until they're 18. I suppose its one of the risks you take if you have sex, there is always a chance a pregnancy will happen.