News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Poll: Are you pro-life or pro choice?

Started by Keithzworld, August 04, 2010, 02:16:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Whitney

Quote from: "humblesmurph"As I understand it, some legal abortions happen after this point.

Yes..medically necessary abortions...the ones where the mother's life is in danger or there is something extremely wrong with the baby.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I don't know if this question should be in another thread (if so, my apologies--I'm new) but of you who believe in a woman's right to choose, how many of you believe in the father's right to choose?  

Let me explain.  Julie gets pregnant and Tom wants her to terminate--and offers to pay half.  Julie takes the pregnancy to term.  Tom leaves Julie.  Julie sues Tom for child support.  Tom refuses to pay because he didn't choose to be a father.  He instead issues Julie a check for exactly half the cost of an abortion--is he wrong?

When it becomes possible to move the fetus outside of the mother's body into a pod then the father can have a say in the matter.  While this may not be totally fair; any other option would be allowing the desires of one individual to control the medical decisions of another.

Kylyssa

The whole topic is so bizarre.  I would lay a bet that pro-lifers are probably more likely to get an abortion than other people are.  Pro-lifers don't seem to give a rat's ass about children after they are born.  They only care about those who can't think yet or who don't think anymore, living (if it can be called that)in a vegetative state.  They also are insistent upon born people suffering.  They fight to force terminally ill people to stay alive so they can suffer more no matter how badly the person doesn't want to.  They fight against effective anti-suffering drug protocols.  They fight against the good educations that would prevent suffering of many types.  It seems as if they fight sex education because they want to make sure there are unwanted pregnancies and gruesome STDs.

To me, it seems that much of the pro-life contingent thrives on judging people, making sure people suffer, and being hypocrites when such decisions apply to them.  

Don't like abortions?  Then make sure kids get educated, including comprehensive, science-based sex education!

humblesmurph

Quote
When it becomes possible to move the fetus outside of the mother's body into a pod then the father can have a say in the matter.  While this may not be totally fair; any other option would be allowing the desires of one individual to control the medical decisions of another.[/quote]

I appreciate you addressing my comment, however you did so without answering the the admittedly vague question.  Let me clarify. I would never suggest that the potential father of a child has the right to demand that the potential mother bring the pregnancy to term.  He has no such right in my view.  

My question was on what moral authority, if any, does a mother have to impose eighteen years of child payments on a man who didn't want the child?  In the USA "deadbeat dads" are considered among the most vile members of the population, however, I don't see much difference between a deadbeat dad and a woman who either aborted her child or gave it up for adoption--well, except he didn't have a choice in the matter.

SSY

Quote from: "humblesmurph"
Quote
When it becomes possible to move the fetus outside of the mother's body into a pod then the father can have a say in the matter.  While this may not be totally fair; any other option would be allowing the desires of one individual to control the medical decisions of another.

I appreciate you addressing my comment, however you did so without answering the the admittedly vague question.  Let me clarify. I would never suggest that the potential father of a child has the right to demand that the potential mother bring the pregnancy to term.  He has no such right in my view.  

My question was on what moral authority, if any, does a mother have to impose eighteen years of child payments on a man who didn't want the child?  In the USA "deadbeat dads" are considered among the most vile members of the population, however, I don't see much difference between a deadbeat dad and a woman who either aborted her child or gave it up for adoption--well, except he didn't have a choice in the matter.[/quote]

I started a thread on that, it turned into a massive shit throwing festival with no one agreeing with each other as I recall. Read it, but I wouldn't post in it.
Quote from: "Godschild"SSY: You are fairly smart and to think I thought you were a few fries short of a happy meal.
Quote from: "Godschild"explain to them how and why you decided to be athiest and take the consequences that come along with it
Quote from: "Aedus"Unlike atheists, I'm not an angry prick

SSY

Quote from: "humblesmurph"
QuoteWhen it becomes possible to move the fetus outside of the mother's body into a pod then the father can have a say in the matter.  While this may not be totally fair; any other option would be allowing the desires of one individual to control the medical decisions of another.

I appreciate you addressing my comment, however you did so without answering the the admittedly vague question.  Let me clarify. I would never suggest that the potential father of a child has the right to demand that the potential mother bring the pregnancy to term.  He has no such right in my view.  

My question was on what moral authority, if any, does a mother have to impose eighteen years of child payments on a man who didn't want the child?  In the USA "deadbeat dads" are considered among the most vile members of the population, however, I don't see much difference between a deadbeat dad and a woman who either aborted her child or gave it up for adoption--well, except he didn't have a choice in the matter.

I started a thread on that, it turned into a massive shit throwing festival with no one agreeing with each other as I recall. Read it, but I wouldn't post in it.

Edit, fixed quotes
Quote from: "Godschild"SSY: You are fairly smart and to think I thought you were a few fries short of a happy meal.
Quote from: "Godschild"explain to them how and why you decided to be athiest and take the consequences that come along with it
Quote from: "Aedus"Unlike atheists, I'm not an angry prick

Whitney

Quote from: "humblesmurph"My question was on what moral authority, if any, does a mother have to impose eighteen years of child payments on a man who didn't want the child?  In the USA "deadbeat dads" are considered among the most vile members of the population, however, I don't see much difference between a deadbeat dad and a woman who either aborted her child or gave it up for adoption--well, except he didn't have a choice in the matter.

He chose to have sex without adequate preventative measures...

What if the guy said he put on a condom but actually didn't (this is probably common) and the girl gets pregnant  but is against abortion...she (or even worse, the rest of us) gets stuck paying for a kid just because the dad doesn't want it?

pinkocommie

This is why I don't much care for "what if" scenarios, they tend to snowball.

I think that when people have sex, they are both willing participants in an activity that may result in pregnancy.  Accountability doesn't began when a pregnancy is discovered, it starts when two people decide to do the horizontal mambo.  Even if the guy could legally prove that he and the woman agreed pre-coitus that they would have an abortion if she got pregnant, having been pregnant myself I can completely understand how someone might change their mind once the event was a reality.  In this instance should the guy be free of any responsibility?  I don't know.  Part of me says yeah, if he could legally prove they agreed to get an abortion in the event of pregnancy before they had sex, he shouldn't have to pay child support.  But then the more ethical part me says - it's not that kid's fault that his parents made some deal before he was conceived, and he shouldn't have to suffer a possible life of poverty because his parents intended to screw and run without consequence and somehow mucked it up.  Once a kid is involved, the focus should be what's best for the kid.  

Women do have more power when it comes to a pregnancy, but we also have to physically carry and give birth to children using our own bodies.  We have more control because every decision we make for the baby is a decision we make for ourselves as well.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

humblesmurph

I will search for the former thread on the topic.  The main point I was trying to make is that the woman has all the choice.  The contract to take care of a child is called "marriage".  If two married people have a child, then by all means string that SOB up if he doesn't want to take care of his child.  If you don't want kids, don't get married.  However, if as a woman, you choose to have premarital sex (a choice I would surely make) use birth control.  

 Choice is the reason people try to make a different case for rape victims trying to terminate.  Many people who are on the fence about abortion in general are clear about the fact that an impregnated rape victim shouldn't have to carry their assailant's potential baby to term.  After all they didn't have a choice in their being pregnant so they shouldn't have to carry a baby they didn't want. In this case, people understand implicitly that with less choice comes less responsibility.

BTW, the "what ifs" that I use are not some far out hypotheticals about black holes or big bangs.  Many men are in fact behind bars because women took babies to term that the men didn't want and then took the men to task for not paying child support.  This has nothing to do with a woman's body.  She can do whatever she wants with her body.  This is about the state taking away property and liberty from men who have no choice in the matter.  It seems to me absolutely logically inconsistent to be pro choice and to be in favor of a system that forces men to pay for the choice they have no say in.

People who say things like "well that's just the way it is, if you don't want to pay child support, don't have sex" are using the same logic as pro lifers.  To somehow suggest that the inner workings of a woman's body are somehow more sacred than a man's liberty seems at least as crazy and out there as a belief in god.  Furthermore, it poses a more immediate threat in this country because I'm sure they have locked up more "deadbeat dads" than atheists.

As long as abortion is legal and just as safe (if not much more so) as bringing a baby to term, a man owes a woman no more than one half the cost of an abortion if she gets pregnant.  You simply can't in all fairness have it both ways.  This seems pretty clear to me, if I have erred in some way please let me know. If you don't want to argue about it, that's cool too, but please think about it.

 Eventually atheism can't just be the abhorrence of god and religion--we have to think critically and reasonably about all things, not just the supernatural or lack thereof.

pinkocommie

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I will search for the former thread on the topic.  The main point I was trying to make is that the woman has all the choice.  The contract to take care of a child is called "marriage".  If two married people have a child, then by all means string that SOB up if he doesn't want to take care of his child.  If you don't want kids, don't get married.  However, if as a woman, you choose to have premarital sex (a choice I would surely make) use birth control.

Hahaha, what?  Man, I need to tell all my childless married friends that they need to start having kids or get divorced, since marriage is for making kids now, not about being with someone you love.  And those hippie freaks who have no interest in allowing the state to delegate their relationship but still had a kid?  Well, they're obviously doing it wrong!

Also it's important to keep in mind that birth control sometimes fails.  In those cases, is it OK for the man to throw a couple hundred bucks at a woman and say 'see ya'?  I don't think so.  I don't think any decent human being would.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Choice is the reason people try to make a different case for rape victims trying to terminate.  Many people who are on the fence about abortion in general are clear about the fact that an impregnated rape victim shouldn't have to carry their assailant's potential baby to term.  After all they didn't have a choice in their being pregnant so they shouldn't have to carry a baby they didn't want. In this case, people understand implicitly that with less choice comes less responsibility.

Well, this is a huge oversimplification of why it's wrong to force a woman to carry her rapists baby AND It's a bit unsettling that you're trying to draw similarities from this kind of scenario to one in which a man is expected to be equally responsible for a kid he willingly helped create.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"BTW, the "what ifs" that I use are not some far out hypotheticals about black holes or big bangs.  Many men are in fact behind bars because women took babies to term that the men didn't want and then took the men to task for not paying child support.  This has nothing to do with a woman's body.  She can do whatever she wants with her body.  This is about the state taking away property and liberty from men who have no choice in the matter.  It seems to me absolutely logically inconsistent to be pro choice and to be in favor of a system that forces men to pay for the choice they have no say in.

My point isn't that your what if is in all cases invalid, it's that I could come up with an equally plausible what if in which a man wants to spread his genetic material around as much as possible, but doesn't want to take responsibility for any of his kids so he throws 300 bucks (or whatever half the cost of an abortion is) a conception at the women he's impregnated and skips off to be an irresponsible ass for the rest of his life, secure in his legacy since he's pretty sure at least one of them will survive long enough to reproduce and perpetuate his DNA.  What ifs can always be countered with equally compelling what ifs.

It seems to me that your issue isn't with women, it's with how the legal system figures out and delegates child support.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"People who say things like "well that's just the way it is, if you don't want to pay child support, don't have sex" are using the same logic as pro lifers.  To somehow suggest that the inner workings of a woman's body are somehow more sacred than a man's liberty seems at least as crazy and out there as a belief in god.  Furthermore, it poses a more immediate threat in this country because I'm sure they have locked up more "deadbeat dads" than atheists.

What you seem to be suggesting is that men ought to be able to buy irresponsibility at the price of half an abortion if their attempt to screw without making a kid fails.  This is the exact same mis-characterization pro-lifers perpetuate about women who opt to get an abortion.  In a perfect world, people who didn't want kids would use multiple methods of birth control every time they had sex and those methods would never fail and no unwanted children would be produced.  However, we all (hopefully) understand that life is not fair, sometimes unplanned situations occur, sometimes women are skeezy, sometimes men are jerks, but the reality of the situation is that when you have sex, you're running the risk of creating a kid and if you're a guy, that's more of an out-of-your-hands situation than if you're a woman because the baby is a part of a woman's body.  That's reality.  Again, you seem to have issues more with how the courts legally delegate financial responsibility for a child, yet you keep blaming women as if it's our choice to have to physically bear the burden of having a kid.  I agree that there is a very sexist and unfair slant against men in a lot of cases when it comes to legal issues with children, but that is NOT a woman's fault and I don't see how allowing men to get out of their share of responsibility for creating a kid with a one time payment of half an abortion is a logical solution to this issue.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"As long as abortion is legal and just as safe (if not much more so) as bringing a baby to term, a man owes a woman no more than one half the cost of an abortion if she gets pregnant.  You simply can't in all fairness have it both ways.  This seems pretty clear to me, if I have erred in some way please let me know. If you don't want to argue about it, that's cool too, but please think about it.

I think this is a ridiculously short sighted and selfish position, and it ignores the fact that wanted or unwanted, both parents have an equal responsibility in making sure the innocent kid, if brought to term, has a shot at a good life.  It's a gross oversimplification of the issue to say that if a guy doesn't want to have a kid, the woman should either have an abortion or raise the kid alone.  Flipping it around, if a woman got pregnant and the man did want the child but she wanted an abortion, your logic would seem to support the idea that a woman should have to go through pregnancy against her will to bring the child to term so that he could take the baby and raise it alone.  Does that seem fair as well?

I think there is a problem in our culture with people who want to take advantage of other people, and when women use children to do this, it makes me really angry.  I think the legal system should take this into account if the man can reasonably prove that the woman knowingly impregnated herself in order to rope the guy into paying child support, but even then - children should not suffer because they have shitty parents.  And a dad who only wants to pay for the cost of half an abortion in regard to taking responsibility for a kid he helped create - wanted or unwanted - is just as shitty a human as a woman who gets pregnant on purpose as a kind of financial boon.

Being pro-choice is not, to me, about being pro-irresponsibility.  It's about having the option available in a worst case scenario.  I'm pro-choice because I'm pro-life worth living for kids.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Eventually atheism can't just be the abhorrence of god and religion--we have to think critically and reasonably about all things, not just the supernatural or lack thereof.

Not to nit-pick, but atheism isn't necessarily about the abhorrence of god or religion, it's the lack of belief in god.  I personally don't abhor things I don't believe in.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

humblesmurph

Wow, I'm shocked.  I read the former thread on this topic--every word of it. Twice.  I did this after my last post however.  

Pinkocommie, your position presupposes that there is in fact a responsibility on the man's part.  All I was asking was what, besides the law as it presently written, makes that responsibility a "fact"?  

I wrote explicitly that I absolutely do not believe that a person has the right to force another person to have a medically intrusive procedure, be it abortion or tonsillectomy.  A human being's body is hers to do with what she wishes.

I wish that I could make you understand that at the base of this touchy issue is the presupposition that having a baby is somehow better than aborting one. If a woman says "I got pregnant because I had unprotected sex because it feels better without a condom and birth control pills make me fat" I would still have no problem with her deciding to abort her fetus.  None.  It seems to me many of you would judge her harshly for this--even those who are staunchly pro choice.  I'm assuming that most of you would say that she is acting irresponsibly.  However, if a fetus is just a "bunch of cells" as we like to call them when we defend the right to terminate them--what's the big deal?

pinkocommie

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Pinkocommie, your position presupposes that there is in fact a responsibility on the man's part.  All I was asking was what, besides the law as it presently written, makes that responsibility a "fact"?

Babies can't be made (outside of a lab, at least) without men.  Therefore, men have some responsibility when a baby is made.  I personally think this responsibility extends to as long as that baby is alive or capable of life.  I think this because I think that any given person in a society has a responsibility to take care of the innocents of that society, and that especially includes the parents of a  kid.  I agree that in the relatively small instances where a hapless victimized man is somehow tricked into conceiving a child with a ruthless gold digger, it seems unfair that he be forced to pay for the kid, but the kid (if brought to term) still deserves to be given a chance to succeed in life and it's certainly unfair for the kid if the guy runs off and fails to bear his fair share of responsibility for the child, which is often legally designated as a monthly payment to cover part of the cost of raising a child if the dad has not won custody or has willingly forfeited custody, because he didn't intend to make a baby.  I think part of that responsibility does fall on the man, because if it weren't for his involvement, the kid wouldn't exist in the first place.  The focus shouldn't be about what's fair for the mom vs. what's fair for the dad.  It's about what's fair for the kid, if the kid is brought to term.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I wish that I could make you understand that at the base of this touchy issue is the presupposition that having a baby is somehow better than aborting one. If a woman says "I got pregnant because I had unprotected sex because it feels better without a condom and birth control pills make me fat" I would still have no problem with her deciding to abort her fetus.  None.  It seems to me many of you would judge her harshly for this--even those who are staunchly pro choice.  I'm assuming that most of you would say that she is acting irresponsibly.  However, if a fetus is just a "bunch of cells" as we like to call them when we defend the right to terminate them--what's the big deal?

I personally don't think that having a kid is always better than not having one.  That's why I say I'm pro-choice because I'm pro-life that's best for the kid, which is sometimes not being alive at all.

I would equally support your hypothetical woman's right to have an abortion.  In her case, since you've painted her to be a socially irresponsible, stupid person (unprotected sex cuz it feels better is stupid and socially irresponsible because it promotes the spread of STDs and STIs among the general population) I would hope she would have an abortion if she got pregnant for the sake of the child.  I wouldn't judge her for having the abortion, but I sure would judge her for being such an idiot about sex to begin with.

However, unlike your hypothetical woman's situation, abortions often aren't simple, easy affairs.  For the majority of those going through it, male and female, it's an extremely emotional situation to have to deal with, not to mention at times an intrusive medical procedure that carries with it a possibility for complications.  And that's not even touching on the cultural and social pressures that exist regarding abortion, which makes the choice even more difficult.  I don't think those pressures logically should exist, but they do.  Ignoring the fact that it's a complex and emotional situation for most people in order to add credence to your personal position that it's no big deal seems disingenuous to me.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

humblesmurph

thank you for responding.  It is a big deal.  It's a big deal because a fetus is not just "a bunch of cells".  It is an almost human life. This  almost human just doesn't have the same rights as it's host.  That's why even if you strip away societal pressures and religious zealots abortion is still such a heart wrenching thing to do.  BTW, the woman in the example isn't all that rare. It only takes one act of unprotected sex to have a child.  I have had unprotected premarital sex at least twice in the last 5 years.  I'm sure you know people who are otherwise good folks who have done the same.  

I think on some level many of us pro choice advocates understand that abortion is a form of justifiable mini homicide.  It just hurts to think of it that way.  

When SSY brought this up last year he made valid logical points.  His point is still logical. Not one reasonable argument was brought to weaken his stance.  You all went around in circles.  He was talking about how the law should be enforced--all his objectors did was remind him how it was presently enforced.

  Intuitively I agree with you pinkocommie, I just wish I had one logical reason for doing so.

pinkocommie

Quote from: "humblesmurph"thank you for responding.  It is a big deal.  It's a big deal because a fetus is not just "a bunch of cells".  It is an almost human life. This  almost human just doesn't have the same rights as it's host.  That's why even if you strip away societal pressures and religious zealots abortion is still such a heart wrenching thing to do.  BTW, the woman in the example isn't all that rare. It only takes one act of unprotected sex to have a child.  I have had unprotected premarital sex at least twice in the last 5 years.  I'm sure you know people who are otherwise good folks who have done the same.

Yeah, I wouldn't argue that good people can't, at times, also be stupid and socially irresponsible.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I think on some level many of us pro choice advocates understand that abortion is a form of justifiable mini homicide.  It just hurts to think of it that way.

Hmm, that's an interesting point.  I think if you feel the need to add a qualifier to distinguish what you're talking about from homicide (mini homicide?  Haha, just poking fun.  :D) it's no longer homicide.  If homicide is killing a person, then the only way one might classify early term abortions as homicide is if they classify the potential to become a person as the same thing as a person.  I don't think a potential person and a person are the same thing, so no, I don't agree with you there.  But, that could admittedly be an argument based on semantics more than anything and I think I understand what you're trying to say regardless.  Also, just because a zygote might not considered a person yet, I don't think it makes the decision to have an abortion any easier, you know?  Very complicated.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"When SSY brought this up last year he made valid logical points.  His point is still logical. Not one reasonable argument was brought to weaken his stance.  You all went around in circles.  He was talking about how the law should be enforced--all his objectors did was remind him how it was presently enforced.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't here for that and have not read the thread you are referring to.  Sounds like a brawl, though.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Intuitively I agree with you pinkocommie, I just wish I had one logical reason for doing so.

It's a human problem and humans are not very logical.  It'd be awesome if we lived in a reality where logic always prevailed, but I think when you toss in human emotions and the plethora of other social and cultural factors that go into this issue, looking for logic in the first place may be an illogical endeavor.

Also, thanks for the discussion, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss your point of view.  I know you're new and I don't want you to feel ganged up on by any means.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

humblesmurph

On the contrary, I do not feel ganged up on at all.  As expected, every woman disagreed with SSY's original point about the inequities of the system, and most men (though not all) agreed with him. It seems to me the guys that seem to see my point of view abstained from the discussion this time around because it was all covered in a prior thread .  

The message I got from SSY's thread was that regardless of where one stands on the child support issue, unless she plans to offer it for adoption, a woman should think twice about carrying a child to term that she doesn't have the means to provide for and that the father has informed her he wants nothing to do with.  It's synonymous with "being stupid and socially irresponsible".

The Magic Pudding

The way the term moral authority is used seems to suggest morals have to be set in stone by god, or proven objectively true.
I see morals as something arrived at to help people live their lives and produce the society we aspire to.
Most modern advanced countries have come to the conclusion that a child deserves the support of the father.
Does the father owe support to the mother, the child or both?
If he owes support to the child, perhaps the mother has no right to waive this right on the child’s behalf, even if she dislikes condoms.

I find the suggestion that giving a pregnant woman $300, negates responsibility repugnant.

I'm not convinced in fairness, a male should be held responsible where a female impregnates herself from sperm retrieved from a condom.
I don’t think this is a common problem, I’ve never met anyone who claimed to experience it.

The opposition to abortifacient drugs such as RU486/Mifepristone is unfortunate, stupid and annoying.