Thoughts on abortions

[jacksasub5]

i know

so dont you think preventing that would be a good thing what your argument

 

[TonyDr]

Title

Complicated topic because :

1/ I'm pro abortion esp in r**e cases, mother health issues and if the kids has health problems.

2/ But most abortions happened during hook-ups and ONS, and women use it as a contraceptive

3/ Shouldn't be our concern as men because there plethora of studies showing abortion short and long term side effects (like cancers spikes, infertility, birth defects), that the medias and feminism try to hide to not stop abortion as a legitimate use as a contraceptive. Eventually women will start to talk about it in the next decades when the side effects will kick in.

4/ Abortion heated debates shown also those women as the not really empathetic gender overall, treating human life as a throwaway & disposable.
It is even worse when girls are vegans for example, being against eating eggs (who aren't even fertilized by roosters btw) because it's a life, but wouldn't mind killing a 6+ months healthy foetus who can hear his own mom talking

 

[esoteric]

You're still ending the life of an innocent baby and it's the moms fault that the child won't experience the world because she's to scared to take on the responsibility of a mother

the way you view women is so monolith theres so many layers to the decision to abort a fetus and you're way oversimplifying it. i dont agree with abortion & i dont support it but i do support a womans ability to choose and the fact you think you should have more say over a stranger womans body & life path than she should is really off putting. & fyi theres a reason that I used the term you in that thought experiment its to prompt you to put yourself in the position that many women find themselves in dont deflect and be open to change

 

[JDD8]

the way you view women is so monolith theres so many layers to the decision to abort a fetus and you're way oversimplifying it. i dont agree with abortion & i dont support it but i do support a womans ability to choose and the fact you think you should have more say over a stranger womans body & life path than she should is really off putting. & fyi theres a reason that I used the term you in that thought experiment its to prompt you to put yourself in the position that many women find themselves in dont deflect and be open to change

It's just wrong

 

[tami_26]

yes of course it isn't a guarantee, but by it's nature a fetus will be conscious. like for example, i could say 'humans have 2 arms', despite some humans missing an arm, but a human will be nature have 2 arms.

if the fetus cannot be conscious, then it is not murder to "kill" it.

for you to believe abortion is right, you have to argue against one (or both) of these:
- abortion is murder
- murder can be justified in the case of abortion

with the second point, do you believe abortion is justified in a case where the women isn't r***d, in danger, and is perfectly healthy? if the answer is yes, you must argue for that, without mention of r**e etc.

It’s not murder by definition.An abortion is the prevention of consciousness,this doesn’t violate a persons livehood.Its stopping the potential.

Even if you don’t agree and believe it’s murder (often religious reasons) I believe it’s still justified.A woman who wants to abort their child clearly is ill equipped to have a child and doesn’t want one.This means a child will have a poor quality of life.While some say then to leave it to the state,the foster care system is horrible,while obviously I think majority of people know that I also know this anecdotally.

In conclusion, there is two options thinking that the termination of potential consciousness is the greater good if they will have a poor quality of life if born or deeming the termination as immoral and/or should be illegal

 

[Overthrown]

no, but that isn't analogous to a fetus of course. a 'brain dead' person will be braindead forever; it is the irreversible loss of all brain function. this is practically synonymous with death. a fetus will be conscious

That’s irrelevant to the fact that they both need to rely on something for their own life force. Do you think a brain dead patients parents should have the choice of pulling them off life support?

 

[JDD8]

the way you view women is so monolith theres so many layers to the decision to abort a fetus and you're way oversimplifying it. i dont agree with abortion & i dont support it but i do support a womans ability to choose and the fact you think you should have more say over a stranger womans body & life path than she should is really off putting. & fyi theres a reason that I used the term you in that thought experiment its to prompt you to put yourself in the position that many women find themselves in dont deflect and be open to change

The baby could have lived a long happy life but the mom decides she's to scared, thats being selfish

 

[esoteric]

It's just wrong

mind of a walnut its impossible to reason or have a conversation with you

 

[ClavicuIar]

It’s not murder by definition. An abortion is the prevention of consciousness, this doesn’t violate a persons livehood. It's stopping the potential.

i know, i'm arguing that prevention of consciousness is murder in the case of abortion. it definitionally 'violates a persons livehood'

Even if you don’t agree and believe it’s murder (often religious reasons) I believe it’s still justified.A woman who wants to abort their child clearly is ill equipped to have a child and doesn’t want one.This means a child will have a poor quality of life.While some say then to leave it to the state,the foster care system is horrible,while obviously I think majority of people know that I also know this anecdotally.

murder and justified is a direct contradiction. but besides that, it is still wrong to kill the fetus despite how the foster care system is. the fetus didn't choose to die and it still has bodily autonomy.

if you are to ask a bunch of foster care kids if they could revert back time where they are killed before they are born, there is a guarantee that some of them will reject the offer. this demonstrates how it does violate a person's livehood and bodily autonomy

 

[ClavicuIar]

mind of a walnut its impossible to reason or have a conversation with you

which is why you haven't attempted respond to my rebuttal for your violinist argument, right?

 

[JDD8]

mind of a walnut its impossible to reason or have a conversation with you

You can't convince me in any circumstance that killing an unborn baby is ok

 

[esoteric]

which is why you haven't attempted respond to my rebuttal for your violinist argument, right?

I didnt see it ill check back when im not sleep deprived though been awake 48 hrs & have to wake at 6am gn

 

[ClavicuIar]

That’s irrelevant to the fact that they both need to rely on something for their own life force.

but my argument isn't that brain dead patients parents should have the choice of pulling them off life support because they rely on something else for their own life force. i never even implied that

Do you think a brain dead patients parents should have the choice of pulling them off life support?

yes, because they are already dead, so it isn't murder because you can't kill them.

even if you could kill them, there is a difference between letting someone die and directly killing someone

 

[tami_26]

i know, i'm arguing that prevention of consciousness is murder in the case of abortion. it definitionally 'violates a persons livehood'

murder and justified is a direct contradiction. but besides that, it is still wrong to kill the fetus despite how the foster care system is. the fetus didn't choose to die and it still has bodily autonomy.

if you are to ask a bunch of foster care kids if they could revert back time where they are killed before they are born, there is a guarantee that some of them will reject the offer. this demonstrates how it does violate a person's livehood and bodily autonomy

a fetus has no livelihood?? So no I don’t think it’s the same as murder while it’s still not a postive action it’s still the greater good to be allowed.Furthermore murder can be justified there is a reason death row exists. As for the fetus consent,fetus can’t consent in any case scenario meaning the mother has to consent for the child especially since the fetus couldn’t live without the mother.As for the last point this is because now that they do have livelihood and memories ect their life has increased value so they wouldn’t want to end it obviously.If anyone was to be aborted you wouldn’t know what your future would hold nor have livelihood you would not exist point blank.While I’m not disputing that someone in foster care can’t turn their life to a postive one in spite of it all it’s immoral to not terminate the pregnancy if you know the child will be in foster care afterwards which will cause life changing consequences on the child.

 

[lydia]

The baby could have lived a long happy life but the mom decides she's to scared, thats being selfish

So by your logic, anyone who doesn't donate a kidney to save a life is "selfish" too? We don't force people to use their body to keep others alive. Same principle

 

[JDD8]

So by your logic, anyone who doesn't donate a kidney to save a life is "selfish" too? We don't force people to use their body to keep others alive. Same principle

Nope, mothers have a responsibility to try their best to make sure the baby survives until they are an adult, if they decide to kill the baby then they are a failure of a person and a mother

 

[ClavicuIar]

a fetus has no livelihood?? So no I don’t think it’s the same as murder while it’s still not a postive action it’s still the greater good to be allowed.Furthermore murder can be justified there is a reason death row exists. As for the fetus consent,fetus can’t consent in any case scenario meaning the mother has to consent for the child especially since the fetus couldn’t live without the mother.As for the last point this is because now that they do have livelihood and memories ect their life has increased value so they wouldn’t want to end it obviously.If anyone was to be aborted you wouldn’t know what your future would hold nor have livelihood you would not exist point blank.While I’m not disputing that someone in foster care can’t turn their life to a postive one in spite of it all it’s immoral to not terminate the pregnancy if you know the child will be in foster care afterwards which will cause life changing consequences on the child.

this is very annoying to read due to no paragraphs and incorrect grammar, but i'll go ahead regardless. it would be good if you gave an actual syllogism.

Furthermore murder can be justified there is a reason death row exists.

if you believe death row is justified, you do not believe it is murder.

As for the fetus consent,fetus can’t consent in any case scenario meaning the mother has to consent for the child especially since the fetus couldn’t live without the mother.As for the last point this is because now that they do have livelihood and memories ect their life has increased value so they wouldn’t want to end it obviously.If anyone was to be aborted you wouldn’t know what your future would hold nor have livelihood you would not exist point blank.

the mother can consent to the child, but we cannot apply this to everything. the mother cannot consent for the child if it prevents the child from being able to consent in the future. this includes killing.

this is why bodily autonomy includes fetuses, because they will necessarily gain what you call "livehood"

 

[Niggard]

Abortions are only lawful in the case of r**e, if pre-organogenesis, and certain death of the mother during birth
Otherwise unlawful

 

[ClavicuIar]

So by your logic, anyone who doesn't donate a kidney to save a life is "selfish" too? We don't force people to use their body to keep others alive. Same principle

there is a clear distinction between letting someone die and actually killing someone

donating a kidney does NOT violate bodily autonomy
killling a fetus DOES violate bodily autonomy

you can't just let the outcome define the whole equation

 

[Overthrown]

but my argument isn't that brain dead patients parents should have the choice of pulling them off life support because they rely on something else for their own life force. i never even implied that

What I got from your comment was that you didn’t think the brain dead patient/fetus analogy was synonymous simply because of the fetus’s potential for consciousness

yes, because they are already dead, so it isn't murder because you can't kill them.

even if you could kill them, there is a difference between letting someone die and directly killing someone

“Dead” yet they still have a functioning heart, cells, and organs thanks to their life support. It is the same with a fetus and the mother. If you ripped a fetus out of the womb it would die instantly, just like pulling the plug on a brain dead patient

 

[lydia]

Nope, mothers have a responsibility to try their best to make sure the baby survives until they are an adult, if they decide to kill the baby then they are a failure of a person and a mother

you argument ignores bodily autonomy completely. If you crash your car and someone needs your blood, the state can't force you to give it. They can't even take organs from a corpse without consent.
If a dead body has more bodily rights than a living woman, your logic is broken.
You can't demand "parental responsibility" from someone who never chose to be a parent. Forced pregnancy isn't duty, it's state violence

 

[lydia]

there is a clear distinction between letting someone die and actually killing someone

donating a kidney does NOT violate bodily autonomy
killling a fetus DOES violate bodily autonomy

you can't just let the outcome define the whole equation

there’s an even clearer distinction you're missing: assault vs withdrawing consent to use your body. A fetus can't survive on its own. It requires constant physical access to a woman's organs and blood.

Refusing to provide your body isn't "killing", it's evicting

If someone hooks themselves to your kidneys without permission, unhooking them causes death but you didn't "murder" them. you just stopped them from using your body.
Bodily autonomy includes the right to stop hosting someone else

 

[JDD8]

you argument ignores bodily autonomy completely. If you crash your car and someone needs your blood, the state can't force you to give it. They can't even take organs from a corpse without consent.
If a dead body has more bodily rights than a living woman, your logic is broken.
You can't demand "parental responsibility" from someone who never chose to be a parent. Forced pregnancy isn't duty, it's state violence

Just because the mom didn't choose to get pregnant doesn't make murder ok, it's a mothers duty to provide for their own children

 

[ClavicuIar]

What I got from your comment was that you didn’t think the brain dead patient/fetus analogy was synonymous simply because of the fetus’s potential for consciousness

yes, my original comment was about this

“Dead” yet they still have a functioning heart, cells, and organs thanks to their life support.

okay, i didn't know they have functioning organs. in this case, they would be alive

It is the same with a fetus and the mother. If you ripped a fetus out of the womb it would die instantly, just like pulling the plug on a brain dead patient

the fetus has potential for consciousness while the braindead person doesn't. even so, letting someone die is different from actually killing them. one of them violates bodily autonomy while the other doesn't

 

[ClavicuIar]

you argument ignores bodily autonomy completely. If you crash your car and someone needs your blood, the state can't force you to give it. They can't even take organs from a corpse without consent.

i agree, i never denied

If a dead body has more bodily rights than a living woman, your logic is broken.
You can't demand "parental responsibility" from someone who never chose to be a parent. Forced pregnancy isn't duty, it's state violence

i never implied a dead person having more bodily rights than a living women.

A fetus can't survive on its own. It requires constant physical access to a woman's organs and blood.

this doesn't justify the killing of the fetus, it violates the fetus' bodily autonomy regardless

If someone hooks themselves to your kidneys without permission, unhooking them causes death but you didn't "murder" them. you just stopped them from using your body.

that someone is choosing to hook themselves to your kidneys, so unhooking them is classified as self defence.

your arguments seem like ai

 

[Overthrown]

yes, my original comment was about this


okay, i didn't know they have functioning organs. in this case, they would be alive
the fetus has potential for consciousness while the braindead person doesn't.

Nobody grants rights based on potential though. With this logic you could be giving the fetus a right to drive a car or vote because of its potential to grow into a mature adult

even so, letting someone die is different from actually killing them. one of them violates bodily autonomy while the other doesn't

They are both the same thing but with different labels. By “letting someone die” you’re referring to letting the brain dead patient die by pulling the plug on them, but by pulling the fetus out of a mothers womb you would be leaving them for dead as well. You also claimed earlier that the brain dead patient is alive, so wouldn’t pulling the plug on them be a violation of their bodily autonomy?

 

[rand anon]

I think it’s icky maynnn

 

[lydia]

Just because the mom didn't choose to get pregnant doesn't make murder ok, it's a mothers duty to provide for their own children

n***a are you for real?

 

[JDD8]

n***a are you for real?

Are you fr??

 

[lydia]

i agree, i never denied

i never implied a dead person having more bodily rights than a living women.


this doesn't justify the killing of the fetus, it violates the fetus' bodily autonomy regardless

that someone is choosing to hook themselves to your kidneys, so unhooking them is classified as self defence.

your arguments seem like ai

"Choosing to hook to kidneys" ??(? a fetus has zero choice, zero brain, zero agency. Stop pretending it does.
Euther we force people to donate organs or we don't.
You can't force pregnancy but say "bodily autonomy matters". Pick one

 

[ClavicuIar]

With this logic you could be giving the fetus a right to drive a car because of its potential to grow into a mature adult.

the fetus has the right to drive a car when it is a mature adult, because of its potential to grow into a mature adult. this is a perfectly logical statement

You also claimed earlier that the brain dead patient is alive, so wouldn’t pulling the plug on them be a violation of their bodily autonomy?

no, because they don't have potential for consciousness.

at what point do you think abortion is okay up until to? until they gain consciousness, or until birth?

 

[ClavicuIar]

"Choosing to hook to kidneys" ??(? a fetus has zero choice, zero brain, zero agency. Stop pretending it does.

i said the person in your analogy, had a choice, not the fetus

Euther we force people to donate organs or we don't.
You can't force pregnancy but say "bodily autonomy matters". Pick one

i will no longer respond to you. you are not listening to me at all, i've responded to this multiple times

 

[submissivechud]

Title

I couldn't care less about something lacking consciousness.

 

[xkx0479]

Title

I don't have a problem with it

 

[glamora]

if a women is r***d most likely shes going to have to raise that baby alone and maybe even feel resentment towards them

two wrongs don't make a right.

the baby has done nothing wrong and is not responsible for the actions of the rapist, so i don't think it's reasonable to direct resentment toward the child. we should view babies as innocent human lives, not as burdens created by someone else's crime.

i'm not saying abortion should necessarily be illegal in cases of r**e. those situations are tragic and morally complex, and people can disagree on them.

my point is that pregnancies resulting from r**e make up a very small percentage of abortions, often cited at around 0.5%. because of that, i don't think it's a strong foundation for defending the pro-choice argument in general. if we're debating abortion as a whole, then the discussion should focus on the overwhelming majority of cases rather than relying on a rare exception to justify the rule

 

[glamora]

Nobody grants rights based on potential though. With this logic you could be giving the fetus a right to drive a car or vote because of its potential to grow into a mature adult

They are both the same thing but with different labels. By “letting someone die” you’re referring to letting the brain dead patient die by pulling the plug on them, but by pulling the fetus out of a mothers womb you would be leaving them for dead as well. You also claimed earlier that the brain dead patient is alive, so wouldn’t pulling the plug on them be a violation of their bodily autonomy?

you're treating all rights as if they're based on the same criteria, but they aren't. rights like voting or driving depend on age and competence, while the right to life doesn't. newborns can't vote or make medical decisions either, but we still recognize their right not to be intentionally killed.

the brain dead comparison also isn't the same. a brain dead patient has permanently lost any capacity to recover, while a fetus is a living human organism in an early stage of development with natural growth ahead. one is no more, the other is not yet.

if you believe a brain dead patient is biologically alive, removing life support is generally seen as withdrawing extraordinary treatment when recovery is impossible, not intentionally killing them. abortion intentionally ends the life of a developing human organism, which is why many see it as a different moral issue.

 

[suzuya]

you're treating all rights as if they're based on the same criteria, but they aren't. rights like voting or driving depend on age and competence, while the right to life doesn't. newborns can't vote or make medical decisions either, but we still recognize their right not to be intentionally killed.

the brain dead comparison also isn't the same. a brain dead patient has permanently lost any capacity to recover, while a fetus is a living human organism in an early stage of development with natural growth ahead. one is no more, the other is not yet.

if you believe a brain dead patient is biologically alive, removing life support is generally seen as withdrawing extraordinary treatment when recovery is impossible, not intentionally killing them. abortion intentionally ends the life of a developing human organism, which is why many see it as a different moral issue.

Holy miring the effort read everything is right 100% with you

 

[suzuya]

I couldn't care less about something lacking consciousness.

Shit thread ban every user in here

How tf is this a shit thread people are actualy writing good stuff not some shit and this is off topic and have high effort replies

 

[XambosAg]

In my opinion I think it is bad and it is better to keep the baby but everyone has free will so I dont think it should be illegal

 

[Penalizer69]

How tf is this a shit thread people are actualy writing good stuff not some shit and this is off topic and have high effort replies

Not 1 btw

 

[Bananachip]

doesn't matter to me what other people do with their bodies

just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it should be outlawed

Wow Benny some neurons survived all that alcohol

 

[Inanimate Pragmatist]

Title

Depends. If the child is retarded, deformed, race mixed, mentally ill or a r**e child then yes. Otherwise no.

 

[Inanimate Pragmatist]

doesn't matter to me what other people do with their bodies

just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it should be outlawed

A group of well thought men with just the right money can easily draw whatever law and line they want. You, and others like you will bend a knee.

 

[suzuya]

Depends. If the child is retarded, deformed, race mixed, mentally ill or a r**e child then yes. Otherwise no.

sorry hitler

 

[Auggy]

Title

Necessary. And it’s her choice

 

[Rololongs]

Title

Abortions are alright because who wants a kid

 

[suzuya]

ok for r**e cases and situations where the mom could die, shouldn't happen any other time

this is very annoying to read due to no paragraphs and incorrect grammar, but i'll go ahead regardless. it would be good if you gave an actual syllogism.

if you believe death row is justified, you do not believe it is murder.

the mother can consent to the child, but we cannot apply this to everything. the mother cannot consent for the child if it prevents the child from being able to consent in the future. this includes killing.

this is why bodily autonomy includes fetuses, because they will necessarily gain what you call "livehood"

love your takes I did read everything you said and love it how you put effort in justifying why abortion is wrong also saw many people use r#e as an example where it should be okay I don't think we should consider it while debating about it since abortion case from r$e represent 1% of case and also some people believe that doing bad would not fix the problem and the mothers should have the child and give it to adoption if she can't take care of him since the baby don't have to pay the consequence of the man act.

 

[Inanimate Pragmatist]

sorry hitler

A weak race and society is born from tolerance and empathy that borders on suicide.

 

[mulattomaxxer27]

im a man i dont really have an opinion on it but i think whatever makes the woman confortable is the right choice

 

[Br4va]

Abortions morally is wrong

However abortions bring benefits to the table in terms of roi iykyk

Ideal for me would be abortions only in emergencies

It’s also just another scheme. Sex wasn’t nearly as accessible before then 1920s so abortion was practically useless. Nowadays people just want to have fun and entertain themselves , sex is a form of entertainment nowadays for the ratsv