Abortion: Putting A Face On The Issue

Why even bother with fathers, eh, Chip? Why not just cut them out of the process entirely? It's completely possible. Women who feel like getting pregnant can go to a sperm bank, get impregnated, and then kill the baby at will without having to worry about that pesky thrusting, cumming guy.

In fact, this may be the solution to the whole issue. If a woman had to pay to get pregnant anyway, she might not be so cavalier about destroying the result.

Men like you are the reason why fathers have such a hard time getting custody of their children in this country.

But, hey, I bet it works great in bars. We should get you a shirt; Fuck Me, I'm Pro-Abortion!

-Kiamat Dusk

Is an egg a chicken, an acorn an oak tree?

Riiiiight. You should have the right to get custody only after you've demonstrated your ability to be a responsible parent. Just impregnating someone doesn't really qualify.

Want to argue these too? "Safe and legal" would probably be a good thing for prostitution. It's another case of what leads to the worst conditions. Suicide's a bit different, of course. Anyone who actually goes through with it isn't going to care one bit whether it's legal or not.



Since you're big on the idea of personal responsibility too, what did you think of my idea above?

And giving birth does, is that it? Giving birth to a child automatically qualifies you as a good parent? Is that it? Andrea Yates-there's a swell mother for you. I'd point out a few more choice examples, but I need to get to bed.

-Kiamat Dusk

I actually believe in prostitution on theoretical grounds. Moral grounds are another story, but that's bringing my religion into it and one thing that I can wholeheartedly agree on is that Theocracies are bad, bad, bad. Government decisions should be informed by their religion, or other source of moral inspiration, but never run by them.

If prostitution were legalized across the board, I could accept that because it is their body, they aren't being forced, and no one is dying.

With abortion, it's not their body-it's the baby's. The baby is being forced to die.

I understand that you don't see it the same way, I'm just stating how I see the difference.

-Kiamat Dusk

What I meant was, if you're going to make abortion illegal, why not put the father in jail?

I'm not really inclined to bring religion into it either. I'm just trying to come up with something that'd actually be sensible and which would if really considered likely would cause everyone to back off.

No, of course not. I'm pro-abortion, remember? If someone isn't qualified to be a parent, they shouldn't be.

I was only responding to Kevn, who seems to think that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term no matter what (because life begins at conception). MAP would be an excellent addition to a rape kit.

And, no, I do not advocate killing a child after it is born.. but there are people who do. Like Peter Singer

Every child has two parents. Just because one isn't fit, should the other have to live without, too?

-Kiamat Dusk

Well, I guess we're ignoring any attempt at a rational solution, huh? Let's argue instead that a man ought to be able to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy just because the man wants a child. Long live the patriarchy! Women are nothing but brood mares.

It all seems to come down to when life begins.

Before a convicted rapist can be put to death, 12 jurors must decide beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is guilty-despite the fact that he has already been convicted.

Yet, as Cory pointed out, there is far more than a shadow of doubt when it comes to the question of when life begins, yet we choose to err on the side of killing the baby?

Why does the convicted criminal get more benefit of the doubt than the innocent child?

And when does the Left feel that life begins? If a woman to the very day of natural birth can choose to kill that child, if a child that could otherwise be born even prematurely and live a long, healthy life, can be killed, what makes the difference? What's the difference between a fetus and a baby? The cutting of the cord? The breathing of oxygen?

I say these are fetuses-they're prisoners. They are prisoners in a jail where the warden is judge, jury, and executioner. If that child could live if other medical procedures were used-why not let it? I say we emancipate the child.

I would rather my tax money go to a well funded, well staffed state run orphanage than have it go to paying so that some death row inmate can watch Dr. Phil.

Pro-abortionist are morally bankrupt and it becomes more obvious as the fight goes on. If there is a way for the mother to be rid of the baby without killing it-shouldn't that be what you advocate? Why are you more willing to pay for prison inmates to have cable television than you are for state run orphanages?

You want to hide behind your Orwellian PC newspeak. It doesn't feel like a crime if you don't call it murder. It doesn't feel like murder if you don't call it a baby. And you don't feel like a killer, if you don't look it in the eye as you suck its brains out. Or maybe they leave the head in the birth canal so they can't hear it scream.

-Kiamat Dusk
..calling a duck a duck, and a murderer a murderer...

Once again, you overlook the woman's right to refuse sex. Are you saying that women are so given over to their lust that they simply cannot refuse a man? Are we going to take this to the "any act of intercourse is by nature assault" level?

And if that mother has the baby, why should the man have to pay? Men are nothing but banks?

This is just another attempt to freeze men, especially fathers, out of the issue even though they do have a vested interest. That baby may have been an accident, but it wasn't concieved via masturbation.

-Kiamat Dusk

You plan to cut them out by force?

If you're going to legislate against abortion, it ought to be done in a way which recognizes the reality of the situation - namely, that men are also responsible for creating the situation. It's highly unlikely that a woman will unintentionally get pregnant on her own. Men are biologically inclined to press for sex. We should level the playing field. The crime here should be "causing an unwanted pregnancy".

Any time you're looking at a seemingly intractable problem, what you've got is a lie in one of the steps leading up to it. In this case I think it's that we keep pinning the blame on women instead of asking men to change their behavior.

If we're going to leave religion out of this, then I propose a free market solution. This is much in the spirit of deregulation that was all the rage during the Reagan era.

1. Women are free to terminate their pregnancy at any time.
2. Women are free to negotiate terms (can be money or anything else) in order to be convinced to carry their pregnancy to term. This is compensation for their time as well as physical and emotional costs.
3. Free market forces can then act to determine an optimal solution.

If people really do believe that life is more important than anything else, then the abortion rate should fall to almost zero.

Do you want to actually reduce the number of abortions that take place, or is this all just a smokescreen for giving men more control over their women and children?

Seriously though - worldwide, laws against abortion seem to have little effect on reducing the number performed. What is effective is increased access to effective contraception.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Germany seems to have an interesting compromise. Second and third trimester abortions are illegal, but doctors are not prosecuted for performing abortions. This particular point is one of the most sickening parts to me about the South Dakota law. It seems designed to actually promote unsafe abortion practices.

Yes, women do have the right to refuse sex - men don't always listen though. Sometimes they'll wait till the woman is asleep... which is tantamount to rape.

I guess women are nothing but incubators to some people.

Off topic, but not really as it concerns a fetus and my womb......

or a face if you will....


As soon as my kids get a real job I will be presenting each of them a bill for 10 months of back rent on my uterus.

Or in the case of my son, only a bill for 35 weeks, not the full 40 my daughter stayed in there.

Any ideas on what I should charge? Or should I wait and see what studio apartments are renting for when the time comes?

Considering there is no separate bathroom in your uterus, you might have health code inspectors to deal with

Hmm, how about $325 a night? That's the price of a fairly nice hotel room. Heck, they got free food, and a nice quiet place to stay.

DAMN YOU! That is two times in two nights you made me spit dr.pepper on my monitor.

I love you too

I promise to warn you next time

Oh darn, I thought I was special.

Rape is now a capital offense? And that isn't at all how the justice system works. In a capital case the jury only decides guilt once. They then decide if the death penalty is to be applied. Not a fine distinction here. The convicted will be punished whether or not by death.


This is why we should leave the decision to the woman. Trust her to decide. Don't give the government more power. Why is it that the Right is for big, intrusive government? Do we really want to give the idiots in charge of the Iraq war that kind of power over us?



Wow, that is by far the stupidest thing I have ever read about abortion.


I'd rather have my tax money go to pay for abortions for poor women. We all have our "rathers" I guess.


And the Anti-Abortionists get shriller and shriller. They want to use the power of the state to force their beliefs on everyone around them. They'll only be happy when they force us all to pretend to believe what they pretend to believe.


Why is the Right more willing to pay billions for a disastrous war than for health care for babies? And while we're asking questions, what do either of these questions have to do with the subject at hand? If we didn't let the Right wing wackos invade any country that frowned at us or slash taxes while spending more money than any liberal ever dreamed of, maybe we'd have enough for cable TV in prison and orphanages and health care for babies. Why is the right against health care for babies?


Orwellian PC newspeak examples like "pro-life" which somehow also means pro-war and pro-death penalty? Or abortion (the legal termination of a pregnancy) means murder (the illegal killing of a person)? Or what about "compassionate conservatism"? How about "smaller government" meaning the largest expansion of state power in American history. That's pretty Orwellian.

--Michael Seraph, putting principles above opinion