What's your position on abortion? And why?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by DerekB

A baby is a tiny creature that is not a formed child. A child is a tiny creature that is not a formed adolescent. An adolescent is a creature that is not a formed adult. Who says humanity starts at baby. I've been a member for seven months, and I generally make thoughtful (if controversial) posts. People don't have to agree with me. But neither should they attack me just because they don't like what I have to say. Address the argument, not the person.

Where was there an attack exactly? I expressed my opinion. An opinion is not an attack, it's just an opinion. You've said some pretty harsh things to people here yourself telling people to 'get over themselves' (for which you've been warned by a Mod about), so maybe you can take some of your own advice.

I think you just get offended way too easily.

I made no attack, I just didn't agree with what you said and pointed out the difference.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by DerekB

You're right, it is difficult to tell, but not impossible. Perhaps I should clarify, aborting is only permissible if you KNOW the child will be unhappy and miserable. Otherwise, its a risk you have to take.

This is all just your opinion. You are saying it here as though it is absolute truth.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

You're right, I used the wrong word, I did mean hermaphrodite. Good catch. My philosophy is consistent. It hasn't changed. I just initially held back from making the claim about raped women. Also, I'm not some religious wack-job. I'm jewish by birth and had a bar mitzvah, but I dont have a lot of faith in the existence of god and haven't been to temple in six years.

Alright then. Where do you get the idea that a fetus is a person? As the graphic I posted illustrated, just because something has the potential to become another thing, does not mean it is that. And where does its personhood start? Conception?

Originally Posted by DerekB

They shouldn't have had to be born in the first place. If they're miserable and unhappy, than yes, assisted suicide is permissible in my opinion.

I think assisted suicide should be legal in any case there is reasonable proof of informed consent with the ability to make that choice.

However, I think it's ridiculous and disgusting to state that someone "shouldn't" have been born. The circumstances of a human's birth are never completely fair. It's not fair I was born in the first world to high-school educated parents when there are many people who will never have those opportunities. It's not fair that Paris Hilton (or any of the less-publicized heirs) is in her situation, able to exploit a massive amount of privileged with virtually no responsibility. And it's not fair that many babies even in the first world are born in to homelessness and drug addiction.

And yes, there are measures that can be taken to make things more fair, to give people more equal opportunities, and create a world where those sorts of lineal privileged have less influence. But right now, this is how the world is. The world is an ambiguous place, and people do make wonders out of situations many would say "shouldn't" happen. And once a human being is aware, they have agency, they have a life, and it's far, far beyond our scope to say they "shouldn't" have been born.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

You're right, it is difficult to tell, but not impossible. Perhaps I should clarify, aborting is only permissible if you KNOW the child will be unhappy and miserable. Otherwise, its a risk you have to take.

It is impossible to tell. If happiness is your metric and this is your premise, the logically, no abortions should occur.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by DerekB

By the same logic, if a man is the one who has the job, he should have sole discretion over how money is allocated. The woman has no say, since he is the one who has the job. Yet I have never met, nor do I expect I ever will, a woman who would be anything less than furious at this idea. Is it not, than, hypocritical to say that its the woman who has the baby so its her choice alone?

That's an insane way to run a relationship. It essentially makes the woman the property of the man, or vice versa in cases where it's the woman who works. Couples should make decisions as partners and if one or both of them is too immature to handle that responsibility there's no relationship. You end up with a pet, not a lover.

A woman that's carrying a child is in a very different situation. Its her body and she has to bear all the trials and tribulations that come with bringing a fetus to term. If something ever happens to her partner she has to be prepared to raise it alone. If one or both of them are unable to work at some point, they need to have a backup plan.

Of the two, she's more likely to get stuck going it alone so it makes sense for her to have veto power.

You're not even comparing apples and oranges here, it's more like oranges and carburetors. That's not even delving into the implied sexism of your stance.

[Agota]

Originally Posted by Cado

That's an insane way to run a relationship. It essentially makes the woman the property of the man, or vice versa in cases where it's the woman who works. Couples should make decisions as partners and if one or both of them is too immature to handle that responsibility there's no relationship. You end up with a pet, not a lover.

A woman that's carrying a child is in a very different situation. Its her body and she has to bear all the trials and tribulations that come with bringing a fetus to term. If something ever happens to her partner, she has to be prepared to raise it alone. If one or both of them are unable to work at some point, they need to have a backup plan.

Of the two, she's more likely to get stuck with going it alone so it makes sense for her to have veto power.

You're not even comparing apples and oranges here, it's more like oranges and carburetors. That's not even delving into the implied sexism of your stance.

Exactly.

It's refreshing to see a lucid perspective on the topic coming from a man's point of view.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Alright then. Where do you get the idea that a fetus is a person? As the graphic I posted illustrated, just because something has the potential to become another thing, does not mean it is that. And where does its personhood start? Conception?

I don't understand why it's considered a bad standard to say, "if it can't exist outside the womb it's not a person yet." I'm not entirely consistent with that because I think there should be limits on abortions-it shouldn't be permissible after, say, the three month mark-but I admit that's fairly arbitrary and I don't know that you can make any kind of objective argument which says terminating the fetus prior to its natural birth is wrong. (Which is a poor choice of terms anyway because I don't believe in objective morality, but it's the closest approximation to what I mean.)

I think I'm working, unconsciously and otherwise, off the notion that the less that's invested into a newborn life the less of a loss it is when it doesn't cross the threshold into full-on personhood. I flush countless sperm out of my body every day whether I masturbate or I don't and they're not people; why should I care? And why should I care when an egg is fertilized? That's just one step removed from its original state.

For me, it's not a question of, "when is it alive?" because that requires a very narrow definition of life. If we want to get technical mold is alive, just not the same way as a human being. To me, the question is where do we draw the line and say this baby will come to term regardless of what the parents want? When does a fetus become a being with rights?

The point of birth is clear and logical and that's a good place to put an absolute standard, if you will, but can or should we put it any further back? What's truly reprehensible and what has our society simply agreed upon?

I suspect there won't be an answer until we see further advances in neuroscience.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Um...no! It's your opinion...and that's all.

A baby is a baby...an egg is an egg, and a foetus is a tiny tiny creature that is not even a formed baby. I don't get why people won't recognize that.

Oh, and you seem to take offense very easily to things people say which aren't even that offensive. Just an observation.

Noob stands for new person...which is what you are. Maybe you need to take your own advice and get over it?

You didn't attack me, nor did I say you did. But you agreed with the person who did.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Alright then. Where do you get the idea that a fetus is a person? As the graphic I posted illustrated, just because something has the potential to become another thing, does not mean it is that. And where does its personhood start? Conception?

I think assisted suicide should be legal in any case there is reasonable proof of informed consent with the ability to make that choice.

However, I think it's ridiculous and disgusting to state that someone "shouldn't" have been born. The circumstances of a human's birth are never completely fair. It's not fair I was born in the first world to high-school educated parents when there are many people who will never have those opportunities. It's not fair that Paris Hilton (or any of the less-publicized heirs) is in her situation, able to exploit a massive amount of privileged with virtually no responsibility. And it's not fair that many babies even in the first world are born in to homelessness and drug addiction.

And yes, there are measures that can be taken to make things more fair, to give people more equal opportunities, and create a world where those sorts of lineal privileged have less influence. But right now, this is how the world is. The world is an ambiguous place, and people do make wonders out of situations many would say "shouldn't" happen. And once a human being is aware, they have agency, they have a life, and it's far, far beyond our scope to say they "shouldn't" have been born.

If you cannot be sure one way or another when personhood starts, why would you not err on the side of caution and avoid murdering a person if you're wrong? The world isn't fair, but that isn't relevant. Socioeconomic status cannot be used as a justification for the taking of human life.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Cado

I don't understand why it's considered a bad standard to say, "if it can't exist outside the womb it's not a person yet." I'm not entirely consistent with that because I think there should be limits on abortions-it shouldn't be permissible after, say, the three month mark-but I admit that's fairly arbitrary and I don't know that you can make any kind of objective argument which says terminating the fetus prior to its natural birth is wrong. (Which is a poor choice of terms anyway because I don't believe in objective morality, but it's the closest approximation to what I mean.)

I think I'm working, unconsciously and otherwise, off the notion that the less that's invested into a newborn life the less of a loss it is when it doesn't cross the threshold into full-on personhood. I flush countless sperm out of my body every day whether I masturbate or I don't and they're not people; why should I care? And why should I care when an egg is fertilized? That's just one step removed from its original state.

For me, it's not a question of, "when is it alive?" because that requires a very narrow definition of life. If we want to get technical mold is alive, just not the same way as a human being. To me, the question is where do we draw the line and say this baby will come to term regardless of what the parents want? When does a fetus become a being with rights?

The point of birth is clear and logical and that's a good place to put an absolute standard, if you will, but can or should we put it any further back? What's truly reprehensible and what has our society simply agreed upon?

I suspect there won't be an answer until we see further advances in neuroscience.

It's a bad standard because its no less arbitrary than saying three months. Why? It isn't born at three months either. Heck, why not eight and a half months. If you don't know when "personhood" starts, you should not take a random guess and hope it isn't murder. You wait until the advances in neuroscience you hope for, and than you legalize abortion in certain contexts if it is supported by the science.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by DerekB

One word: Adoption. It is extremely uncomplicated, I don't understand why people keep overlooking it.

There are 7 billion people on the planet already, plenty of whom are orphaned already; you know that, right..?

[Criseyde]

The personhood argument doesn't even matter. Even if a fetus is a person -- fine, it's a person. It's still living off my body, consuming my resources. Am I a murderer if I don't donate a kidney to someone who is dying of renal failure?

Edit: "Personhood" doesn't matter because it's an ethical judgment that can vary based on how you define it. Science can't define and determine what constitutes "a person." That's not what science does. That's in the realm of philosophy.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Cado

That's an insane way to run a relationship. It essentially makes the woman the property of the man, or vice versa in cases where it's the woman who works. Couples should make decisions as partners and if one or both of them is too immature to handle that responsibility there's no relationship. You end up with a pet, not a lover.

A woman that's carrying a child is in a very different situation. Its her body and she has to bear all the trials and tribulations that come with bringing a fetus to term. If something ever happens to her partner she has to be prepared to raise it alone. If one or both of them are unable to work at some point, they need to have a backup plan.

Of the two, she's more likely to get stuck going it alone so it makes sense for her to have veto power.

You're not even comparing apples and oranges here, it's more like oranges and carburetors. That's not even delving into the implied sexism of your stance.

You're right, it IS an insane way to run a relationship. Thank you for agreeing with me.

"A woman that's carrying a child is in a very different situation. Its her body and she has to bear all the trials and tribulations that come with bringing a fetus to term." - Its the man's body thats going to work every day. He is the one that has to bear all of the trials and tribulations that come with having a career.

"If something ever happens to her partner she has to be prepared to raise it alone." - And by the same logic, if something happens to the woman, the man has to. This argument makes no sense.

"Of the two, she's more likely to get stuck going it alone so it makes sense for her to have veto power." - Nobody is ever stuck going it alone. You can put a baby up for adoption. Even an orphanage if that isn't an option.

"You're not even comparing apples and oranges here, it's more like oranges and carburetors. That's not even delving into the implied sexism of your stance" - There isn't any sexism in my stance. That is because I gave an analogy to illustrate the sexism of saying that its the woman's choice alone. Its absurd, and I was paralleling that absurdity with the view of the man earning all the money. Read my posts instead of skimming if your going to call me a sexist. Also, I fail to see the profound difference you seem to think is present between my analogy and the thread's subject. Could you elaborate on why it is the equivalent of comparing car parts to fruit?

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

There are 7 billion people on the planet already, plenty of whom are orphaned already; you know that, right..?

I'm well aware. But believe it or not, there isn't a quota of how many orphans there can be. The world won't explode if we add one orphan to it. Or even two, for that matter. You know that, right...?

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by DerekB

I'm well aware. But believe it or not, there isn't a quota of how many orphans there can be. The world won't explode if we add one orphan to it. Or even two, for that matter. You know that, right...?

What if we outlaw abortion and add 1.37 million orphans to it every year?

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

The personhood argument doesn't even matter. Even if a fetus is a person -- fine, it's a person. It's still living off my body, consuming my resources. Am I a murderer if I don't donate a kidney to someone who is dying of renal failure?

Edit: "Personhood" doesn't matter because it's an ethical judgment that can vary based on how you define it. Science can't define and determine what constitutes "a person." That's not what science does. That's in the realm of philosophy.

Your analogy with a kidney transplant isn't applicable. In that case, you are intervening in order to SAVE a life. In the case of an abortion, you are intervening to END a life (murder).

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by DerekB

You're right, it IS an insane way to run a relationship. Thank you for agreeing with me.

"A woman that's carrying a child is in a very different situation. Its her body and she has to bear all the trials and tribulations that come with bringing a fetus to term." - Its the man's body thats going to work every day. He is the one that has to bear all of the trials and tribulations that come with having a career.

"If something ever happens to her partner she has to be prepared to raise it alone." - And by the same logic, if something happens to the woman, the man has to. This argument makes no sense.

"Of the two, she's more likely to get stuck going it alone so it makes sense for her to have veto power." - Nobody is ever stuck going it alone. You can put a baby up for adoption. Even an orphanage if that isn't an option.

"You're not even comparing apples and oranges here, it's more like oranges and carburetors. That's not even delving into the implied sexism of your stance" - There isn't any sexism in my stance. That is because I gave an analogy to illustrate the sexism of saying that its the woman's choice alone. Its absurd, and I was paralleling that absurdity with the view of the man earning all the money. Read my posts instead of skimming if your going to call me a sexist. Also, I fail to see the profound difference you seem to think is present between my analogy and the thread's subject. Could you elaborate on why it is the equivalent of comparing car parts to fruit?

A better comparison would be a man who has a job, and a woman who hasn't, and the guy wants to quit his job.

Of course, the polite thing would be to discuss this with the partner. But even if the partner disagrees, it ultimately is still the person who works, their decision.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Your analogy with a kidney transplant isn't applicable. In that case, you are intervening in order to SAVE a life. In the case of an abortion, you are intervening to END a life (murder).

I see it more as the life is dependent on my organs, therefore it's subject to what I want and need.

[Agota]

I don't think that people here are saying that it's a woman's choice alone. Obviously, if you're in a relationship with baby's father (or even if you aren't), letting him know and listening to what he has to say is the right thing to do. I do believe that women should hear men out on this subject, since it's their baby as well, but they can hear them out, disagree with them and get an abortion (or to raise a baby). The point is that the ultimate decision belongs to a woman, because it's her body we're talking about. It would be absurd for men to expect to have the final say in this, which seems to be what you're getting at. In case you're not saying that men should have a final say in this, then accept that women can hear men out and still make their own decision, because final word belongs to them.

[Agota]

Your oversimplification of giving a baby away for adoption simply shows that you don't really understand the issues related to pregnancy, especially unwanted one. There are many women who would be slut shamed and shunned from her community. There are many women who would simply end up being kicked out to the street. In less extreme cases, to give birth to a child requires to carry it successfully for nine months. There are many women who simply don't have financial means to do that. As I said, in an extreme case I'd try to do my best to carry the baby, give birth to it and give it away for adoption. However, this doesn't give me any right to judge women who are in completely different circumstances. I suggest you to try to understand the perspective of other people before judging them. It's really strange to me when people express compassion towards few cells combined together (and yes, I do believe that it's a baby already in some sense), yet show no compassion whatsoever to women who are in the situation where they have to consider an abortion.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I see it more as the life is dependent on my organs, therefore it's subject to what I want and need.

It isnt. In one case the natural course is for the person's life to end, and barring external interference it will. In the other case the natural course is for the person's life to continue on for many years, and barring external interference it will. You don't have to save somebody, but killing them is completely different.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Agota

I don't think that people here are saying that it's a woman's choice alone. Obviously, if you're in a relationship with baby's father (or even if you aren't), letting him know and listening to what he has to say is the right thing to do. I do believe that women should hear men out on this subject, since it's their baby as well, but they can hear them out, disagree with them and get an abortion (or to raise a baby). The point is that the ultimate decision belongs to a woman, because it's her body we're talking about. It would be absurd for men to expect to have the final say in this, which seems to be what you're getting at. In case you're not saying that men should have a final say in this, then accept that women can hear men out and still make their own decision, because final word belongs to them.

I don't think its the final decision of either of them. The child is no less one's than the other. If they both can't agree, than one doesn't have the right to force the other to watch as their child's life is cut short. I do not accept that the woman has sole and absolute authority.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by DerekB

You're right, it IS an insane way to run a relationship. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I don't agree with you. At all. You've twisted my words big time to make it look like that.

"A woman that's carrying a child is in a very different situation. Its her body and she has to bear all the trials and tribulations that come with bringing a fetus to term." - Its the man's body thats going to work every day. He is the one that has to bear all of the trials and tribulations that come with having a career.

That's not even on the same level. Listen, if your job is so bad you'd compare it to carrying a child and giving birth, find a new $%#damn job. I can tell through observation alone that nine months of work isn't nearly as exhausting and painful as pregnancy.

Plus, this completely ignores the fact that a non-working lover can provide lots of value to their home which makes them a worthy and equal partner in all matters, including financial. If one person comes to a different conclusion and basically claims that they own the other person whenever they're not working it's only going to breed resentment. Plus, it has inherently sexist undertones (men owning women goes a long way back, to the point where marriage has often been seen as property changing hands) and makes your argument sound even worse than it already is.

"If something ever happens to her partner she has to be prepared to raise it alone." - And by the same logic, if something happens to the woman, the man has to. This argument makes no sense.

Yes it does. You'll note that I said they are more likely to end up going it alone if only for the simple reason that it's much easier for the man to walk while they're pregnant. A lot of men will balk at the idea of the woman getting an abortion and then leave her anyway.

Leaving that out of the picture, I would say that having a child is such a huge responsibility that if a couple is handling it as equal partners with equal say, an abortion should be the default if either one of them isn't ready or willing to take on that responsibility because it will cause an incredible amount of strain to go forward with it and it's entirely possible neither their relationship or their financial situation would weather the change.

All of that-all of it-is trumped by the simple fact that no one gets to tell someone else what they do with their body. That is the end of the discussion. If I were in a hypothetical situation where my partner wanted to get an abortion but I wasn't in favor of it, I'd be free to walk but I would have no right to stop her. I have invested significantly less at that point that she has or she will and regardless of how much I'd give once the child was born it's not my place to say whether it will be.

"Of the two, she's more likely to get stuck going it alone so it makes sense for her to have veto power." - Nobody is ever stuck going it alone. You can put a baby up for adoption. Even an orphanage if that isn't an option.

It's an option in the sense that you can do it, the problem is it doesn't work. Lots of kids are already getting lost in the system, and people generally don't want to adopt older kids. The older the kid, the more likely it is that they'll be left to rot until adulthood. We have more people than we can care for and you're telling me we should put more strain on the system? That is inhuman. That would practically guarantee that we'd have mass deaths due to poverty, disease, and starvation. I'd rather have forms of voluntary population control like abortion instead of letting that scenario play out.

"You're not even comparing apples and oranges here, it's more like oranges and carburetors. That's not even delving into the implied sexism of your stance" - There isn't any sexism in my stance. That is because I gave an analogy to illustrate the sexism of saying that its the woman's choice alone. Its absurd, and I was paralleling that absurdity with the view of the man earning all the money. Read my posts instead of skimming if your going to call me a sexist. Also, I fail to see the profound difference you seem to think is present between my analogy and the thread's subject. Could you elaborate on why it is the equivalent of comparing car parts to fruit?

Listen dude, if you don't get it you won't. To be frank, I find the things you've said here to be absolutely disgusting and it's taking a lot of restraint on my part to be at all civil with you. I'm going to bow out at this point to cool down.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by DerekB

It isnt. In one case the natural course is for the person's life to end, and barring external interference it will. In the other case the natural course is for the person's life to continue on for many years, and barring external interference it will. You don't have to save somebody, but killing them is completely different.

So... by this logic, once the baby is born, I could just abandon it somewhere and that would be fine?

The "natural course" as you put it is highly, highly dependent on constant care and resources that have to continue for years. Caring for a newborn is an around-the-clock job. When would someone be able to survive with no input from anyone else? 16 years, give or take a couple, probably...

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

If you cannot be sure one way or another when personhood starts, why would you not err on the side of caution and avoid murdering a person if you're wrong? The world isn't fair, but that isn't relevant. Socioeconomic status cannot be used as a justification for the taking of human life.

Socioeconomic status was an example of unfairness--to refute the idea that someone with disabilities 'shouldn't' be born. That's not up to you to judge.

Okay, here's how we can answer when personhood starts: What makes something a person? What qualities does it have to have for society to give it rights and have ethical obligations to it?

Originally Posted by DerekB

It isnt. In one case the natural course is for the person's life to end, and barring external interference it will. In the other case the natural course is for the person's life to continue on for many years, and barring external interference it will. You don't have to save somebody, but killing them is completely different.

It's the same exact result. Why does 'natural'= moral in your mind? You haven't backed that up!

[Agota]

So the fact that she is the one who will carry the baby for nine months going through the all the joys of pregnancy, like morning sickness and pain, and then will give a birth to a child which is generally very painful doesn't give her an upper hand, is that correct?

You think that men and women are completely equal in the sense of giving birth to a child, considering that all men have to contribute is have sex with a woman, which is pleasant experience, meanwhile a woman, although she also has sex which is hopefully pleasant experience for her, also has to carry a baby for nine months with all the difficulties involved and then give birth to a child, which is painful and might go on for hours and hours? Don't you think it's a bit unfair to say that men and women are equal in this regard? Or, to put it more bluntly, a bit absurd, because we are comparing having sex once while enjoying it (which probably doesn't last THAT long anyway) with nine months of pregnancy and giving birth?

You do think that you have a final say: you think that you have a right to say that woman shouldn't have an abortion because it's not acceptable to you and that you have more right to decide what she should do with her body than the woman herself does, is that correct?

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Cado

I don't agree with you. At all. You've twisted my words big time to make it look like that.



That's not even on the same level. Listen, if your job is so bad you'd compare it to carrying a child and giving birth, find a new $%#damn job. I can tell through observation alone that nine months of work isn't nearly as exhausting and painful as pregnancy.

Plus, this completely ignores the fact that a non-working lover can provide lots of value to their home which makes them a worthy and equal partner in all matters, including financial. If one person comes to a different conclusion and basically claims that they own the other person whenever they're not working it's only going to breed resentment. Plus, it has inherently sexist undertones (men owning women goes a long way back, to the point where marriage has often been seen as property changing hands) and makes your argument sound even worse than it already is.



Yes it does. You'll note that I said they are more likely to end up going it alone if only for the simple reason that it's much easier for the man to walk while they're pregnant. A lot of men will balk at the idea of the woman getting an abortion and then leave her anyway.

Leaving that out of the picture, I would say that having a child is such a huge responsibility that if a couple is handling it as equal partners with equal say, an abortion should be the default if either one of them isn't ready or willing to take on that responsibility because it will cause an incredible amount of strain to go forward with it and it's entirely possible neither their relationship or their financial situation would weather the change.

All of that-all of it-is trumped by the simple fact that no one gets to tell someone else what they do with their body. That is the end of the discussion. If I were in a hypothetical situation where my partner wanted to get an abortion but I wasn't in favor of it, I'd be free to walk but I would have no right to stop her. I have invested significantly less at that point that she has or she will and regardless of how much I'd give once the child was born it's not my place to say whether it will be.



It's an option in the sense that you can do it, the problem is it doesn't work. Lots of kids are already getting lost in the system, and people generally don't want to adopt older kids. The older the kid, the more likely it is that they'll be left to rot until adulthood. We have more people than we can care for and you're telling me we should put more strain on the system? That is inhuman. That would practically guarantee that we'd have mass deaths due to poverty, disease, and starvation. I'd rather have forms of voluntary population control like abortion instead of letting that scenario play out.



Listen dude, if you don't get it you won't. To be frank, I find the things you've said here to be absolutely disgusting and it's taking a lot of restraint on my part to be at all civil with you. I'm going to bow out at this point to cool down.

I don't think you understand what I wrote or the intent behind it. Once you've cooled down, please re-read the posts prior to mine and then mine. At no point do I say anything sexist. I gave an example of the man working because that is generally the way it is, whether you want to admit it or not. I did not say women couldn't shouldn't, or don't work. You aren't being civil at all, your making egregious claims about what I've said, not providing adequate explanations to support said claims, and then you run away rather than deal with it.

"All of that-all of it-is trumped by the simple fact that no one gets to tell someone else what they do with their body. That is the end of the discussion." - You're right, thanks for agreeing with me again! Because nobody has the right to tell a child that they don't have a right to a body period, never mind control of it.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by DerekB

I don't think you understand what I wrote or the intent behind it. Once you've cooled down, please re-read the posts prior to mine and then mine. At no point do I say anything sexist. I gave an example of the man working because that is generally the way it is, whether you want to admit it or not. I did not say women couldn't shouldn't, or don't work. You aren't being civil at all, your making egregious claims about what I've said, not providing adequate explanations to support said claims, and then you run away rather than deal with it.

That's not true, most households are two-income at this point. Only 7% of married couples still have the man is breadwinner, woman is homemaker arrangement.

Also, where did you get the idea that staying home and raising kids isn't work?

"All of that-all of it-is trumped by the simple fact that no one gets to tell someone else what they do with their body. That is the end of the discussion." - You're right, thanks for agreeing with me again! Because nobody has the right to tell a child that they don't have a right to a body period, never mind control of it.

Now that is some word twisting.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

"All of that-all of it-is trumped by the simple fact that no one gets to tell someone else what they do with their body. That is the end of the discussion." - You're right, thanks for agreeing with me again! Because nobody has the right to tell a child that they don't have a right to a body period, never mind control of it.

A child? Yes. A fetus is not a child. Tell me what makes you think a fetus is a person, and at what point (nuance and unsureness is fine, just say why and what qualities make them such). Otherwise, I'll take that as a concession that you have no argument.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Agota

So the fact that she is the one who will carry the baby for nine months going through the all the joys of pregnancy, like morning sickness and pain, and then will give a birth to a child which is generally very painful doesn't give her an upper hand, is that correct?

You think that men and women are completely equal in the sense of giving birth to a child, considering that all men have to contribute is have sex with a woman, which is pleasant experience, meanwhile a woman, although she also has sex which is hopefully pleasant experience for her, also has to carry a baby for nine months with all the difficulties involved and then give birth to a child, which is painful and might go on for hours and hours? Don't you think it's a bit unfair to say that men and women are equal in this regard? Or, to put it more bluntly, a bit absurd, because we are comparing having sex once while enjoying it (which probably doesn't last THAT long anyway) with nine months of pregnancy and giving birth?

You do think that you have a final say: you think that you have a right to say that woman shouldn't have an abortion because it's not acceptable to you and that you have more right to decide what she should do with her body than the woman herself does, is that correct?

I think that since genetically that child is 50% mine and 50% hers, I absolutely have the right to tell her she cannot kill it. Do you think its fair to the baby to tell it that because the woman doesn't want to deal with it, it has to die?

Here's a thought experiment for you: Lets say a woman is pregnant. She has all of the ups and downs and sicknesses and mood swings that come with it. Now lets say that instead of having a baby at the end of the nine months + labor process, the nine months + labor process are a kind of life support system for somebody already born, a teenager. The teenager didn't ask to be a part of this system, but for whatever reason he is now in this situation. If the woman carries the pregnancy to term and "delivers" the teenager will live and have a healthy normal life. If she doesn't, the teenager will die as soon as she "aborts". Are you saying that she has the right to abort because it is more convenient for her than dealing with pregnancy for nine months?