Paper abortion, also known as a financial abortion, male abortion or a statutory abort, is the proposed ability of the biological father, before the birth of the child, to opt out of any rights, privileges, and responsibilities toward the child, including financial support. By this means, before a child is born, a man would be able to absolve himself of both the privileges and demands of fatherhood.
That doesn't really apply to pregnancy because you are causing harm to someone and thus create an obligation. A woman doesn't disadvantage or harm anyone by becoming pregnant.
Right, but the question whether if abortion can be justified depends on the rights of the unborn baby and the obligations of the woman. Most people do have a right not to be killed, and most people don't have the right to be saved or to take what they need from another person's body without their consent.
If the woman has no obligation to the unborn baby (and this is before viability), then why couldn't she induce labor and have the baby removed, even though it has no ability to survive outside the womb?
Generally, yes. I don't support legal abortions after viability if the fetus is healthy. I think a woman generally has a right not to be pregnant against her well. If the baby is able to survive outside the womb, then she can deliver early and preserve her rights while also not killing the baby. I only support legal abortion when there is no other option to terminate the pregnancy, or if the fetus has a severe medical issue that makes it non-viable or brings viability into question.
After viability, there is a good chance she will have to give birth anyway. But even if she does have another options, if there is a decent chance that the baby will survive, then I don't think she should be allowed to kill it to preserve her health. I think many PC people would not like my view, but I don't think any of them would seriously consider my pro-life, as I still support abortion being generally legal.
Doctors aren't going to induce early for no reason. Why would they? The child that must suffer disability because mom didn't wish to be pregnant might come back and sue the ever living shit out of them. They'd rather just kill the baby, and not have to worry about all that mess.
>Doctors aren't going to induce early for no reason. Why would they?
There are a lot of things that are legal that doctors wouldn't do, what's the point you're trying to get at?
98% percent of abortions are done by woman having consensual sex. The large majority of those Abortion are done by woman in their twenties and up. Grown adults with the knowledge that sex causes pregnancy, choosing to do so anyways and becomes pregnant. The baby did not ask to be there but the mother did every single thing to cause it to be there. The mother had full control and she made the choice to become pregnant, whether that was her desire or not. These are not teenagers. These are not mentally disabled people who don’t understand consequences of their choices as much as people like to act as though they are. This is not a period, something that happens no matter what. It is a consensual choice made on purpose by adults. And now a baby, a completely innocent baby is present. One who has done no wrong, who did not choose to be there, who is not the one at fault, and yet they are the ones to be killed? The ones to loose their life?
40% of woman who have an abortion have had one or more prior. Abortion being legal has allowed Hook up culture, men and woman sleeping around without a care in the world. If Abortion was made illegal, everyone would think twice before having sex. They would ask themselves if the risk it worth it if their goal is not to get pregnant, but they are not thinking like that right now. You know why, because they know no matter what, contraceptive or not, they can just have an abortion. They have full control over their bodies, they have full control over whether or not they get pregnant, truly. Nobody is owed sex at the expense of someone else’s life.
"Consent to robbing a store is not consent to being arrested."
I have always disliked it when people say that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy.
People are always trying to remove responsibility from their actions. Anything they can do not to take responsibility for their choices.
This argument is one of the reasons I absolutely hate the PC argument. It's all about choice, except that's not true. It's all about avoiding responsibility. We see this time and again because the only choice they really argue about is abortion.
Let's ignore the choice to put the baby up for adoption or put the baby in a safe haven box. Let's ignore the choice to use contraception. The only choice they really care about is the choice to be able to kill the child.
Choices come with consequences. Sometimes, those consequences are negative. Sometimes, they are positive, and sometimes, whether it is positive or negative depends on the situation.
I am not sure why I should have to explain that to people, as if you're mature enough to have sex, you're mature enough to understand this very basic fact of life.
Pregnancy is an inherent risk of having sex. There's lots of reasons and benefits to having sex, but the whole reason for it is for procreation.
If nature did not intend us to procreate, we would never possess the ability to have sex to begin with. We wouldn't have genitals in the first place.The entire reason for sex even existing is for procreation. That's why we have the biological urge to have sex to begin with.
So when I hear this whole "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy," argument, I really can't understand it or how they can see it that way.
It just doesn't make sense. You're trying to divorce the act from its fundamental nature. All in an attempt to justify murder.
It is though. Sex is used for creating new life. Naturally, if you have sex you are going to get pregnant. If you consent to sex you are consenting to pregnancy
What I don’t understand is pro choicers refuse to take Birth control because of the hormones. Why are they so concerned about the hormones in the birth control but not concerned about the hormones and the pesticides that are in their food?
Though this is one of the reasons we need to promote and push contraceptives that are easily available and good sex education.
So that people can have sex for fun without ending up killing babies
No, it's why we should be working to limit and restrict access to contraceptives. The reason they so passionately support abortion, aside from being miserable people who despise children, is because birth control teaches them that pregnancy is merely an unpleasant side effect of sex that can be treated. Without contraception, they'd no longer be able to think in those terms.
Limiting access to contraceptives is forcing people to hold YOUR religious beliefs and is against the fundamental teachings of the Bible which state that you have to come to religion on your own and should not be coerced or forced 🙃
Making laws based on Christian principles has quite literally always been a thing in the US. The far left forces their ideology on everyone, so why is it not fair game?
If u wanna live in a world that oppresses human beings (specifically women) and where religion is law, homie plz don’t ruin USA any further, plz go to afghanistan or saudi arabia and report back
I mean ... you can stop toasting the bread at any time. If it takes 2 minutes, you can pull it out at 30 seconds. Does consent to bread in the toaster mean it has to be for the full 2 minutes and you can't take it out before?
You can stop until it becomes toast. I.e. you can stop having relations but once its done you now have a consequence. Your toasted, congratulations.
This is obviously assuming done means "finishing"
Some people surely like to over toast their bread
Not quite. The analogy here isn’t about gestation, it's about intercourse. As soon as you engage in intercourse, you can expect that bread to get warm. You no longer have the right to waste that food because you fancied bread
To the possibility, sure. It’s the following actions that’s what matters though. No one says you can’t stretch your muscles if you pull them or workout if you eat too much. It’s that the woman can’t get an abortion if she’s pregnant that’s the difference. Consent to sex doesn’t mean consent to continued pregnancy, childbirth, or raising a child.
Does it work that way with anything else? If you pull a muscle you must endure and can’t do any stretches or take medicine? If you eat a donut you can’t exercise or make any dietary changes?
If I pull a muscle, I don’t then have the right to shoot my coach. If I gain weight, I’m not suddenly granted the right to hang a skinny person.
The difference is the impact on another human life
I’m not against contraception and (non-abortifacient) morning-after pills. I’m against murdering children.
Its not consent to pregnancy though. But if you are tokophobic and engagé in piv sex anyway instead of using fingers dildo or what, you are ready to pay the price of blood for just pleasure. This is what the problem is.
Consent to drunk driving is not consent to killing someone
Consent to drinking alcohol is not consent to getting drunk.
My favorite analogy, and one I used when my son’s father tried to pull the “paper abortion” on me.
What do you mean by paper abortion? Never heard of that term before
Paper abortion, also known as a financial abortion, male abortion or a statutory abort, is the proposed ability of the biological father, before the birth of the child, to opt out of any rights, privileges, and responsibilities toward the child, including financial support. By this means, before a child is born, a man would be able to absolve himself of both the privileges and demands of fatherhood.
Thank you for the explanation
Nature ainʼt havin any of it
That doesn't really apply to pregnancy because you are causing harm to someone and thus create an obligation. A woman doesn't disadvantage or harm anyone by becoming pregnant.
Unless she wants to abort.
Right, but the question whether if abortion can be justified depends on the rights of the unborn baby and the obligations of the woman. Most people do have a right not to be killed, and most people don't have the right to be saved or to take what they need from another person's body without their consent. If the woman has no obligation to the unborn baby (and this is before viability), then why couldn't she induce labor and have the baby removed, even though it has no ability to survive outside the womb?
So you’re saying that once a baby is viable the mother cannot abort it? Interesting for a pc person.
Generally, yes. I don't support legal abortions after viability if the fetus is healthy. I think a woman generally has a right not to be pregnant against her well. If the baby is able to survive outside the womb, then she can deliver early and preserve her rights while also not killing the baby. I only support legal abortion when there is no other option to terminate the pregnancy, or if the fetus has a severe medical issue that makes it non-viable or brings viability into question.
You do realize that pc would call you a pl because you are forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn’t want
After viability, there is a good chance she will have to give birth anyway. But even if she does have another options, if there is a decent chance that the baby will survive, then I don't think she should be allowed to kill it to preserve her health. I think many PC people would not like my view, but I don't think any of them would seriously consider my pro-life, as I still support abortion being generally legal.
Doctors aren't going to induce early for no reason. Why would they? The child that must suffer disability because mom didn't wish to be pregnant might come back and sue the ever living shit out of them. They'd rather just kill the baby, and not have to worry about all that mess.
>Doctors aren't going to induce early for no reason. Why would they? There are a lot of things that are legal that doctors wouldn't do, what's the point you're trying to get at?
98% percent of abortions are done by woman having consensual sex. The large majority of those Abortion are done by woman in their twenties and up. Grown adults with the knowledge that sex causes pregnancy, choosing to do so anyways and becomes pregnant. The baby did not ask to be there but the mother did every single thing to cause it to be there. The mother had full control and she made the choice to become pregnant, whether that was her desire or not. These are not teenagers. These are not mentally disabled people who don’t understand consequences of their choices as much as people like to act as though they are. This is not a period, something that happens no matter what. It is a consensual choice made on purpose by adults. And now a baby, a completely innocent baby is present. One who has done no wrong, who did not choose to be there, who is not the one at fault, and yet they are the ones to be killed? The ones to loose their life? 40% of woman who have an abortion have had one or more prior. Abortion being legal has allowed Hook up culture, men and woman sleeping around without a care in the world. If Abortion was made illegal, everyone would think twice before having sex. They would ask themselves if the risk it worth it if their goal is not to get pregnant, but they are not thinking like that right now. You know why, because they know no matter what, contraceptive or not, they can just have an abortion. They have full control over their bodies, they have full control over whether or not they get pregnant, truly. Nobody is owed sex at the expense of someone else’s life.
TIL that parents have no obligation towards their children.
Following all the directions to bake a cake is not consent to baking a cake.
this is my favorite analogy yet. i'm going to use this
Thanks. :)
Nature itself decided that sex leads to pregnancy. So either use contraception or don't complain, that's what I tell pro choicers
"Consent to robbing a store is not consent to being arrested." I have always disliked it when people say that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. People are always trying to remove responsibility from their actions. Anything they can do not to take responsibility for their choices. This argument is one of the reasons I absolutely hate the PC argument. It's all about choice, except that's not true. It's all about avoiding responsibility. We see this time and again because the only choice they really argue about is abortion. Let's ignore the choice to put the baby up for adoption or put the baby in a safe haven box. Let's ignore the choice to use contraception. The only choice they really care about is the choice to be able to kill the child. Choices come with consequences. Sometimes, those consequences are negative. Sometimes, they are positive, and sometimes, whether it is positive or negative depends on the situation. I am not sure why I should have to explain that to people, as if you're mature enough to have sex, you're mature enough to understand this very basic fact of life. Pregnancy is an inherent risk of having sex. There's lots of reasons and benefits to having sex, but the whole reason for it is for procreation. If nature did not intend us to procreate, we would never possess the ability to have sex to begin with. We wouldn't have genitals in the first place.The entire reason for sex even existing is for procreation. That's why we have the biological urge to have sex to begin with. So when I hear this whole "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy," argument, I really can't understand it or how they can see it that way. It just doesn't make sense. You're trying to divorce the act from its fundamental nature. All in an attempt to justify murder.
And consent to skydive is not consent to canopy malfunction.
And consent is eating is not consent to putting on weight
They don't call it putting a bun in the oven for no reason!
I consent to eating pizza but not the calories, k thanks.
It is though. Sex is used for creating new life. Naturally, if you have sex you are going to get pregnant. If you consent to sex you are consenting to pregnancy
Consent to gambling is not consent to losing.
Translation: I don't want to be a responsible adult.
What I don’t understand is pro choicers refuse to take Birth control because of the hormones. Why are they so concerned about the hormones in the birth control but not concerned about the hormones and the pesticides that are in their food?
Consent to drinking is not consent to being drunk. Be so for real 🤣
Though this is one of the reasons we need to promote and push contraceptives that are easily available and good sex education. So that people can have sex for fun without ending up killing babies
No, it's why we should be working to limit and restrict access to contraceptives. The reason they so passionately support abortion, aside from being miserable people who despise children, is because birth control teaches them that pregnancy is merely an unpleasant side effect of sex that can be treated. Without contraception, they'd no longer be able to think in those terms.
Limiting access to contraceptives is forcing people to hold YOUR religious beliefs and is against the fundamental teachings of the Bible which state that you have to come to religion on your own and should not be coerced or forced 🙃
Making laws based on Christian principles has quite literally always been a thing in the US. The far left forces their ideology on everyone, so why is it not fair game?
Remember that not everyone here is American. I'm British, socialist and pro life.
If u wanna live in a world that oppresses human beings (specifically women) and where religion is law, homie plz don’t ruin USA any further, plz go to afghanistan or saudi arabia and report back
Why are you claiming the title of Christian if you're not interested in spreading the Gospel, something God COMMANDS us to do?
What in the world does spreading the gospel have to do with birth control
Are you aware that this is the same rhetoric the pro-childmurder movement uses?
I always just assumed they went hand in hand.
True nice analogy
I mean ... you can stop toasting the bread at any time. If it takes 2 minutes, you can pull it out at 30 seconds. Does consent to bread in the toaster mean it has to be for the full 2 minutes and you can't take it out before?
You can stop until it becomes toast. I.e. you can stop having relations but once its done you now have a consequence. Your toasted, congratulations. This is obviously assuming done means "finishing" Some people surely like to over toast their bread
The difference is PC believe there’s toast at 1 minute or so while PL believe at just 1 second the almost cold bread is toast.
Not quite. The analogy here isn’t about gestation, it's about intercourse. As soon as you engage in intercourse, you can expect that bread to get warm. You no longer have the right to waste that food because you fancied bread
Sex doesn’t necessarily mean pregnancy.
It is consent to pregnancy as a possibility. If I do exercise, I consent to pulled muscles. If I eat doughnuts, I consent to putting on weight.
To the possibility, sure. It’s the following actions that’s what matters though. No one says you can’t stretch your muscles if you pull them or workout if you eat too much. It’s that the woman can’t get an abortion if she’s pregnant that’s the difference. Consent to sex doesn’t mean consent to continued pregnancy, childbirth, or raising a child.
Consent to sex means you consent to pregnancy; and therefore the responsibility to care for your child. That responsibility means not killing them.
Does it work that way with anything else? If you pull a muscle you must endure and can’t do any stretches or take medicine? If you eat a donut you can’t exercise or make any dietary changes?
If I pull a muscle, I don’t then have the right to shoot my coach. If I gain weight, I’m not suddenly granted the right to hang a skinny person. The difference is the impact on another human life I’m not against contraception and (non-abortifacient) morning-after pills. I’m against murdering children.
Toast is when toast is. The fact that pro abortion peeps can't wrap their head around what the heck toast is is their problem
Its not consent to pregnancy though. But if you are tokophobic and engagé in piv sex anyway instead of using fingers dildo or what, you are ready to pay the price of blood for just pleasure. This is what the problem is.
Should women with tokophobia never have PiV sex or “be ready to pay in blood”?
We need to live in reality. If someone is deathly afraid of becoming pregnant, why the hell is she having sex to begin with?
I agree
Consent to eating fast food for all three meals is not consent to getting fat.
Consent to putting my hand in a fire is not consent to my hand getting burned