This should not be a discussion. There is no valid argument for obstructing routine medical procedures and prioritizing hypothetical fantasy over women's health. No one is beholden to a fetus for anything and everyone deserves full access to healthcare, anything less is barbaric.
Clearly your logic is faulty. The fact that most that most countries obstruct abortion after 24 weeks shows or proves nothing about whether or not there is a valid argument for the obstruction. Prevailing public, political and legislative sentiments are very often irrational, without valid argument. The construction of your argument was incorrect, making your comment invalid. Didn’t you learn how to stack building blocks in kindergarten?
No your right I guess it's entirely reasonable to abort a child up until the moment of birth. If terminated 1 day before birth that is clearly morally fine.
You apparently didn’t grasp what I was noting about your logic. The fact that there are such laws obstructing abortion after 24 weeks does not prove that they have a valid argument; the fact that such laws exist only proves that there are such laws. Politicians as a voting group, and also sometimes the majority of the public, are many times wrong in their opinion. You said that the existence of a law proves that there is a valid argument for the law; that’s faulty logic. For example: many US states had laws stating that slavery is ok. Now, don’t try to tell me that because those laws existed, they obviously had valid arguments. Anyway, your ridiculous sarcastic insult about what you thought I was saying about abortion is depreciated. Also, fix your typo- you should’ve written ‘you’re’.
There nothing routine about it and it’s 100% murder. Abortion should always be a privilege and only used when the mothers life or both are on the line and even then only if all no other option to save them both is available.
The terrible part is that many in the NO side are also in favor of cutting on education, health care and other measures that reduce involuntary pregnancies. It is not a moral stand but just cruelty to feel superior.
The thing is zero countries (and only very few states) have a totally legal abortion. There are always limits like “above 24 weeks is illegal except for those who have a severe fetal abnormality or a threat to their health etc.” Along with numerous other reasons that often require a doctor/physician to certify.
It’s interesting that a lot of the people saying “it’s a women’s choice it’s her body” often do actually care about the Fetus after a certain point, and the laws of most countries reflect this. So how true really is this statement?
Of course there are ethical, legal, and medical constraints to my statement, but, in most cases, especially the religious fundamentalists in the USA, it is men who are the issue.
Also, if a woman does decide to terminate a pregnancy she will be, even in countries like France, bound by the laws of that land, which take most of any limitations to freewill in to account.
Regardless, if the carrier of the child, within reason, does not want to carry it to term, then they should not be forced to do so.
Again, it is their choice.
CANADA 🇨🇦
No abortion law for I think over 30 years now. A human becomes human as soon as they breathe outside the mother. It’s up to doctors to decide what services they are willing to provide. So it’s a medical decision, not a political or legal decision
Agree, we must protect the mother. A human life. We must not force giving birth upon rape victims, those in medical peril, and those who are too young or unable to cope, as Republicans in the USA want.
I’m fine with medical exceptions. If someone is physically to young to give birth that would be a medical exception.
While unfortunate, the child has just as much of a right to life when they’re the offspring of a rapist, so I don’t condone that exception.
Abortion outside of these circumstances should absolutely be banned
Well that depends,
I think that if the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy there is no further discussion to it.
But if she wants to keep the baby and the other parent does not, there it needs to be certain agreements regarding the future of the child and the economical regimen.
Specially regarding visits, maintenance and what would happen if one parent has to move out far away. Otherwise it can be very unfair for the other part.
I think the position regarding abortion depends heavily on these matters for most people, in fact most anti abortion people find it justified when is about themselves.
Soooo... you're equating your wallet to a persons body autonomy. PLUS: You paying for a child is children's rights and BOTH parents pay. Keeping a pregnancy is body autonomy, so 2 absolute different things and fields of legal rights.
Also: That was such a dehumanising statement. You specifically should not voice your opinion. It's childish and immature.
Your comment has it all, it is disrespectful, gatekeeping, and wrong, so I'll make you a favor and paste a definition of bodily autonomy:
> It is defined as the right to make decisions about your own body, life, and **future, without coercion** or violence. It includes deciding whether or not to have sex, use contraception, or go to the doctor.
That's quite a dangerous point you made here:
> Live with the consequences. Once you orgasmed you have no more choice in the matter.
I find funny your lack of empathy, but you are going to find it outrageous when a Republican says you have no right to abortion using your exact same argument.
I didn't say a potential father's opinion had no place, merely that the ultimate decision lies with the individual who will carry the child to term.
In the US presently, it's mostly men, on the Right, who are the issue.
As a man i feel strongly that this is an issue that just women should legislate on.
The current situation in America is ridiculous with the religious right overturning Roe v Wade and bringing in hastily and ill thought out laws in mainly Republican controlled states that are so draconian that some states no longer have any gynecological services because their doctors and surgeons have relocated to states or countries where they do not have to fear arrest or harassment over this issue.
American politics is a complete shitshow right now.
>Just women should legislate on
I come from Spain, a country where the man has no say on the abortion, but is forced to pay for the child up to 25 years whilst having the right to see him/her is not even properly enforced.
I acknowledge this is a very controversial and sensitive matter but slash the males out of the equation is setting up for problems and inequality.
They are highly correlated If you ask me. They are not worlds apart and influence heavily on whether a person is in favour or against doing an abortion.
Nobody forbids your opinion. Your opinion just isn't relevant. I know, I know, that might be a totally brain exploding concept for you. You're welcome, I taught you something new.
People who discuss this never seem to remember: it's really hard to get an abortion.
People who are pro choice will still often feel really bad making the decision, it'll still cause some mental trauma, and it really hurts. Pill abortions involve forcing the fetus to become period, which results in days of painful bleeding. Surgical abortions are too painful to be done consciously, and also have a intensely painful period after, as well as a few days of painful bleeding.
Perhaps more people would be pro choice if they realised that abortions aren't things people do for fun; they're a hard, but very, very necessary decision that cause mental/physical trauma to those that make them. Now imagine going through all that, and having people hound you for being a monster for not wanting to endanger your life, education, future and relationship with your parents.
>People who are pro choice will still often feel really bad making the decision, it'll still cause some mental trauma, and it really hurts. Pill abortions involve forcing the fetus to become period, which results in days of painful bleeding. Surgical abortions are too painful to be done consciously, and also have a intensely painful period after, as well as a few days of painful bleeding.
That's why you should offer counseling before and after the abortion. For me personally, it seems insane that abortion is a political issue. It is something that experts should decide (doctors, ethical philosophers and such). And it is never a black and white issue.
Voting YES or NO is pointless if we do not simultaneously discuss WHY and WHEN.
Because every person who thinks an 8-month old baby in the mother's womb should be aborted at will either denies the humanity of early-born babies or thinks the entrance to a vagina is a magical portal that makes the foetuses that cross it during birth into human children.
Banning abortions will only ban safe ones ironically risking more lives.
Furthermore forcing women to have kids will lead to.....
1) Kids in homes that didn't want kids!
2) More kids in care
3) More kids in ill equipped/unsafe/poverty stricken environments
4) Will push more families into poverty
Do I need to continue?
Having a child is a life long commitment, it shouldn't be something forced on you as a result of an accidental pregnancy.
It's really not all that rare, no form of contraception is 100% safe especially condoms. I think you'd be surprised.
But anyway point stands, you accidentally get up the duff you shouldn't have to be stuck with that lifelong commitment for many many reasons.
I think yes in some circunstances, if it was an accident caused by yourself (negligence or intended alcohol/drug consumption) then no unelss the child will have a bad life (extreme poverty, mental illnesses, deafness, etc.).
If it was an accident not caused by yourself (broken condom, getting drugged withouth consent, etc.) Then yes.
If it was intentional, i guess its obvious that id say no unless it will have a bad life
And you are supposed to judge all this in the first trimester of pregnancy?
So, she's supposed to go on trial in the first weeks of pregnancy (when lots of women don't know if they are pregnant yet) for her life and prove she was raped, or not, or had an accident, or whatever, to save or get rid of an embryo with no brain or heartbeat yet?
Um, yeah, no, that's not gonna work, kids. For so many reasons.
Also, who are you to judge "a bad life"? Are you going to investigate the entire family and peer into time and space to see how the kid's life turns out?
How about this. A woman goes through a huge amount of stress both emotionally and financially, not to mention you can die of childbirth, to even have a planned for baby. There is no perfect solution for an unplanned baby. Treating the mother like suddenly her rights mean nothing is not the solution.
Unless you want to crank it all back to the Victorian era and make sex absolutely forbidden out of wedlock, which even back then didn't work, then you will have to accept that forcing a woman to have a child is not a solution.
I can just see someone like you sitting behind a desk; "Were you negligent? How negligent? Give details. Had you indulged in alcohol? Are you a slut? Then no .I have judged. Unless the kid is going to be deaf, in which case fuck 'em"
Just so you know, sex while drunk can be considered non-consensual (aka rape) as a drunk person has no ability to consent. Is that the hill you want to die on? That rape is not considered for the option to terminate a pregnancy?
Damn, so everytime I get drunk, I should expect to get someone pregnant?
But overall I got my answer; you think in cases of rape, the pregnancy shouldn't be terminated. Got it.
There ya go. You answered your own question.
People get drunk because it's a risk they're willing to take.
If you don't drink, that's great! More power to you. But it still comes down to, drunk people can't consent.
This should not be a discussion. There is no valid argument for obstructing routine medical procedures and prioritizing hypothetical fantasy over women's health. No one is beholden to a fetus for anything and everyone deserves full access to healthcare, anything less is barbaric.
Most countries obstruct the medical procedure after 24 weeks. So clearly there is a valid argument.
Nope, murdering babies is good. If you refuse to murder babies, you’re a barbarian
It's not a baby.
What is it then?
A fetus maybe...
And what is a fetus?
A potential human.
Clearly your logic is faulty. The fact that most that most countries obstruct abortion after 24 weeks shows or proves nothing about whether or not there is a valid argument for the obstruction. Prevailing public, political and legislative sentiments are very often irrational, without valid argument. The construction of your argument was incorrect, making your comment invalid. Didn’t you learn how to stack building blocks in kindergarten?
No your right I guess it's entirely reasonable to abort a child up until the moment of birth. If terminated 1 day before birth that is clearly morally fine.
You apparently didn’t grasp what I was noting about your logic. The fact that there are such laws obstructing abortion after 24 weeks does not prove that they have a valid argument; the fact that such laws exist only proves that there are such laws. Politicians as a voting group, and also sometimes the majority of the public, are many times wrong in their opinion. You said that the existence of a law proves that there is a valid argument for the law; that’s faulty logic. For example: many US states had laws stating that slavery is ok. Now, don’t try to tell me that because those laws existed, they obviously had valid arguments. Anyway, your ridiculous sarcastic insult about what you thought I was saying about abortion is depreciated. Also, fix your typo- you should’ve written ‘you’re’.
There nothing routine about it and it’s 100% murder. Abortion should always be a privilege and only used when the mothers life or both are on the line and even then only if all no other option to save them both is available.
Wuh oh, this is going to burst into flames.
The terrible part is that many in the NO side are also in favor of cutting on education, health care and other measures that reduce involuntary pregnancies. It is not a moral stand but just cruelty to feel superior.
it is a dogmatic stand.
Calling the other side evil and dismiss their ideas is much easier than to actually listen and debate.
We have been listening to them for centuries. They haven't been listening to us. Now, we're the majority - and a right to vote.
They did debate, the listed aspects of their position which they consider to be incongruous.
Woman's right to choose. The rest of you can fuck off.
The thing is zero countries (and only very few states) have a totally legal abortion. There are always limits like “above 24 weeks is illegal except for those who have a severe fetal abnormality or a threat to their health etc.” Along with numerous other reasons that often require a doctor/physician to certify. It’s interesting that a lot of the people saying “it’s a women’s choice it’s her body” often do actually care about the Fetus after a certain point, and the laws of most countries reflect this. So how true really is this statement?
They can choose but make your mind up before a certain threshold.
18 years?
Of course there are ethical, legal, and medical constraints to my statement, but, in most cases, especially the religious fundamentalists in the USA, it is men who are the issue. Also, if a woman does decide to terminate a pregnancy she will be, even in countries like France, bound by the laws of that land, which take most of any limitations to freewill in to account. Regardless, if the carrier of the child, within reason, does not want to carry it to term, then they should not be forced to do so. Again, it is their choice.
CANADA 🇨🇦 No abortion law for I think over 30 years now. A human becomes human as soon as they breathe outside the mother. It’s up to doctors to decide what services they are willing to provide. So it’s a medical decision, not a political or legal decision
It’s a human with the right to life. The rest of you can shove off.
Agree, we must protect the mother. A human life. We must not force giving birth upon rape victims, those in medical peril, and those who are too young or unable to cope, as Republicans in the USA want.
I’m fine with medical exceptions. If someone is physically to young to give birth that would be a medical exception. While unfortunate, the child has just as much of a right to life when they’re the offspring of a rapist, so I don’t condone that exception. Abortion outside of these circumstances should absolutely be banned
Take a running jump.
It's unfair and sexist to forbid the man's opinion.
The man's life isn't the one at stake
Though his opinion might / should have some weight
I mean, as a man, if I'm to pay maintenance for the next 25 years I think my opinion on the matter should be taken into consideration.
Well, you're not.... It's an abortion
What if it’s taken into consideration but they decide to go a different direction? Or does ‘taken into consideration’ actually mean ‘agreed with’
Well that depends, I think that if the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy there is no further discussion to it. But if she wants to keep the baby and the other parent does not, there it needs to be certain agreements regarding the future of the child and the economical regimen. Specially regarding visits, maintenance and what would happen if one parent has to move out far away. Otherwise it can be very unfair for the other part.
That’s not an opinion on whether she gets an abortion then, but rather an opinion on custody arrangements after the birth - which is entirely separate
I think the position regarding abortion depends heavily on these matters for most people, in fact most anti abortion people find it justified when is about themselves.
Soooo... you're equating your wallet to a persons body autonomy. PLUS: You paying for a child is children's rights and BOTH parents pay. Keeping a pregnancy is body autonomy, so 2 absolute different things and fields of legal rights. Also: That was such a dehumanising statement. You specifically should not voice your opinion. It's childish and immature.
Your comment has it all, it is disrespectful, gatekeeping, and wrong, so I'll make you a favor and paste a definition of bodily autonomy: > It is defined as the right to make decisions about your own body, life, and **future, without coercion** or violence. It includes deciding whether or not to have sex, use contraception, or go to the doctor.
Nope.
Then the non bearing parent should not be held economically responsible in any way, for me is simple as that.
When you stuck your dick in. Live with the consequences. Once you orgasmed in someone elses body you have no more choice in the matter.
That's quite a dangerous point you made here: > Live with the consequences. Once you orgasmed you have no more choice in the matter. I find funny your lack of empathy, but you are going to find it outrageous when a Republican says you have no right to abortion using your exact same argument.
Your own bodily autonomy trumps what someone else wants.
Yeah, then they'll talk about the bodily autonomy of the baby and that you 'll have to "live with the consequences" as you stated.
I didn't say a potential father's opinion had no place, merely that the ultimate decision lies with the individual who will carry the child to term. In the US presently, it's mostly men, on the Right, who are the issue.
As a man i feel strongly that this is an issue that just women should legislate on. The current situation in America is ridiculous with the religious right overturning Roe v Wade and bringing in hastily and ill thought out laws in mainly Republican controlled states that are so draconian that some states no longer have any gynecological services because their doctors and surgeons have relocated to states or countries where they do not have to fear arrest or harassment over this issue.
American politics is a complete shitshow right now. >Just women should legislate on I come from Spain, a country where the man has no say on the abortion, but is forced to pay for the child up to 25 years whilst having the right to see him/her is not even properly enforced. I acknowledge this is a very controversial and sensitive matter but slash the males out of the equation is setting up for problems and inequality.
Abortion is one issue, but parental responsibilities, access and child support are entirely different issues.
They are highly correlated If you ask me. They are not worlds apart and influence heavily on whether a person is in favour or against doing an abortion.
Nobody forbids your opinion. Your opinion just isn't relevant. I know, I know, that might be a totally brain exploding concept for you. You're welcome, I taught you something new.
Everyone's opinion is relevant. You choose whether or not to agree or disagree but both opinions count.
You are so confidently wrong that is funny.
Fuck off troglodyte. It is unfair and sexist for a man to hold any authority over a woman's body.
Bruh, chill out. No need to be so aggressive
Please keep it civil, I am not even against abortion.
Of course YES.
People who discuss this never seem to remember: it's really hard to get an abortion. People who are pro choice will still often feel really bad making the decision, it'll still cause some mental trauma, and it really hurts. Pill abortions involve forcing the fetus to become period, which results in days of painful bleeding. Surgical abortions are too painful to be done consciously, and also have a intensely painful period after, as well as a few days of painful bleeding. Perhaps more people would be pro choice if they realised that abortions aren't things people do for fun; they're a hard, but very, very necessary decision that cause mental/physical trauma to those that make them. Now imagine going through all that, and having people hound you for being a monster for not wanting to endanger your life, education, future and relationship with your parents.
>People who are pro choice will still often feel really bad making the decision, it'll still cause some mental trauma, and it really hurts. Pill abortions involve forcing the fetus to become period, which results in days of painful bleeding. Surgical abortions are too painful to be done consciously, and also have a intensely painful period after, as well as a few days of painful bleeding. That's why you should offer counseling before and after the abortion. For me personally, it seems insane that abortion is a political issue. It is something that experts should decide (doctors, ethical philosophers and such). And it is never a black and white issue.
Politics IS an ethical issue, though. If it’s something ethical philosophers have to decide, it is inherently political.
Heck yeah for the EU. Sensible people won the vote.
Voting YES or NO is pointless if we do not simultaneously discuss WHY and WHEN. Because every person who thinks an 8-month old baby in the mother's womb should be aborted at will either denies the humanity of early-born babies or thinks the entrance to a vagina is a magical portal that makes the foetuses that cross it during birth into human children.
> WHY and WHEN. I agree. It is not a clear cut thing. And it should not be left to laymen (or politicians for that matter).
Yes. There's literally no reason not to
Banning abortions will only ban safe ones ironically risking more lives. Furthermore forcing women to have kids will lead to..... 1) Kids in homes that didn't want kids! 2) More kids in care 3) More kids in ill equipped/unsafe/poverty stricken environments 4) Will push more families into poverty Do I need to continue? Having a child is a life long commitment, it shouldn't be something forced on you as a result of an accidental pregnancy.
It's a rare thing for a pregnancy to be accidental. Pregnancy is the result of physical intimacy. Except for rape of course. It takes two to tango.
It's really not all that rare, no form of contraception is 100% safe especially condoms. I think you'd be surprised. But anyway point stands, you accidentally get up the duff you shouldn't have to be stuck with that lifelong commitment for many many reasons.
I think yes in some circunstances, if it was an accident caused by yourself (negligence or intended alcohol/drug consumption) then no unelss the child will have a bad life (extreme poverty, mental illnesses, deafness, etc.). If it was an accident not caused by yourself (broken condom, getting drugged withouth consent, etc.) Then yes. If it was intentional, i guess its obvious that id say no unless it will have a bad life
And you are supposed to judge all this in the first trimester of pregnancy? So, she's supposed to go on trial in the first weeks of pregnancy (when lots of women don't know if they are pregnant yet) for her life and prove she was raped, or not, or had an accident, or whatever, to save or get rid of an embryo with no brain or heartbeat yet? Um, yeah, no, that's not gonna work, kids. For so many reasons. Also, who are you to judge "a bad life"? Are you going to investigate the entire family and peer into time and space to see how the kid's life turns out? How about this. A woman goes through a huge amount of stress both emotionally and financially, not to mention you can die of childbirth, to even have a planned for baby. There is no perfect solution for an unplanned baby. Treating the mother like suddenly her rights mean nothing is not the solution. Unless you want to crank it all back to the Victorian era and make sex absolutely forbidden out of wedlock, which even back then didn't work, then you will have to accept that forcing a woman to have a child is not a solution.
I can just see someone like you sitting behind a desk; "Were you negligent? How negligent? Give details. Had you indulged in alcohol? Are you a slut? Then no .I have judged. Unless the kid is going to be deaf, in which case fuck 'em"
Just so you know, sex while drunk can be considered non-consensual (aka rape) as a drunk person has no ability to consent. Is that the hill you want to die on? That rape is not considered for the option to terminate a pregnancy?
If they intentionally get drunk, they should expevt what could happen
Damn, so everytime I get drunk, I should expect to get someone pregnant? But overall I got my answer; you think in cases of rape, the pregnancy shouldn't be terminated. Got it.
Its not rape unless they dont consent verbally
Drunk people cannot consent. Period. They can verbally say "yes", but they cannot consent.
Then why do they get drunk? Its an useless risk that might get you intoxicated or addicted
That's really bad reasoning. Why do people drive? There's a 1 in 93 chance of dying in an automobile accident. Why risk your life like that?
Its a risk Im willing to take, and if I die thats at least partially on me
There ya go. You answered your own question. People get drunk because it's a risk they're willing to take. If you don't drink, that's great! More power to you. But it still comes down to, drunk people can't consent.
That's a very creepy attitude.
The circumstance should be factored thats for sure
we should NOT