Should men get equal say in abortion?

Abortion should be illegal, so this discussion is invalid.
/thread

no

Original post by Joel 96

Abortion should be illegal, so this discussion is invalid.
/thread

Since we're going to go through this again, why don't you reply to the post of mine you left unanswered on the earlier thread? That way we won't go over old points.

Original post by ZuluArmy

All life is sacred, It probably costs the NHS around £800 pound per abortion, why should my NI pay for someone to abort a kid from a one night stand?

It's closer to £680. And, taking care of the average child from 0 to 21 costs £233,000. So, even if 300 abortions happen, you've saved more than if one (1) child goes into care - and many unwanted children, who would be aborted, will go into care. Abortion is far and away the most cost effective solution after conception.

Reply 123

SinsNotTragedies

3

Original post by Joel 96

Abortion should be illegal, so this discussion is invalid.
/thread

This discussion isn't invalid when abortion is legal. Nevertheless, it should not be made illegal. Your contribution to this thread is irrelevant like you

Reply 124

l'etranger

2

Men should have the right to financial abortion.

Reply 125

ZuluArmy

1

Original post by h3rmit

Since we're going to go through this again, why don't you reply to the post of mine you left unanswered on the earlier thread? That way we won't go over old points.

It's closer to £680. And, taking care of the average child from 0 to 21 costs £233,000. So, even if 300 abortions happen, you've saved more than if one (1) child goes into care - and many unwanted children, who would be aborted, will go into care. Abortion is far and away the most cost effective solution after conception.

There are some people i would encourage to have abortions but i would ban it for the majority of the country, the answer should be not to put them into care, live with what they have, even if the parents do not want them. Only about 40% of our population think abortion is acceptable and it used to be about 20%. I would encourage foreigners to have them so we can remain a white country upto and behind 2050

Reply 126

h3rmit

Original post by ZuluArmy

There are some people i would encourage to have abortions but i would ban it for the majority of the country, the answer should be not to put them into care, live with what they have, even if the parents do not want them.

So you want to force people to have children they don't want? That's obviously going to be terrible for the quality of life of the parents and the children, and it will put more stress on the state due to benefits, and it'll just lead to the production of low quality people - uneducated, unemployed, neglected with population densities too high to give them opportunities and no prospects. You'd also be reducing social mobility of the parents, and reducing their ability to contribute to society. Completely infeasible.

Only about 40% of our population think abortion is acceptable and it used to be about 20%. I would encourage foreigners to have them so we can remain a white country upto and behind 2050

Citation needed. For the nation's opinion on abortion, I mean, not the white genocide meme.

Reply 127

ZuluArmy

1

Original post by h3rmit

So you want to force people to have children they don't want? That's obviously going to be terrible for the quality of life of the parents and the children, and it will put more stress on the state due to benefits, and it'll just lead to the production of low quality people - uneducated, unemployed, neglected with population densities too high to give them opportunities and no prospects. You'd also be reducing social mobility of the parents, and reducing their ability to contribute to society. Completely infeasible.

Citation needed. For the nation's opinion on abortion, I mean, not the white genocide meme.

Force them to have it is the only option unless it is a rape or major disability child, the solution is for ****s to keep their legs closed. I put abortion in the same category as murder. I do not believe in it, 347 people died having an abortion- maybe it's that i heavily oppose things like this it annoys the hell out of me, because you can not withdraw benefits of everyone. I am more against abortion then drugs - it does not seem moral to me .

Reply 128

h3rmit

Original post by ZuluArmy

Force them to have it is the only option unless it is a rape or major disability child, the solution is for ****s to keep their legs closed. I put abortion in the same category as murder. I do not believe in it, 347 people died having an abortion- maybe it's that i heavily oppose things like this it annoys the hell out of me, because you can not withdraw benefits of everyone. I am more against abortion then drugs - it does not seem moral to me .

But, if you force people to have children they do not want, and don't put those children into care, you will be knowingly introducing these children into a life of neglect, abuse, and poor prospects, which is immoral.

People make mistakes, why should their quality of lives have to change for a huge chunk of their lives because a simple mistake, especially when rectifying the mistake is painless and causes the minimal amount of suffering.

Why is murder bad? Because most of the reasons I can think of for why murder is bad do not apply to abortion.

Reply 129

ZuluArmy

1

Original post by h3rmit

But, if you force people to have children they do not want, and don't put those children into care, you will be knowingly introducing these children into a life of neglect, abuse, and poor prospects, which is immoral.

People make mistakes, why should their quality of lives have to change for a huge chunk of their lives because a simple mistake, especially when rectifying the mistake is painless and causes the minimal amount of suffering.

Why is murder bad? Because most of the reasons I can think of for why murder is bad do not apply to abortion.

I don't care if the child is neglected- I know that sounds awful but i very strongly oppose it, do not know why probably because i was brought up with old fashioned values

Reply 130

h3rmit

Original post by ZuluArmy

I don't care if the child is neglected- I know that sounds awful but i very strongly oppose it, do not know why probably because i was brought up with old fashioned values

You should care, neglected children are going to do worse than their non-neglected and non-abused counterparts generally - they'll require money for counselling, will be more likely end up addicted to drugs of some kind and hence use NHS money, and they'll probably contribute less to society.

It seems like your opposition is not rational and you oppose it because you were brought up that way.

Reply 131

Original post by h3rmit

Since we're going to go through this again, why don't you reply to the post of mine you left unanswered on the earlier thread? That way we won't go over old points.

I will respond to them out of pure respect for the effort you went into constructing the arguments. Before I do so, I hope it's okay if I repeat a quote you made in the last thread at the end of this reply, so that people notice it. It seemed to have got swept under the carpet quite well, but that's no fault of yours.

Anyway...

Original post by h3rmit

The people around you would be far more scarred to hear someone was tortured, or raped, then painlessly killed. Empathy doesn't work on the dead.

Clearly, empathy is non-existent in you, in the case of dead babies, and you must feel entitled to say that death, as a general rule, has no effect on you in a personal sense, to be so dense on the topic. I don't believe this to be a natural response, this... lack of response.

Just to be clear, empathy is the ability to understand and recognize somebody else's state of mind and disposition, rather than the feeling itself. Do you find it hard relating to people, or moreover, do you find it difficult understanding the reactions of people around you a lot of the time? Cognitive empathy can be measured in stages, with the little things like 'hurting somebody's feelings' coming right at the bottom, with something like 'death' or 'torture' coming at the top. If you have no empathy for the dead, then you will invariably have no empathy for a lot of, or most, other things, which is a troubling idea for me.

The assertion in bold sounds like a general point, as if human nature isn't meant to, or capable, of empathizing for the dead, which is flat-out wrong. Correct me if I've misunderstood your point.

Original post by h3rmit

Empathy itself has also succeeded because of natural selection anyway, so technically Western society is built on natural selection.

Western society learnt from natural selection, but the debate on whether human beings are still subjected to natural selection is a debate for another time.

"All sentient beings developed through natural selection in such a way that pleasant sensations serve as their guide, and especially the pleasure derived from sociability and from loving our families."
- Charles Darwin

Original post by h3rmit

The main suffering an organism would feel would be pain, so if it doesn't feel pain, no suffering is caused in killing it.

You must understand, suffering isn't exclusive to the one inflicted. Furthermore, I don't consider the ability to feel pain to be the all-consuming veto over abortion. It's a fallacy that implies human life starts, and is, defined by pain.

Original post by h3rmit

But a baby that would drastically change the life of the mother would magnify the effects more due to stress and the constant reminder of what could have been, and it would be worse because then avoidable suffering can be caused to two people rather than one.

Slippery slope.
Again, you use the word suffering, as if it's more detrimental than death. Suffering, in its simplest form, is temporary, while death is infinite; they're incomparable. One situation involves two human beings who may or may not be in a positive situation after the birth of one of them, while one involves two human beings with the certain death of one of them. The former is better.

Original post by h3rmit

Correlation =/= causation, you are not considering the probability that the women who had an abortion were less likely to be mentally sound in the first place, and that the abortion simply magnified their underlying problem. Fortunately, they didn't have children, so there was no opportunity for negligence and abuse, which would be causing suffering not to just one person, but to two.

Okay, so you believe that 10% percent of the 163,831 woman, who were definitely affected by the abortion, all had pre-existing mental issues? Quite the statement. Statistics show that women DO get negative post-abortion symptoms whether you like it or not, and these are moderate to high risk psychological problems at play here. People, with a temporary irrational mindset, will always try to go with the short-term and simplest solution, which is almost always death and killing. Long-term it just causes more problems.

And the italic, another slippery slope.

Original post by h3rmit

You've defined the natural environment yourself, I assume by time spent. If you accept a zygote is a human life, then the natural environment for a human being is not inside the womb.

The natural is the human being staying in his/her designated place until the natural changes the circumstances surrounding the human being's development. An early stage consists of the womb being necessary to the child's environmental requirements; that does not render the human being as having no value.

Original post by h3rmit

I'm not really giving them the right to life - I don't take that as axiomatic - I'm making judgements based on the options that minimise suffering, and a comparison of investment and worth for all those involved.

Suffering < death???

And here's the quote of yours I wanted to present to this discussion,

Original post by h3rmit

However, if the parents were isolated and it could be conclusively shown they would not experience any psychological damage from killing the baby, then as there is no suffering in a painless death, there is no reason not to oblige them.

This response was in reference to me asking h3rmit if he would support "the killing of a post-birth baby before a year old". A post-birth baby before a year-old looks like this:

Now, I realize that h3rmit is a big spokesperson on this forum for the pro-choice side, but doesn't anyone else from the pro-choice abhor and reject such a view? The devaluing of life subsequently leads to this - it always does.

Reply 132

Original post by SinsNotTragedies

Nevertheless, it should not be made illegal. Your contribution to this thread is irrelevant like you

The first part, fine, you're entitled to your view, though I would challenge it if you elaborated.
The bolded part, ad hominem. It's great to see people giving you a positive rating for just being rude and unpleasant. Shows how aggressive and irrational this community can be at times.

Reply 133

SinsNotTragedies

3

Original post by Joel 96

The first part, fine, you're entitled to your view, though I would challenge it if you elaborated.
The bolded part, ad hominem. It's great to see people giving you a positive rating for just being rude and unpleasant. Shows how aggressive and irrational this community can be at times.

Lol at 'rude and unpleasant' :lol:

it's not that deep

Your post was just stupid because you need to accept that abortion is available, giving women autonomy over their own bodies, your reply was irrelevant to the topic of the thread. While it is available, there are issues implicated in the procedure (see thread title) that need to be tackled regardless of the fact that you disagree; your reply didn't pay any attention to the matter at hand.

Reply 134

Original post by SinsNotTragedies

Your post was just stupid because you need to accept that abortion is available, giving women autonomy over their own bodies, your reply was irrelevant to the topic of the thread. While it is available, there are issues implicated in the procedure (see thread title) that need to be tackled regardless of the fact that you disagree; your reply didn't pay any attention to the matter at hand.

I've accepted that abortion is available, which is why I'm here, debating that it shouldn't be. The OP asked a question, and I answered in context to the question, deeming it relevant. Why make things personal?

You're a Political Ambassador. Whatever that means, i thought you'd be more mature about this.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 135

SinsNotTragedies

3

Original post by Joel 96

I've accepted that abortion is available, which is why I'm here, debating that it shouldn't be. The OP asked a question, and I answered in context to the question, deeming it relevant. Why make things personal?

Lol omg you're not getting past this whole 'personal' thing ffs dw I'm sure some people think you're relevant :rolleyes:

Original post by Joel 96

You're a Political Ambassador. Whatever that means, i thought you'd be more mature about this.

pls stop looool I'm crying

Reply 136

Cognition!