Late-Term Abortion Provider Gunned Down In Church

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 06-04-2009, 00:34

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm....

Having sex is a "selfish action"...?

You have sex, you deal with the consequences. If you don't have the means to raise a child and don't want to give it up for adoption...your fault.

**HoreTore** · 06-04-2009, 08:04

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You have sex, you deal with the consequences. If you don't have the means to raise a child and don't want to give it up for adoption...your fault.

...And that's precisely why we invented abortion.

And you are aware, that even if you ban abortion, that fetus will still be aborted, right?

**PBI** · 06-04-2009, 12:11

Why the focus on conception?

How is that any less an arbitrary cutoff point than anything else?

**Jolt** · 06-04-2009, 12:20

Prison for life with the bastard.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 06-04-2009, 12:06

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You have sex, you deal with the consequences.

The consequence would be an abortion, which I am perfectly (un?)happy to deal with.

If I'm cooking and my kitchen accidently catches fire, I will not 'deal with the consequences of cooking'. I will simply put out the fire instead.
If I'm having sex and there's an accidental pregnancy, I will not deal with the consequence by not doing anything about it. I will be a man and deal with it by having an abortion.

For the hurt feelings of the Gods of soul-equipped kitchen utensils or the Gods of soul-equipped lumps of cells, I do not care.

**Andres** · 06-04-2009, 13:04

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The consequence would be an abortion, which I am perfectly (un?)happy to deal with.

If I'm cooking and my kitchen accidently catches fire, I will not 'deal with the consequences of cooking'. I will simply put out the fire instead.
If I'm having sex and there's an accidental pregnancy, I will not deal with the consequence by not doing anything about it. I will be a man and deal with it by having an abortion.

For the hurt feelings of the Gods of soul-equipped kitchen utensils or the Gods of soul-equipped lumps of cells, I do not care.

Such an attitude disturbs me and I think it's in poor taste to compare a pregnancy with a kitchen accident.

1) If you want to be a man, then you'll let the mother take the decision. "It" is not in your belly, but in the belly of the woman. In the end it's her decision, not yours. No, forcing her to do what you want her to do is not = being a man, it's being selfish and cruel. If she choses to keep the child and not to give it away for adoption, then you'll be a man by either raising your child yourself or financially support the mother;
2) Ask any couple that is pregnant for a couple of weeks to describe it. They won't call it "lumps of cells". Don't be so insensitive and don't act like there are no emotions whatsoever involved when talking about a pregnancy, being it wanted or unwanted.
3) It's not so easy as you make it sound.

**rory_20_uk** · 06-04-2009, 17:46

So a pregnancy is at 20 weeks. The man wants it and always wanted it.

Woman decides to dump the man and run off with somone she's just met. She has an abortion.

Who here is being selfish and cruel?

I feel you illustrated very well how that, although both men and women are equal, the man has no say at any point in the pregnancy as to what happens, although has to deal with the consequences of the choice the women makes.

**Andres** · 06-04-2009, 18:02

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So a pregnancy is at 20 weeks. The man wants it and always wanted it.

Woman decides to dump the man and run off with somone she's just met. She has an abortion.

Who here is being selfish and cruel?

I feel you illustrated very well how that, although both men and women are equal, the man has no say at any point in the pregnancy as to what happens, although has to deal with the consequences of the choice the women makes.

Man only has his short and pleasant moment of glory and that's it. Blame nature

If the woman choses not to abort the child, then the man will have to deal with the consequences. Yes, it can be perceived as unfair, but the third party involved, namely the child, is innocent and needs to be taken care of by both parents.

Or do you suggest that there would come a legal possibility that allows the man to make a written statement in which he writes down that he wants either an abortion (and is willing to cover half of the expenses) or an adoption and if the woman choses not to, then by law he has not to take any responsability? For the sake of equality?

And if the woman wants an abortion and he doesn't, that she could be forced to give birth and the man can have the child with no rights whatsoever for the woman? Also for the sake of equality?

It feels... wrong.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 06-07-2009, 16:15

Originally Posted by Andres

Man only has his short and pleasant moment of glory and that's it. Blame nature

If the woman choses not to abort the child, then the man will have to deal with the consequences. Yes, it can be perceived as unfair, but the third party involved, namely the child, is innocent and needs to be taken care of by both parents.

Or do you suggest that there would come a legal possibility that allows the man to make a written statement in which he writes down that he wants either an abortion (and is willing to cover half of the expenses) or an adoption and if the woman choses not to, then by law he has not to take any responsability? For the sake of equality?

And if the woman wants an abortion and he doesn't, that she could be forced to give birth and the man can have the child with no rights whatsoever for the woman? Also for the sake of equality?

It feels... wrong.

I think you demonstrated the basic problem with elective abortion. A man owns his sperm, fine, a woman owns her eggs, fine. Actually, this isn't quite so clear cut, there have been cases of women using frozen eggs from their ex's, which then makes the father liable for child support. It also means he has a child, it's the closest thing to a rape baby a man can have.

However, I digress. A feotas is 50% the woman, 50% the man. As you can't kill one half without the other, how can the feotas be viewed as simply part of the woman's body. From my perspective it can only be viewed as a seperate entity, and therefore the woman has custodianship of that human being until she gives birth.

What she does not have in ownership, any more than once the baby is born.

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 06-07-2009, 18:53

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

If I'm cooking and my kitchen accidently catches fire, I will not 'deal with the consequences of cooking'. I will simply put out the fire instead.
If I'm having sex and there's an accidental pregnancy, I will not deal with the consequence by not doing anything about it. I will be a man and deal with it by having an abortion.

Bad analogy. You're not killing anything by putting out a kitchen fire.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

...And that's precisely why we invented abortion.

And you are aware, that even if you ban abortion, that fetus will still be aborted, right?

We invented abortion so you can be irresponsible and get away with it?

**HoreTore** · 06-07-2009, 20:36

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

We invented abortion so you can be irresponsible and get away with it?

We invented abortion to enable us to enjoy sex without the possibility of offspring. Sex is something we're meant to enjoy, not something we do to reproduce ourselves. As nature failed us in that regard, we made nature better, by inventing abortion.

And as part of the womens rights movement, to avoid them being stuck as a housewife married to someone they don't want.