Notice your period is late? That's too late for an abortion in Georgia

[Admiral X]

Someone could just as easily flip that argument the other way around to "what if that would have ended up being a brilliant scientist who grows up and cures an epidemic or figures out cold fusion" or something like that. And as for rape babies, I can't say I approve of the idea of taking the crime of the father out on the unborn.

I feel about the same as Steve does when it comes to the conflict he described. On the one hand, the casual disregard for human life really disturbs me, and on the other, so does the thought of forcing someone to complete a pregnancy against their will.

You're right about my view on government funding it, though. I don't think abortion should be illegal, but I also don't think government should be funding it. Go ahead and get your abortion, our of your own pocket.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Steve, given your ideological struggle, I'd like to introduce a hypothetical to you.

You're in a medical facility with a timer bomb about to go off. There are two exits, equidistant from you. To your left is a toddler, strapped into a high chair. To your right is a medical fridge full of viable frozen embryos. You only have time to grab one before booking it for the exit. Which do you choose?

The embryos are potential lives, the toddler is alive, this is a triage situation, so I go for the toddler. Then I hope someone tracks down the mad bomber that destroyed those potential lives for whatever insane or non-existent reason they had, not to mention that they threatened my life and the toddler's.

And if this was intended to represent the issue of an abortion to save the mother's life, I regard that as different since it's not about bodily autonomy vs. the sanctity of life, it's what I said above: a triage situation.

It's not about the mother's life vs the child's life. It's a way to show that, deep down, morally, you know a petri dish of viable tissue isn't the same as a human life, and a fetus is not a baby.

[Worffan101]

The way I see it is, the fetus is inherently violating the woman's bodily autonomy by being there as soon as she decides it doesn't have her permission to be there.

I'm going to go scream into the void.

So, babies are rapists according to you? That's easily the stupidest thing I've heard tonight.

Look, I'm mixed about abortion.

On the one hand... murder is murder. Sorry, those are the rules on a world-wide scale and that's just the way it is. Extinguishing a life is technically murder. Seriously, why is this viewed as an 'evil viewpoint'? Is 'I think it's wrong to kill babies' a bad crusade? Please get us back into the normal universe.

On the other, a woman shouldn't be arrested for it if it's her choice, but there should be a limit, like if there's proof the baby is a living being then... too late! Adoption is a thing, y'know.

Oh, so it's murder if I kill a tapeworm?

Dude, a fetus is literally not viable outside the womb without intensive medical care until at LEAST 30 weeks. I think the record for keeping a preemie alive is 26? And even then it suffered major health problems.

The simple fact of the matter is that the fetus exists at the woman's sufferance. If she doesn't want it, well, it's nobody's fault the fetus can't survive outside the uterus. So if she wants it gone, it goes. If it can survive outside of her, great! If it can't? Tough. That is the simple fact of being a sexually reproductive species.

[Darth Wedgius]

Steve, given your ideological struggle, I'd like to introduce a hypothetical to you.

You're in a medical facility with a timer bomb about to go off. There are two exits, equidistant from you. To your left is a toddler, strapped into a high chair. To your right is a medical fridge full of viable frozen embryos. You only have time to grab one before booking it for the exit. Which do you choose?

The embryos are potential lives, the toddler is alive, this is a triage situation, so I go for the toddler. Then I hope someone tracks down the mad bomber that destroyed those potential lives for whatever insane or non-existent reason they had, not to mention that they threatened my life and the toddler's.

And if this was intended to represent the issue of an abortion to save the mother's life, I regard that as different since it's not about bodily autonomy vs. the sanctity of life, it's what I said above: a triage situation.

It's not about the mother's life vs the child's life. It's a way to show that, deep down, morally, you know a petri dish of viable tissue isn't the same as a human life, and a fetus is not a baby.

I don't think that logically holds up.

If you can either save your mother or two strangers it shows that, deep down, morally, you know that your mother is worth two strangers? Or is it possible that an emotional reaction may not be the best source of values?

If I could save a stranger or my dog, I'd save my dog. And that's not even an emotional reaction, but one that comes from my sense of ethics; IMO, I have a responsibility to my dog that I don't have to a human stranger. A lot of people will think that abhorrent, but I think few would think that this shows that I don't think a human stranger is undeserving of human rights, and people who feel I should value the human stranger more than my dog don't necessarily think my dog undeserving of consideration either.

[clearspira]

Can someone respectfully explain something to me, because this is like the thirtieth thread on abortion on here and no one has ever raised it: am I the only one in the world who uses condoms? They are cheap, they are easily available, they have no medical side effects like the pill, and have a 99% success rate. And of those failures, it is often user error. A condom my friends should not be reused, it should fit properly, it shouldn't be bitten, it should be examined before use etc.

Before anyone says it, YES, of course abortion should be available for rape victims, for medical reasons, and for those who were unlucky enough to be the 1%. But why is personal responsibility now such a dirty word? And I am going to state this now: when the male pill becomes available, yes I will take it and happily, because I don't want a kid any more than she does. And in fact, it would give me an element of safety and security too that I simply do not have with the female pill.

You guys can get as pissed with me as you like, but I do not believe that there would be so many women needing an abortion if more people had responsible sex.

[Madner Kami]

Can someone respectfully explain something to me, because this is like the thirtieth thread on abortion on here and no one has ever raised it: am I the only one in the world who uses condoms? They are cheap, they are easily available, they have no medical side effects like the pill, and have a 99% success rate. And of those failures, it is often user error. A condom my friends should not be reused, it should fit properly, it shouldn't be bitten, it should be examined before use etc.

Before anyone says it, YES, of course abortion should be available for rape victims, for medical reasons, and for those who were unlucky enough to be the 1%. But why is personal responsibility now such a dirty word? And I am going to state this now: when the male pill becomes available, yes I will take it and happily, because I don't want a kid any more than she does. And in fact, it would give me an element of safety and security too that I simply do not have with the female pill.

You guys can get as pissed with me as you like, but I do not believe that there would be so many women needing an abortion if more people had responsible sex.

Funny you mention that, because I was writing a post along those lines and just decided to not submit it. I based it off these lines:

You're right about my view on government funding it, though. I don't think abortion should be illegal, but I also don't think government should be funding it. Go ahead and get your abortion, our of your own pocket.

That actually is a valid and sensible point imo and it leaves everything open for everyone. Pro Lifers are not indirectly funding abortion, doctors could refuse if it conflicts with their moral views and Pro Choicers get their choice and if it's too expensive, then tough luck, a condom costs what in the US? A Dollar? You want the choice, you had one, now live with the consequences like a responsible adult human being. The pill can't be that expensive over there either and temporary male chemcial neutering isn't exactly far beyond the horizon either and I don't see the slightest reason to not help funding the pill for male or females via healthcare systems for those, who still can't aford it and who have no other choice (hooray for latex-allergies).

Obviously, rape-victims and people whose health is threatened by complications due to the pregnancy or in case of the child being born in a not particularly life-worthy condition, should still get a free pass though, whether Pro-Lifers want it or not. That is, unless Pro Lifers are required by law to adopt those kinds of children.

[TGLS]

You're right about my view on government funding it, though. I don't think abortion should be illegal, but I also don't think government should be funding it. Go ahead and get your abortion, our of your own pocket.

Well, as stated, you're a libertarian (not sure on the size of the 'l'). I doubt that you support government funding of health care in general.

[pilight]

Can someone respectfully explain something to me, because this is like the thirtieth thread on abortion on here and no one has ever raised it: am I the only one in the world who uses condoms? They are cheap, they are easily available, they have no medical side effects like the pill, and have a 99% success rate. And of those failures, it is often user error. A condom my friends should not be reused, it should fit properly, it shouldn't be bitten, it should be examined before use etc.

Before anyone says it, YES, of course abortion should be available for rape victims, for medical reasons, and for those who were unlucky enough to be the 1%. But why is personal responsibility now such a dirty word? And I am going to state this now: when the male pill becomes available, yes I will take it and happily, because I don't want a kid any more than she does. And in fact, it would give me an element of safety and security too that I simply do not have with the female pill.

You guys can get as pissed with me as you like, but I do not believe that there would be so many women needing an abortion if more people had responsible sex.

99% is not 100%. A 1% failure rate with a 2.5% chance of conception with each failure means one pregnancy for every 4000 encounters. There are about 75,000,000 women capable of conceiving in the USA. If they have sex with a condom an average of once per week (a conservative estimate) you'd have 1,000,000 unwanted pregnancies every year.

As for responsibility, while it takes two people to make a baby the responsibility of caring for the child is not shared equally, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted. It falls predominantly on the woman to care for and support the child.

[clearspira]

Can someone respectfully explain something to me, because this is like the thirtieth thread on abortion on here and no one has ever raised it: am I the only one in the world who uses condoms? They are cheap, they are easily available, they have no medical side effects like the pill, and have a 99% success rate. And of those failures, it is often user error. A condom my friends should not be reused, it should fit properly, it shouldn't be bitten, it should be examined before use etc.

Before anyone says it, YES, of course abortion should be available for rape victims, for medical reasons, and for those who were unlucky enough to be the 1%. But why is personal responsibility now such a dirty word? And I am going to state this now: when the male pill becomes available, yes I will take it and happily, because I don't want a kid any more than she does. And in fact, it would give me an element of safety and security too that I simply do not have with the female pill.

You guys can get as pissed with me as you like, but I do not believe that there would be so many women needing an abortion if more people had responsible sex.

As for responsibility, while it takes two people to make a baby the responsibility of caring for the child is not shared equally, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted. It falls predominantly on the woman to care for and support the child.

It takes two people to make a baby but only one to abort it. Women (in Britain anyway I don't know about anywhere else) also get a year's maternity leave to the two weeks paternity leave that men get.
Its not a level playing field to begin with.

Putting that aside, this does depend on whether she is having sex with strangers or not as a caring boyfriend or husband will share the responsibility equally. Its actually pretty naive/stupid to expect some random Johnny you met down the club one night to care all that much.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

One weird thing about that condom statistic is that pregnancy surrounding time of ovulation ranges from a 10-30% chance. If the statistic for condoms is 5% fertility outcome and you have up to a 30% chance 1 day out of the month (10% if five days before ovulation), then what does that say about the actual integrity of the condom?