Gender-based abortions: right or wrong?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ahh, I see how your view works. So every person that dies when a lorry (who had a drunk driver driving) crashes into their car, it was the person's fault for being on the road. And all the people that died in the twin towers, it was their fault for going to work that day. And the people that died in the recent UK storm, it was their fault for living in the south of the UK.

False comparison because a car crash with another car is with an outside force. But let's take an example of a car crash into say a tree or even car crashes with other cars. We add up the risks to our lives all of the time, some we don't put much thought into because some are unlikely to happen, ie living in the South of England which means you are more likely (although only by a small proportion) to die of say heatstroke than you are in Northern Ireland. When you buy a car too, it's taken into account how strong that car is - the smaller the car, student type cars, usually the weaker the car's frame.

Now accepted not everyone adds every risk factor up (such as how strong a car is when impacted) as it's unlikely to happen. But things like the strength of a car are added up in the price you pay for a car so you sort of do take note of it. On sex though, sex is for reproduction at the end of the day and if you partake in sex and are suddenly surprised that you fall pregnant then you must be immensely stupid and I don't see why a child should have it's life taken away from it just because of the stupidity of the mother.

I'm quite astounded that you still blame a woman if she gets pregnant through no fault of her own. Surely the man is equally responsible for getting her pregnant as the woman is? I mean, wow.

Did I say that men are not equally as responsible?

Of course both are responsible, that's why men who get women pregnant should ideally get with the woman like a real man would and provide for the child he has brought into the world - but let's presume the man isn't like that and he's a coward who refuses to share responsibility, he should be bound by the courts to provide financial care towards the child until that said child grows up. Financial care can't cover the lack of a father figure by all means but it's the least a cowardly man can be made to do.

Let me guess, is it still the woman's fault she got pregnant if she gets raped?

That's a cheap shot and you know it.

[Kardan]

False comparison because a car crash with another car is with an outside force. But let's take an example of a car crash into say a tree or even car crashes with other cars. When you buy a car, it's taken into account how strong that car is - the smaller the car, student type cars, usually the weaker the car's frame.

Now accepted not everyone adds every risk factor up (such as how strong a car is when impacted) as it's unlikely to happen. But things like the strength of a car are added up in the price you pay for a car so you sort of do take note of it. On sex though, sex is for reproduction at the end of the day and if you partake in sex and are suddenly surprised that you fall pregnant then you must be immensely stupid and I don't see why a child should have it's life taken away from it just because of the stupidity of the mother.



Did I say that men are not equally as responsible?

Of course both are responsible, that's why men who get women pregnant should ideally get with the woman like a real man would and provide for the child he has brought into the world - but let's presume the man isn't like that and he's a coward who refuses to share responsibility, he should be bound by the courts to provide financial care towards the child until that said child grows up. Financial care can't cover the lack of a father figure by all means but it's the least a cowardly man can be made to do.



That's a cheap shot and you know it.

Well, you did say that 'It's still the woman's fault if they get pregnant', didn't mention anything about men.

I'm just amazed how you can call women that have abortions stupid for getting pregnant.

So if women that have sex can't have abortions, does that mean gay men who have sex can never have treatment for HIV and Aids? Shall we just scrap all research into it, and literally only provide medicine for women that pass down the disease to their newborn children, since surely it is the gay man's stupidity for having sex in the first place? Heck, who cares about their well being and life in the future, it was that one, possibly stupid, action that defines them! And as you said, sex is only for reproduction, so why gay men are having sex in the first place, who knows (!)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well, you did say that 'It's still the woman's fault if they get pregnant', didn't mention anything about men.

That's because we aren't talking about men, we're talking about abortions and so-called 'womens rights'.

I'm just amazed how you can call women that have abortions stupid for getting pregnant.

You must be easily amazed, why is that so amazing to say that somebody who makes a choice to have sex bears the responsibility for something that they know could occur by having sex?

So if women that have sex can't have abortions, does that mean gay men who have sex can never have treatment for HIV and Aids? Shall we just scrap all research into it, and literally only provide medicine for women that pass down the disease to their newborn children, since surely it is the gay man's stupidity for having sex in the first place? Heck, who cares about their well being and life in the future, it was that one, possibly stupid, action that defines them! And as you said, sex is only for reproduction, so why gay men are having sex in the first place, who knows (!)

Well one of the reasons I abstain from gay sex is exactly that, the risk of HIV and AIDs so at least I can say I practice, in this regard, what I preach. But that aside - I don't think the life of an unborn child is really comparable to a virus, do you? it's true to say that if you fall sick with HIV after having sex (gay or straight) then you do share some of the responsibility in that you had sex - albeit with a condom - but knew that this woman you met tonight that you were sleeping with could be telling lies and could very well have HIV or maybe she doesn't even know it yet as she caught it last week.

Look - saying people have responsibility for these things may seem harsh, but i'm not saying it as "you moron look what you did" as I wouldn't with a woman who fell pregnant. All i'm arguing is that whatever bad choices that were made (aka to have sex in the first place) should not result in an unborn child having it's life taken away just because his mother was either a) stupid in that she didn't know sex resulted in pregnancy or b) naive.

[Kardan]

That's because we aren't talking about men, we're talking about abortions and so-called 'womens rights'.



You must be easily amazed, why is that so amazing to say that somebody who makes a choice to have sex bears the responsibility for something that they know could occur by having sex?



Well one of the reasons I abstain from gay sex is exactly that, the risk of HIV and AIDs so at least I can say I practice, in this regard, what I preach. But that aside - I don't think the life of an unborn child is really comparable to a virus, do you? it's true to say that if you fall sick with HIV after having sex (gay or straight) then you do share some of the responsibility in that you had sex - albeit with a condom - but knew that this woman you met tonight that you were sleeping with could be telling lies and could very well have HIV or maybe she doesn't even know it yet as she caught it last week.

Look - saying people have responsibility for these things may seem harsh, but i'm not saying it as "you moron look what you did" as I wouldn't with a woman who fell pregnant. All i'm arguing is that whatever bad choices that were made (aka to have sex in the first place) should not result in an unborn child having it's life taken away just because his mother was either a) stupid in that she didn't know sex resulted in pregnancy or b) naive.

Ok, so this is my personal situation, please tell me how this falls into 'Stupid in that she didn't know sex resulted in pregnancy' or 'Her being naive'.

First of all, we are both aware that pregnancy is caused by sex. That is pretty darn obvious. Secondly, we've already had the discussion what would happen if my fiancée was to get pregnant right now. We are both in our 3rd year at Uni doing Maths degrees, next year we are applying for the PGCE course, and the year after that we are very likely to get a job as a Maths teacher. Neither of us have jobs as our schedules are simply too demanding, even with a job, we would not be able to provide a decent quality of life for us. We both live with our parents, as we do not have enough money to buy a home, or even rent a home/flat/apartment etc. Also worth noting that she has the implant, one of the safest methods of contraception around.

If my fiancée was to get pregnant, we have already decided that we wouldn't have the child. We would not be able to afford a baby, we wouldn't be able to look or care after the baby as much as we would like with Uni commitments and not living together. We want to be able to provide our children with a childhood we never had, and by bringing our child into a world where we are not yet ready to be the parents we want to be, that's just not going to happen.

So please tell me where we fit. What happens in the very, very small chance our contraception fails? Is she stupid? Is she naive? I would say we would be more stupid to bring the baby up in the situation we are in right now. Sorry for actually wanting our children to have a good quality of life. Why is she not allowed an abortion if she chooses? It is her body.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ok, so this is my personal situation, please tell me how this falls into 'Stupid in that she didn't know sex resulted in pregnancy' or 'Her being naive'.

First of all, we are both aware that pregnancy is caused by sex. That is pretty darn obvious. Secondly, we've already had the discussion what would happen if my fiancée was to get pregnant right now. We are both in our 3rd year at Uni doing Maths degrees, next year we are applying for the PGCE course, and the year after that we are very likely to get a job as a Maths teacher. Neither of us have jobs as our schedules are simply too demanding, even with a job, we would not be able to provide a decent quality of life for us. We both live with our parents, as we do not have enough money to buy a home, or even rent a home/flat/apartment etc. Also worth noting that she has the implant, one of the safest methods of contraception around.

If my fiancée was to get pregnant, we have already decided that we wouldn't have the child. We would not be able to afford a baby, we wouldn't be able to look or care after the baby as much as we would like with Uni commitments and not living together. We want to be able to provide our children with a childhood we never had, and by bringing our child into a world where we are not yet ready to be the parents we want to be, that's just not going to happen.

So please tell me where we fit. What happens in the very, very small chance our contraception fails? Is she stupid? Is she naive? I would say we would be more stupid to bring the baby up in the situation we are in right now. Sorry for actually wanting our children to have a good quality of life. Why is she not allowed an abortion if she chooses? It is her body.

The quality of a life for a child does not all depend on wealth you know, often a caring mother and a caring father are the best thing for a child and money simply cannot buy that.

With your personal circumstances, sure it'd result in one of you (probably your fiancee) having to drop out of education for the time being and raise a child/or at least give birth - but after that with childcare and so on these days, she could always go back into education a few years down the line. The fact that she would have to delay her education and thus your household would suffer a temporary drop in wages is not the end of the world and indeed is not worth sacrificing the life of an unborn child for.

As small as the chances of her falling pregnant are - as you and her have clearly taken educated decisions to limit that risk - the risk nevertheless is still there and you yourself admit it. Therefore yes, if she does fall pregnant then it is her fault and the fault of yourself - and you should both thereby face up to your responsibilities as parents in that you've now brought a life into the world and have an obligation to look after that small and precious life.

That's how I see it. If you don't like that small risk then you ought not to have sex until you are in a position in your lives to plan for that very remote contingency of a child. To simply do away with the child as though it was an inconvienent cold is to me, the height of selfishness.

[Chippiewill]

A woman has a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies, you ain't influencing her decision buddy because you aren't the one holding a child in your womb for 9 months. It's her decision and hers only.

I almost entirely agree. However just to note on the father's rights, the father should be able to absolve themselves of responsibility at an early point if the mother doesn't want to abort. The current situation in america where a mother can refuse to abort and then demand child support is frankly ridiculous.

[bkps]

Completely wrong. It's pathetic killing a life all because it's not the right sex. At the end of the day, it's a baby, it's a life. I don't care what people say when they say 'oh it's a foetus, it isn't a proper baby till it's born' or the good ol' 'it's not a baby until however many weeks' that's just stupid. From the moment that the sperm has fertilised the egg, there is a life growing inside of you. Whether it's the sex you want or not, it's still your life. Something you created. It does piss me off so much when people decide to get abortions because of that, if they don't want a certain sex, good for them they can put it up for adoption if they really don't want it. But in all cases they should just grow up and stop being so stupid and have the goddamn baby and love it like they would have if it was the sex they wanted. Abortion in my eyes is wrong unless the person is unfit to look after the child (although they caan put it up for adoption) or if there has been sexual abuse involved. Those are the only 2 circumstances and even then i still ain't so sure abortion should be allowed. Of course, it should be the mother's decision but gender based? No.

[FlyingJesus]

What the hell is a 'realised' human? on that basis we're all not realised humans until we stop developing at age 21, and even then we are still developing in a number of ways. Again, this is the usual twisting of language by the pro-abortion side that you belong on. It's like at the end of your piece you start comparing a developing human in the womb to dandruff.. absolutely incredible. Look at the pictures in the womb, the little baby with it's body parts developing and it's movements and yet you compare this to sperm or dandruff. Wow.

I apologise for using science and fact rather than baseless moral beliefs in my arguments. Yes, a developing foetus is the same in terms of DNA and potential as dandruff - if you knew anything about cellular science rather than just saying WOW I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT!!! you'd know this to be true, and you'd also know that realisation is a point at which potential becomes reality. A human growing into an adult is still a human, but a foetus growing into a human has not yet become one, and as much as you want to tell me that being person-shaped makes one a human it simply isn't medically correct. Twisting language is again your plan rather than mine as you use terms like "little baby" to describe (yep, using the phrase again) a cluster of cells. You seem to be constantly forgetting or just ignoring the fact that I've said time and time again that I don't agree with late-term abortions where the foetus has developed into a human. Cue "BUT WHEN IS THAT LOL" despite having been told several times already

I can sometimes understand where you are coming from, but as there is no way to define exactly when a 'foetus' becomes a human (probably because logic dictates that it is a human just as an Ash sapling is an Ash Tree) then i'm against abortions. Science hasn't yet been able to pinpoint this magical moment when somethine suddenly becomes worthy of life, and in my eyes never can for the reasons i've just mentioned.

*+*+*Yes it has*+*+* try reading posts that you quote before replying to points that have been made. Your love for Victorian Britain doesn't mean we still live there, we have brain scans and plenty of other procedures that can pinpoint exactly what stage a foetus is at

So again, when is the exact point and what does this process entail?

the time at which the brain begins developing senses

until there is some sense development (which yes, can be pinpointed through brain scans) it is merely a potential life, a cluster of cells following chemical processes

Read. My. Posts. Your debate technique (ie: ignoring anything that you can't throw lies at) hasn't improved since becoming mighty overlord of making threads I see

The same question I put to Tom - at what point does this 'cluster of cells' become a baby? Science hasn't been able to answer it but you seemingly are claiming to be able to answer it, so spit it out.

Oh look you've asked it again, and again claimed that it hasn't been answered

that's why men who get women pregnant should ideally get with the woman like a real man would and provide for the child he has brought into the world - but let's presume the man isn't like that and he's a coward who refuses to share responsibility, he should be bound by the courts to provide financial care towards the child until that said child grows up. Financial care can't cover the lack of a father figure by all means but it's the least a cowardly man can be made to do.

Brilliant so not only are you against a woman's right to not up-end her entire life for what will be an unloved child (again pro-lifers not caring about it once it's outside the body, nice one) you're also against a man's right to have his own life even if he's been coerced, forced, or tricked into having a child. Despite having no legal say over what happens to his offspring even if he does want it and the fact (yep, fact again! sorry I know you hate those) that child support is actually more of a burden on life in terms of health and wealth than pregnancy in itself you care more about the potential for overpopulating the world with hypothetical unwanted children than the welfare of real people who already exist. Good news chaps, you're now a coward if you don't want to shorten your life and make it miserable for the benefit of someone you don't care about! Thought you were against people being invasively forced to pay for the welfare of others but hey I guess that's the whole basis of the pro-life movement: being pro-life but only if that life doesn't actually have any feelings of its own

That's a cheap shot and you know it.

Yeah how dare someone bring up an important point that's completely relevant? What a criminal

[Reality]

I think it's completely cruel to do this!
I don't think a baby should basically be "put down" because the couple didn't get what gender they wanted...
Who cares what gender your baby is? At the end of the day you have a child, you should be supportive of it in years to come, not end it's life before it has even begun, it's completely cruel and I think it should be stopped no human life should be put through it.
I know the baby doesn't have any say but again I come to the human rights act
"Article 6: The right to life."

So overall, I am not with this find it disgusting!

[e5]

No. You can't stop a person wanting an abortion, but deciding whether to have one based on the gender of the baby is just wrong.