6 ms·

In America the goal is to distract people from corporations not paying taxes so the media ponies up with other big companies to make abortion a pressing issue w

In America the goal is to distract people from corporations not paying taxes so the media ponies up with other big companies to make abortion a pressing issue when in reality I doubt any man could care less about what a woman hes not involved with is doing to their body. Furthermore abortion should be legal and it should be handled between the man and woman with the clause that if they both agree to the baby, both will be held financial responsible. If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't she has the right to abort. If the woman wants the baby and the man doesn't, she does not have to abort but the man is not responsible. If there is no man involved than the woman is free to do as she pleases. Extraordinarily simple yet it is one of the most pressing issues in our country....not poverty...not pollution...not coporations not paying taxes...not the justice and prison system....abortions. America is speedrunning to becomming a failed society. Personally I will make as much money as I can here and then leave.

DontchaKnowit 4y ago
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  > although this may be important but public dialogue on this is 4th grade level Well, public dialog on everything is at the 4th grade level - gun control, racism, trans rights, abortion, UBI, January 6, global warming, Covid... it's all at 4th grade level, sometimes below. I can't think of one issue where there's actually a mature, nuanced public discussion.
- bobobob420 4y ago
  If a man does not want the baby but the woman does why would the man be responsible? He does not want the child and makes it clear, the woman will choose to have the baby and then force the man to pay money and raise the kid.. that doesn’t make sense at all. As for your opinion, “ In my opinion the choice to have a child (or to roll the dice on having a child) is made at the time of conception and once an embryo has been implanted it is the responsibility of both parents to provide support to the child.” It is your opinion but it is a dumb one that should not be respected in any modern society. 1. Read a history book. 2. Learn about realism 3. Put yourselves in the shoes of the many circumstances in which pregnancy occur.
  - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
    yeah man I mean you can call me dumb all you want but there are biological consequences to having sex and murdering your way out of it or abdicating your responsibility as a parent are not moral ways to handle those consequences. No amount of history books or walking a mile in someone else's moccasins is going to change my opinion on that.
ameister14 4y ago
- jvdvegt 4y ago
  If it's just about money: abortion is probably cheaper than raising a child, not just for the parents but also for the government.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    Sure, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with a father's supposed right to abandon a child he doesn't want. Actually, I think I sorta see what you're driving at - 'if it's just about money, forcing women to have a medical procedure at a man's choice is cheaper' The problem with that is it's unethical and morally wrong to do that. If you are more responsible for the existence of a child than I am, by virtue of having fathered the child, why should I have to pay and you not have to pay? That's what it comes down to, not 'what is the cheapest thing to do.'
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      How about the scenario where the man wants the child, but the woman doesn't? Do you not see the absolute imbalance here, where the woman gets to decide everything? If the man bears some responsibility (and he absolutely does) why does he get zero say in anything?
      - ameister14 4y ago
        He got some say (except in cases of rape) during the initial kick-off event where the pregnancy began. After that, yeah, his part in equal or majority decision-making is complete. This is because the mother has a greater interest by virtue of the pregnancy occurring to their body and not the father's. Now, if the fetus was developing in some sort of mechanical womb, sure, he'd still have an equal say.
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
mrguyorama 4y ago
>when in reality I doubt any man could care less about what a woman hes not involved with is doing to their body You are simply wrong on this point. There is a large portion of the population that thinks their opinions on "decency and morality", that largely come from religion, should be applied to everyone. They try to get around this by claiming "life starts at conception, and therefore any abortion is murder", but there's not really a legal foundation for "life begins at conception" and at best that seems to come from their religion so that should be thrown out pretty much right away.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  I am an atheist, and perfectly secular reasoning can be used to argue that the line can be drawn at conception. Like with any sliding scale, picking a specific spot on the gradient necessarily involves some kind arbitrary decision making. So what happens in this case is people either go fully towards "only a person at birth" or "a person at the moment of conception" at the opposite ends of the scale. Picking either extreme does not require a theological basis.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Specifically we are talking about a philosophical framework here that requires all: Life begins the moment sperm merges with an egg, that life has the inalienable right to develop using someone else's body for 9 months, that life has the inalienable right to be born, and that life has these rights even when being born is impossible (ectopic pregnancies for example), and has these rights even when they are a direct cause for the death of the mother. I am eager to hear of such a framework that isn't either directly theology, which cannot be used as a justification for law in the United States, or just a rebranded version of theology These are the requirements because plenty of the "trigger laws" that went into effect do not have exceptions for safety of the mother or "guaranteed failed" pregnancies, or even exceptions for what amounts to removing a dead fetus.
    - bobobob420 4y ago
      There is no philosophy or spectrum required. It is an issue between a man and a woman at an extremely personal level. If the man is not involved then it is for the women to decide. As for when in the pregnancy the baby should be terminated plenty of medical doctors have given their opinion and most states with abortion rights have a reasonable cut off. It is not a complex issue as my original point states. People are brainwashed into thinking it is so they ignore all the pressing issues. Any man that pretends to care about this issue is not a man but a brainless droid. To bring religion or philosophy about when life begins is turning a simple issue with simple cases and edge cases into an issue that cannot be agreed upon. Men who care about abortion have no life and should use their energy to do something useful

DontchaKnowit 4y ago

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> although this may be important but public dialogue on this is 4th grade level Well, public dialog on everything is at the 4th grade level - gun control, racism, trans rights, abortion, UBI, January 6, global warming, Covid... it's all at 4th grade level, sometimes below. I can't think of one issue where there's actually a mature, nuanced public discussion.
bobobob420 4y ago
If a man does not want the baby but the woman does why would the man be responsible? He does not want the child and makes it clear, the woman will choose to have the baby and then force the man to pay money and raise the kid.. that doesn’t make sense at all. As for your opinion, “ In my opinion the choice to have a child (or to roll the dice on having a child) is made at the time of conception and once an embryo has been implanted it is the responsibility of both parents to provide support to the child.” It is your opinion but it is a dumb one that should not be respected in any modern society. 1. Read a history book. 2. Learn about realism 3. Put yourselves in the shoes of the many circumstances in which pregnancy occur.
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  yeah man I mean you can call me dumb all you want but there are biological consequences to having sex and murdering your way out of it or abdicating your responsibility as a parent are not moral ways to handle those consequences. No amount of history books or walking a mile in someone else's moccasins is going to change my opinion on that.

ameister14 4y ago

jvdvegt 4y ago
If it's just about money: abortion is probably cheaper than raising a child, not just for the parents but also for the government.
- ameister14 4y ago
  Sure, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with a father's supposed right to abandon a child he doesn't want. Actually, I think I sorta see what you're driving at - 'if it's just about money, forcing women to have a medical procedure at a man's choice is cheaper' The problem with that is it's unethical and morally wrong to do that. If you are more responsible for the existence of a child than I am, by virtue of having fathered the child, why should I have to pay and you not have to pay? That's what it comes down to, not 'what is the cheapest thing to do.'
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    How about the scenario where the man wants the child, but the woman doesn't? Do you not see the absolute imbalance here, where the woman gets to decide everything? If the man bears some responsibility (and he absolutely does) why does he get zero say in anything?
    - ameister14 4y ago
      He got some say (except in cases of rape) during the initial kick-off event where the pregnancy began. After that, yeah, his part in equal or majority decision-making is complete. This is because the mother has a greater interest by virtue of the pregnancy occurring to their body and not the father's. Now, if the fetus was developing in some sort of mechanical womb, sure, he'd still have an equal say.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago

mrguyorama 4y ago

>when in reality I doubt any man could care less about what a woman hes not involved with is doing to their body You are simply wrong on this point. There is a large portion of the population that thinks their opinions on "decency and morality", that largely come from religion, should be applied to everyone. They try to get around this by claiming "life starts at conception, and therefore any abortion is murder", but there's not really a legal foundation for "life begins at conception" and at best that seems to come from their religion so that should be thrown out pretty much right away.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
I am an atheist, and perfectly secular reasoning can be used to argue that the line can be drawn at conception. Like with any sliding scale, picking a specific spot on the gradient necessarily involves some kind arbitrary decision making. So what happens in this case is people either go fully towards "only a person at birth" or "a person at the moment of conception" at the opposite ends of the scale. Picking either extreme does not require a theological basis.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Specifically we are talking about a philosophical framework here that requires all: Life begins the moment sperm merges with an egg, that life has the inalienable right to develop using someone else's body for 9 months, that life has the inalienable right to be born, and that life has these rights even when being born is impossible (ectopic pregnancies for example), and has these rights even when they are a direct cause for the death of the mother. I am eager to hear of such a framework that isn't either directly theology, which cannot be used as a justification for law in the United States, or just a rebranded version of theology These are the requirements because plenty of the "trigger laws" that went into effect do not have exceptions for safety of the mother or "guaranteed failed" pregnancies, or even exceptions for what amounts to removing a dead fetus.
  - bobobob420 4y ago
    There is no philosophy or spectrum required. It is an issue between a man and a woman at an extremely personal level. If the man is not involved then it is for the women to decide. As for when in the pregnancy the baby should be terminated plenty of medical doctors have given their opinion and most states with abortion rights have a reasonable cut off. It is not a complex issue as my original point states. People are brainwashed into thinking it is so they ignore all the pressing issues. Any man that pretends to care about this issue is not a man but a brainless droid. To bring religion or philosophy about when life begins is turning a simple issue with simple cases and edge cases into an issue that cannot be agreed upon. Men who care about abortion have no life and should use their energy to do something useful