The argument against abortion everyone is missing

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 35
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Feminists wanting abortion sounds a lot to me like an anti covid vaxxer demanding the right to be in pain from covid.  Abortions are painful for those that endure them.  The feminist would argue that it is less pain than unwanted pregnancies, but wouldn't it be ultimately less painful for the female if she never got pregnant and therefore never needed an abortion so she doesn't have to endure the pain from an unwanted pregnancy or an abortion?

To me saying, "I have the right to have premarital sex and get an abortion from it"(assuming a fetus isn't a human, I think a fetus is a human being, but this is a different issue),  sounds a lot like saying, "I have the right to refuse a covid vaccinee and suffer from covid for several days because of it".  This would mean it wouldn't be wise to abort and get pregnant even if there was only a zygote (which I don't consider to be human) inside the pregnant female due to the maternal pain associated with it.

So wouldn't it make sense for feminists to be opposed to premarital sex due to the possibility that females get pregnant from it and therefore having to endure one of 2 painful options; abortion of a zygote or unwanted pregnancy?
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,612
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

Remember that the lifetime cost of raising a child born in 2022 could be estimated at $272,049.
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
wouldn't it be ultimately less painful for the female if she never got pregnant 
Well, there's the Feminist argument in a nutshell. 

Men and women bear the responsibility for pregnancy equally but as we see here, men seldom acknowledge their equal burden of responsibility.  T-dog views the statement "I have the right to premarital sex and get an abortion from it" as something women say when almost all  men would state the former as true but then  too many men go silent when the consequences  are named.  Here, T-dog clearly demonstrates the dilemma men inflict upon women.  The fact that women share the overwhelmingly disproportionate burden of responsibility for the consequences of decisions that of a right should burden men in like proportion means that women get to be the primary stakeholder in all decisions made about pregnancy and so requires an explicit protection from government intervention into those decisions that men enjoy by default.

Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@FLRW
Not even those who advocate for banning abortion want forced parenthood as they tend to encourage setting the kid up for adoption.
Topic's author
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
If the Overton window shifts, it means society changes it's viewpoint on a topic.  The right does this from time to time and so does the left.  Whether the Overton window shifts or not is irrelevant.  The overton window shifted on homosexuality for instance and weed legalization.  There society moved to the left, but soci9ety was fine with it.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Irresponsible women and irresponsible men go hand in hand in a society free from obligations.
#8
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Feminist want women to have the same freedoms the men do. Men are free to have sex, men are free too not use birth control, men are free to fight parental responsibility or even not engage in it and just basically say take my money. As a feminist I believe women have the right to have sex when they want to, they have a right to use or not use birth control, and they have a right to decide not to be a parent if they end up pregnant. That could be in the form of the morning after pill, I could be in the form of the abortion pill, it could be in the form of a d&c. The idea that women should not have sex until they're ready to have a child is the most misogynist thing I could ever hear anyone say. Especially when they don't hold men to the same standard. The best thing to do when it comes to abortion is mind your own goddamn business. If a woman finds out she's pregnant she can discuss it with a doctor or someone at a clinic or whatever she chooses to do. She can choose to have a child and raise it, have the child adopt it out or not have the child. And that's how that should work considering she's the one that's the incubator. Any man that doesn't like the idea of a woman having an abortion or doesn't like the idea of having to pay for a child cuz they don't want to be a parent should get a reversible vasectomy. Cuz after decades of discussing abortion we still don't say anything about the other party which is the man it's time we start telling men you don't like abortion get a vasectomy if you don't like the idea of being a father get a vasectomy. People always tell the women not to put out that's the solution like somehow that's even reasonable like somehow it's who are all these men going to have sex with if it's okay for them to have sex and not women. It's asinine and it's time we start telling all parties you don't want abortion around everybody start getting protected. Don't want to be a parent or pay child support start protecting yourself. And the religious right needs to stay out of that conversation because they're the ones that don't want the conversation or the side effects.
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Abortions are painful for those that endure them.
and everyone knows that full-term birth is completely painless
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
It's better if the female didn't get pregnant to begin with so she doesn't have to endure the pain from abortion or childbirth.
Topic's author
#11
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The idea that women should not have sex until they're ready to have a child is the most misogynist thing I could ever hear anyone say. Especially when they don't hold men to the same standard.
Men and women shouldn't have sex until they are ready for a child and I say this about men more because men are sluts and this is bad.

 Any man that doesn't like the idea of a woman having an abortion or doesn't like the idea of having to pay for a child cuz they don't want to be a parent should get a reversible vasectomy.
I'll get one soon enough.  I'm in college now, so not yet.

People always tell the women not to put out that's the solution like somehow that's even reasonable like somehow it's who are all these men going to have sex with if it's okay for them to have sex and not women.
It's immoral for EITHER gender to have sex outside of wanting a kid unless the male has a vasectomy.

And the religious right needs to stay out of that conversation because they're the ones that don't want the conversation or the side effects.
I do think that religion should stay out of abortion and priests should make secular cases against abortion if they want Roe V Wade overturned.  This BTW also applies to Christian denominations that support Roe V Wade because of the bible.  Religion should have nothing to do with abortion.
#12
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
What about married women who want abortions? They'd be painful too right? Does that mean feminists should be against sex?

Also it seems to me that the logical statement is more 'I have the right to premarital sex, even though there is the risk of adverse consequences'

The question as to if they have the right to that position or not would seem to me to be more than anything 'does it hurt other people'? If an act carries consequences that may harm you and only you, then why shouldn't you be allowed to make an informed decision to take that act? 
#13
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@oromagi
Men and women bear the responsibility for pregnancy equally but as we see here, men seldom acknowledge their equal burden of responsibility.
No. Gestation is uniquely female (preemptive hedge to counter point: among human beings.) Human males don't and can't assume any burden particular to gestation, because they inseminate (assuming of course, they have the working parts.) Men can assume neither the burden nor the responsibility for pregnancy despite cultural rituals assuming otherwise.

The fact that women share the overwhelmingly disproportionate burden of responsibility for the consequences of decisions that of a right
Not overwhelmingly disproportionate. "The entirety." And she has to--it's her body.

that women get to be the primary stakeholder in all decisions made about pregnancy
She is the only stakeholder. Not even her zygote/embryo/fetus has a stake in her authority over how her womb is behaved.

and so requires an explicit protection from government intervention into those decisions that men enjoy by default.
We all require an explicit protection from government intervention. And it's not a contest over proportionality or even equality. A prospective pregnant female is an individual human being who first and foremost bears a right to herself. This is maintained for all individuals. I'm not going to argue some platitude that the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't human, or even, isn't a "life." I acknowledge that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human beings. My response is: so what? The alleged "right to life" does not grant any individual to coerce the service of another. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses require their mother's womb for development--no doubt. But that need does not supersede their mother's prerogative.


#14
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Feminist want women to have the same freedoms the men do.
No, they don't. Though admittedly, what they "want" is beyond our epistemological limits.

Men are free to have sex
Circumstantial. He must first find a willing participant--or not (strictly speaking.)

men are free to fight parental responsibility or even not engage in it and just basically say take my money.
De jure--no; De facto--yes.

As a feminist
That's unfortunate.

I believe women have the right to have sex when they want to
I agree. Does that require division along the lines of one's sex/gender?

The idea that women should not have sex until they're ready to have a child is the most misogynist thing I could ever hear anyone say.
Misogyny is irrelevant.

Especially when they don't hold men to the same standard.
Men don't gestate.

The best thing to do when it comes to abortion is mind your own goddamn business.
I agree. By that very same token, why is there a narrative that access to abortions should be funded with "public money"?

If a woman finds out she's pregnant she can discuss it with a doctor or someone at a clinic or whatever she chooses to do.
Agreed.

Any man that doesn't like the idea of a woman having an abortion
It's not just men who dislike (beyond our epistemological limits) women having abortions.

or doesn't like the idea of having to pay for a child cuz they don't want to be a parent should get a reversible vasectomy.
Perhaps a simpler resolution is to relieve him of coerced financial responsibility.

Cuz after decades of discussing abortion we still don't say anything about the other party which is the man
There is no other party.

it's time we start telling men you don't like abortion get a vasectomy if you don't like the idea of being a father get a vasectomy.
It surprises you that genital mutilation hasn't caught traction?

People always tell the women not to put out that's the solution like somehow that's even reasonable
It isn't unreasonable. It doesn't qualify her right at all, but it is reasonable.

like somehow it's who are all these men going to have sex with if it's okay for them to have sex and not women
Other men? 

It's asinine and it's time we start telling all parties you don't want abortion around everybody start getting protected. Don't want to be a parent or pay child support start protecting yourself.
You're missing the point. Equality doesn't matter; proportionality doesn't matter. It's her body--her prerogative.

And the religious right needs to stay out of that conversation because they're the ones that don't want the conversation or the side effects.
This is what happens when individual decisions are subject to referendum.
#15
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
We all require an explicit protection from government intervention. And it's not a contest over proportionality or even equality. A prospective pregnant female is an individual human being who first and foremost bears a right to herself. This is maintained for all individuals. I'm not going to argue some platitude that the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't human, or even, isn't a "life." I acknowledge that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human beings. My response is: so what? The alleged "right to life" does not grant any individual to coerce the service of another. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses require their mother's womb for development--no doubt. But that need does not supersede their mother's prerogative.
great point

this isn't (and shouldn't be) about "abortion rights"

it's about "self-ownership"

#16
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Perhaps a simpler resolution is to relieve him of coerced financial responsibility.
funny thing

(IFF) $$$ = SPEECH (THEN) TAXES AND FINES = COMPELLED SPEECH
(IFF) $$$ = SPEECH (THEN) TAXES AND FINES = COMPELLED SPEECH
(IFF) $$$ = SPEECH (THEN) TAXES AND FINES = COMPELLED SPEECH

Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@amandragon01
What about married women who want abortions? They'd be painful too right?
If they knew they were going to get abortions from their sex, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant and therefore shouldn't have had sex(this applies to the men even more).

Does that mean feminists should be against sex?
If they don't want kids, then yes.

Also it seems to me that the logical statement is more 'I have the right to premarital sex, even though there is the risk of adverse consequences'
You have the right to sex without the desire to conceive.  This doesn't mean you should do it.

If an act carries consequences that may harm you and only you, then why shouldn't you be allowed to make an informed decision to take that act? 
My argument isn't a good argument to ban abortion.  But it is a reason as to why females wouldn't want one.
Topic's author
#18
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@oromagi
Men and women bear the responsibility for pregnancy equally but as we see here, men seldom acknowledge their equal burden of responsibility.
That's a problem.  If a female gets an abortion, the male should be punished and if he doesn't want pregnancy, he shouldn't have sex.

T-dog views the statement "I have the right to premarital sex and get an abortion from it" as something women say when almost all  men would state the former as true but then  too many men go silent when the consequences  are named.
You shouldn't have sex unless you want a kid or have a vasectomy and if you get an abortion, the guy should be punished for impregnating you and being responsible for the kid's death.

The fact that women share the overwhelmingly disproportionate burden of responsibility for the consequences of decisions that of a right should burden men in like proportion means that women get to be the primary stakeholder in all decisions made about pregnancy and so requires an explicit protection from government intervention into those decisions that men enjoy by default.
Men who don't take care of their kids are deadbeats that have to pay $135,000 of child support over 18 years.  The Surrogacy rate is about $25,000 per pregnancy.  So deadbeats sacrifice more for their kids than females that are forced to carry the kid to term.  Granted, the sacrifice is justified because being deadbeats are among the lowest of the low.
#19
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
If they knew they were going to get abortions from their sex, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant and therefore shouldn't have had sex(this applies to the men even more).
But they don't know they're going to get abortions do they? They may (and should) know that it's a possibility, but your opinion doesn't seem a good reason for people to assert what others should or shouldn't do.

If they don't want kids, then yes.
Why? Why should sex be restricted only to those that want children?

You have the right to sex without the desire to conceive.  This doesn't mean you should do it.
Ah, so this is purely your opinion of what others should want. People seem to enjoy sex enough to risk those consequences and frankly good luck to them.

My argument isn't a good argument to ban abortion.  But it is a reason as to why females wouldn't want one.
I would say that most women don't want an abortion. However, if it's good reason for a woman who doesn't want to have children not to have sex is a different thing entirely. The question becomes is it a good reason for women who don't want children not to have sex? I personally don't see that it is.
Topic's author
#20
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@amandragon01
But they don't know they're going to get abortions do they?
They know it's a possibility.

 but your opinion doesn't seem a good reason for people to assert what others should or shouldn't do.
Their opinion is they might get pregnant, and they would just not have sex on that basis.

Why? Why should sex be restricted only to those that want children?
I don't support mandating this, but if your a male that doesn't want kids and aren't vasectomized, you shouldn't have sex because you might get the girl pregnant and then either a kid is going to be killed and the female endures a lot of pain from the abortion, or she births the kid and endures even more pain.  Either option is painful for the female, so she shouldn't have sex unless she wants a kid.  In addition, the male shouldn't pressure her to have sex because if she gets pregnant, she will endure pain either from the abortion or from childbirth.

People seem to enjoy sex enough to risk those consequences and frankly good luck to them.
It's why people get very painful abortions which they shouldn't get because they shouldn't become pregnant unless they want a kid.

The question becomes is it a good reason for women who don't want children not to have sex?
Yes, and it is even better when the male does not pressure the female into having sex.
#21
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
-->@oromagi
Men and women bear the responsibility for pregnancy equally but as we see here, men seldom acknowledge their equal burden of responsibility.
That's a problem.  If a female gets an abortion, the male should be punished and if he doesn't want pregnancy, he shouldn't have sex.

The State Legislature in Louisiana advanced a proposal this week that would classify abortion as homicide, going further than anti-abortion measures in other states by making it possible for prosecutors to bring criminal cases against women who end a pregnancy.

None of these Republicans are even considering punishment for the fathers of unwanted pregnancies.  Ultimately, the Republican position is not anti-sex, just anti-women.

T-dog views the statement "I have the right to premarital sex and get an abortion from it" as something women say when almost all  men would state the former as true but then  too many men go silent when the consequences  are named.
You shouldn't have sex unless you want a kid or have a vasectomy and if you get an abortion, the guy should be punished for impregnating you and being responsible for the kid's death.
Well, gay sex is fine- that never produces unwanted children and is way more fun.  The Republican party should require all extra-marital sex to be gay sex.

The fact that women share the overwhelmingly disproportionate burden of responsibility for the consequences of decisions that of a right should burden men in like proportion means that women get to be the primary stakeholder in all decisions made about pregnancy and so requires an explicit protection from government intervention into those decisions that men enjoy by default.
Men who don't take care of their kids are deadbeats that have to pay $135,000 of child support over 18 years.  The Surrogacy rate is about $25,000 per pregnancy.  So deadbeats sacrifice more for their kids than females that are forced to carry the kid to term.  Granted, the sacrifice is justified because being deadbeats are among the lowest of the low.
I agree although $625/month is a small price for many fathers of unwanted children to pay.  I think they should also be required to either reside with their children as a parent or pay the parents who do reside with their children an additional child minders fee set at minimum wage, at least.
Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@oromagi
The State Legislature in Louisiana advanced a proposal this week that would classify abortion as homicide, going further than anti-abortion measures in other states by making it possible for prosecutors to bring criminal cases against women who end a pregnancy.

None of these Republicans are even considering punishment for the fathers of unwanted pregnancies.  Ultimately, the Republican position is not anti-sex, just anti-women.
If this is the case, then I don't approve.  The fathers need the punishment for abortion; not the mothers.

Well, gay sex is fine- that never produces unwanted children and is way more fun.  The Republican party should require all extra-marital sex to be gay sex.
You think gay sex is more fun because your gay, but it spreads HIV like wildfire, condoms aren't 100% effective, and people don't want to take PreP because of it's side effects.  The GOP (and Democrats) should discourage all sex that isn't designed to produce a kid and should lead by example.  I do think there needs to be laws against politicians having sex because they should put their country first; not their sex lives.  Also, they get room and board, healthcare, and no additional salary because anyone who goes into politics to get rich is a crook.

I agree although $625/month is a small price for many fathers of unwanted children to pay
I'm just stating the status quo; a deadbeat should have to pay $400,000 per child in child support over 18 years since they do none of the work.  For reference, it costs about $200,000 to raise a kid excluding college costs.  Deadbeat dads are scum.  If they don't want pregnancy, they shouldn't have sex.

 I think they should also be required to either reside with their children
They wouldn't be a deadbeat if this was the case.


#23
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
They know it's a possibility.
I know it's possible I'll get run over when I cross the road, doesn't mean I won't cross the road. That something bad may happen isn't necessarily a good reason not to do it.

Their opinion is they might get pregnant, and they would just not have sex on that basis.
I would say the evidence suggeats that isn't their opinion.

I don't support mandating this, but if your a male that doesn't want kids and aren't vasectomized, you shouldn't have sex because you might get the girl pregnant and then either a kid is going to be killed and the female endures a lot of pain from the abortion, or she births the kid and endures even more pain.
This moves into the Realm of a fetus being a baby, which you've already stated is a different issue. As for the rest, if the parties are two consenting adults aware of the possible consequences and willing to take them, I fail to see the issue. Shouldn't the man respect the woman's decision in regards to the risks she wants to take?

Either option is painful for the female, so she shouldn't have sex unless she wants a kid.  In addition, the male shouldn't pressure her to have sex because if she gets pregnant, she will endure pain either from the abortion or from childbirth.
This is why people should be encouraged to learn the risks and practice safe sex (contraceptives aren't perfect, but they're a good measure if used properly). As for pressuring a woman into having sex. I think 'she might get pregnant' is far from the only reason not to pressure a woman into sex, but again, if it's two consenting adults who are aware of the possible risks and still want to do it, I fail to see an issue for either party.

It's why people get very painful abortions which they shouldn't get because they shouldn't become pregnant unless they want a kid.
Firstly, purely your opinion. If a woman is willing to risk the pain of abortions for the sake of having sex, why should anyone nay say them? If they're aware of the risks and preferably of the precautions they can take to minimise those risks why should anyone be against them having sex? This doesn't seem to be an argument against abortion so much as an argument for abstinence and frankly a fairly weak one at that.

Yes, and it is even better when the male does not pressure the female into having sex.
No where before this post did either of us mention men pressuring women into sex. That is not part of my argument at all. I don't think it's ever correct for anyone to pressure others into having sex.

You seem to be saying that pain of abortion is a good reason for a woman not to have sex. If a woman wants to have sex, is aware of the risks and willing to take them, then I'd say the possible pain (which she's aware of), is obviously not a good reason for her to choose not to do it. Risk vs reward, if the woman knows pain is possible, but feels the reward is worth that pain, then obviously the pain isn't a good reason for her to not do it.
#24
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
I think they should also be required to either reside with their children as a parent or pay the parents who do reside with their children an additional child minders fee set at minimum wage, at least.
what is your coherent moral theory supporting this claim ?
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@amandragon01
I know it's possible I'll get run over when I cross the road, doesn't mean I won't cross the road. That something bad may happen isn't necessarily a good reason not to do it.
A tubal pregnancy — the most common type of ectopic pregnancy — happens when a fertilized egg gets stuck on its way to the uterus, often because the fallopian tube is damaged by inflammation or is misshapen.

this is also "possible"

but it clearly doesn't mean "they deserve it and should face the consequences without medical intervention"
Topic's author
#26
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@amandragon01
I know it's possible I'll get run over when I cross the road, doesn't mean I won't cross the road.
You cross the road in sidewalks if you can to reduce your odds of getting hit.  The odds of you getting hit from crossing the road once is significantly less than the odds of a female getting pregnant from straight sex once if she uses birth control (note birth control produces bad side effects so I wouldn't expect a female to use birth control).

I would say the evidence suggeats that isn't their opinion.
It's their opinion.  Abortions are painful.

As for the rest, if the parties are two consenting adults aware of the possible consequences and willing to take them, I fail to see the issue.
The pain from abortion isn't a good enough reason to ban it, but you really shouldn't get an abortion if your a female because of it's pain (and fetal personhood, but that's something else).

This is why people should be encouraged to learn the risks and practice safe sex (contraceptives aren't perfect, but they're a good measure if used properly)
No sex is 100% safe and abstinence is.  I'm not even blaming women.  It's men's fault women are pregnant, so men should stop pressuring women to have sex.

if it's two consenting adults who are aware of the possible risks and still want to do it, I fail to see an issue for either party.
I wouldn't ban their sex, but I would strongly discourage it since it's just a few minutes of pleasure and once the kid is born, the female is vomiting for hours after the abortion.

 If a woman is willing to risk the pain of abortions for the sake of having sex, why should anyone nay say them? If they're aware of the risks and preferably of the precautions they can take to minimise those risks why should anyone be against them having sex? This doesn't seem to be an argument against abortion so much as an argument for abstinence and frankly a fairly weak one at that.
It's their right to want to be in pain from abortion; but it's also your right to refuse to be vaccinated and suffer from covid.  If you exercise that right, I think it's kinda dumb.

No where before this post did either of us mention men pressuring women into sex. That is not part of my argument at all. I don't think it's ever correct for anyone to pressure others into having sex.
Men pressure women into having sex unfortunately, and it's how consent is obtained.  Women aren't that horny.

Risk vs reward, if the woman knows pain is possible, but feels the reward is worth that pain, then obviously the pain isn't a good reason for her to not do it.
The thing is, I don't think they do.  Otherwise if a female was pro Roe V Wade and didn't believe in fetal personhood, she would be having dozens of abortions since she wouldn't want the side effects from birth control and would want to have sex.
#27
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your coherent moral theory supporting this claim ?

What coherent moral theory would deny that a man's first obligation is to his children?  If we agree that raising the next generation and improving upon the conditions of the present generation are the principle obligations of any human community, then responsible fatherhood is an obvious priority.
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
What coherent moral theory would deny that a man's first obligation is to his children?
the same moral theory that allows a woman to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term

it's the moral theory of voluntarism (anti-coercion) and self-ownership
#29
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
You cross the road in sidewalks if you can to reduce your odds of getting hit.  The odds of you getting hit from crossing the road once is significantly less than the odds of a female getting pregnant from straight sex once if she uses birth control (note birth control produces bad side effects so I wouldn't expect a female to use birth control).
I'm not 'expecting' anything from anyone. I'm saying if a woman chooses to have sex despite the possible risks then that is their concern and nobody else's. The same goes for birth control. Your argument seems to be it's painful so they shouldn't do it. What would be more reasonable to my thinking is if the argument was its painful so they shouldn't want to do it. Either way it seems a weak argument.

It's their opinion.  Abortions are painful.
What exactly puts you in a position to speak to an entire groups opinion? And you never said its their opinion that abortions were painful. Your statement that I was replying to was:

Their opinion is they might get pregnant, and they would just not have sex on that basis.
Evidence would suggest that isn't their opinion considering many women have sex knowing the potential consequences, as is their right.

The pain from abortion isn't a good enough reason to ban it, but you really shouldn't get an abortion if your a female because of it's pain
Again risk vs reward, entirely your opinion and obviously not agreed with by many women. At present you don't seem to have an argument, against abortions, just an opinion on why you feel women should abstain.

No sex is 100% safe and abstinence is.  I'm not even blaming women.  It's men's fault women are pregnant, so men should stop pressuring women to have sex.
Wow. OK. I agree men should never pressure women to have sex, but you do realise women choose to have sex without pressure from men right? Again, I believe it's never right for anyone to try and pressure anyone else to sex. But then you kind of started slipping that position in after we'd started this discussion. I don't see why a woman shouldn't have every right to want to have sex without wanting to have children. There doesn't need to be any pressure from men, nor does there need to be any blame placed when two consenting adults choose to have sex aware of and willing to take the risks.

I wouldn't ban their sex, but I would strongly discourage it since it's just a few minutes of pleasure and once the kid is born, the female is vomiting for hours after the abortion.
And it's your right to discourage whatever you like. But as of yet I'm not seeing an argument against abortion.

It's their right to want to be in pain from abortion; but it's also your right to refuse to be vaccinated and suffer from covid.  If you exercise that right, I think it's kinda dumb.
This is disingenuous at best a strawman at worst. I haven't once (and don't know anyone who has) argued that women want the pain of abortion, only that they're willing to risk that pain for something they do want.

Aside from that I personally feel there is a difference between the two positions. A woman getting pregnant and having an abortion doesn't put anyone else at risk, not getting vaccinated may damage herd immunity and put others at risk. 

Men pressure women into having sex unfortunately, and it's how consent is obtained.  Women aren't that horny.
Some men do, it's true. Yet you're wrong if you think women only have sex when pressured. Or that women don't have enough of a sex drive to seek sex without being pressured. That simply isn't the case.

The thing is, I don't think they do.  Otherwise if a female was pro Roe V Wade and didn't believe in fetal personhood, she would be having dozens of abortions since she wouldn't want the side effects from birth control and would want to have sex.
Again you seem to be lumping all women into one group. I know women who don't use any birth control other than condoms. I know women who are routinely on birth control even though they're not routinely sexually active. It would seem many women would rather deal with the consequences of sex one way or the other rather than not have sex. Again not all women hold the same position. Some no doubt do believe in the personhood of a fetus, others no doubt don't. Neither should be excluded from having sex if they choose to. Again I'm not seeing any argument against abortion.
#30
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL

-->@oromagi
What coherent moral theory would deny that a man's first obligation is to his children?
the same moral theory that allows a woman to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term

it's the moral theory of voluntarism (anti-coercion) and self-ownership
Moral theory does not allow a woman to choose, freedom from govt. restraint does.  Just because I argue that Republicans have no right to make that choice for women does not mean that I think there's a morally coherent justification for choosing abortion.  I'm not sure there is but I feel compelled to withhold judgement because that is not a choice I'll ever have to face biologically.  I do believe that decision is only the pregnant woman's to make and that if that woman chooses life than the father is obligated morally- he is not burdened with gestation so his choices ended at inception.  Our freedom to choose is limited by the harm we might inflict on others and the harm an absent father inflicts on a child outweighs any claim to harm that father might claim.  I'm no student for philosophy but I don't think I buy voluntarism by itself as a morally coherent notion.