On August 29 2019 00:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I really don't think it's a wild assumption that most people would rather have an abortion in the first trimester than the first trimester. I challenge you to ask any woman in your life which one of those they would prefer, I don't think you'd find a single one who preferred being pregnant for 6+ months over being pregnant for ~1-2 months.. Like have you talked to women that are 6+ months pregnant? They're all ready for motherhood at that point, I can't imagine someone changing from wanting the baby at 2 months to wanting an abortion after 6+ unless there's a very good reason for it. I've heard data but data from places where it's only legal with medical reasons is pretty useless for determining the ratio of people doing it for medical reasons.
So basically I feel this is a 'let this mother whom overwhelmingly likely has just been given the information that the baby she was looking forward to having is going to either be severely handicapped to the point where there's no pleasure in life or where the birth will cause herself severe health problems have some solace and ability to take this most difficult decision in her life without added suspicion and bureaucracy' type of thing? I haven't read about the law and don't care that much tbh, because I find the concept of lots of women going around frivolously aborting their 6 month old fetuses fairly absurd.. If those women exist I wouldn't want them to be mothers anyway, I think.
Bureaucratic bullshit is a huge concern to me as you know lol so yeah its a good point, I did a quick google search and apparently its between 1 to 2% far less than I would have guessed tbh
On August 27 2019 07:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm fine with it because I am confident people pretty much only ever do third trimester abortions if there are very serious health complications involved. People aren't casually deciding to have an abortion after 6 months; at that point they have spent 3+ months preparing for parenthood and looking forward to it. I know couples who have lost their kids at that point and in those cases and they've had actual funerals. At 'worst', it's a 'guy left me / died in an accident 3 months before birth and I can't be a single mother', but I think even that one is very rare for third trimester.
Like, find me stats saying that canadian ladies are taking a lot of third trimester abortions without there being serious health implications for either baby or mother, and maybe I'll change my mind, but my impression is that it's virtually never (definitely less than 5%, I'm guessing less than 1%) done for 'frivolous' reasons, and I prefer a late term abortion over a kid being born and spending 1-5 years in a hospital and then dying. Downs syndrome etc is a bit trickier (I think that's aborted in second trimester though) but at the same time I'd hate to have a kid with downs or similarly impacting difficulty, so not gonna judge.
I think you are making wild assumptions based on little info, and shouldn't you think the law should specify that late-term abortions require a medical reason behind it?
People should really fuck off with this abortion topic tbh. We were all just pieces of meat on LSD almost until our 2nd year of life. Solving this dilemma would solve the question of how did life start, which is obviously just not going to happen. So anything other than giving people complete freedom seems pretty fucking retarded. No doctor would do a late abortion unless it threatens the patients life.
Anything that will save a patients life is "allowed" in Canada, pretty sure its like that in any civilized country.
Agreed but also in consecuence men should also be able to relinquish paternity and not being held financiably accountable if he decides to do it early in the pregnancy.
The woman should unilaterally decide to terminate or not a pregnancy, but it is unjust to expect the man to finance her decision if he has no say in it, thoughts?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Aug 30 2019 08:41. Posts 3093
I think that's fine actually, although perhaps with a 'only once' caveat. Cuz like I can understand that a guy gets a girl accidentally pregnant (condom broke, she forgot whatever birth control) and then she doesn't want to have an abortion but holy fuck he is in no way suitable or ready to be a dad. Or a girl tells a guy that she'll have an abortion if she gets pregnant, but then doesn't do it. Or a girl is breaking up with a guy cuz he's cheating on her, but she 'at least wants to have a fucking baby to show for the 5 years I wasted on him', and then she convinces him to have one final sex which she timed for her ovulation.
Those things can happen (the latter two are examples from two friends/acquaintances of mine that are dads that don't want to be dads, and it has screwed both of them pretty hard). But I feel like if it happens more than once you probably deserve quite some blame.
Weird topic... you kinda already "agree" to the consequences prior to having sex. I don't find it reasonable for the man to be able to avoid responsibilities. I do think the rights in terms of paternity are pretty fucked up though and should definitely be pushed towards men directions, cause we're pretty much without any right.... The only way a man wins custody is if the mother is still an addict working as a prostitute or something...
And the financial part should probably also be revisited to match the actual needs of a child and the financial state of the parent
Then again society as a whole isn't built in a way to serve the needs of a growing child, you can see how kid institutions are organized... day care, schools, their starting times, how 20+ kids are forced into groups etc. Society doesn't care much about the children's development themselves, but how to free the hands of the parents from them so they could go work. And you'd probably ask how is that connected... well all of these things are related to optimizing a child's environment
On August 30 2019 12:05 Spitfiree wrote:
you kinda already "agree" to the consequences prior to having sex. I don't find it reasonable for the man to be able to avoid responsibilities.
And that is one of the main arguments against abortion, if you "agree" to consecuences before sex then abortion would be illegal.
On September 01 2019 11:23 Spitfiree wrote:
If you can prove that the embryo has full consciousness on conceiving I would fully agree with you
How is that related?, if you ar using the argument that you accept consecuences prior to the sexual act, so men should be held (economically) accountable and can't bail out of the responsibility then also women shouldn't recieve a bail out chance.
Both genders should be given the chance to waive parental responsibilities or none at all otherwise its unfair and imbalanced.
Contrapoints closed her twitter account because the typical censorious leftist mob went after her for being a cisnormative TERF.... Welcome to the nazi side Natalie LOL
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
blackjacki2 United States. Sep 05 2019 07:27. Posts 2581
On September 01 2019 11:23 Spitfiree wrote:
If you can prove that the embryo has full consciousness on conceiving I would fully agree with you
How is that related?, if you ar using the argument that you accept consecuences prior to the sexual act, so men should be held (economically) accountable and can't bail out of the responsibility then also women shouldn't recieve a bail out chance.
Both genders should be given the chance to waive parental responsibilities or none at all otherwise its unfair and imbalanced.
It's already unfair and imbalanced because the female has to either carry the child to term or go through an abortion while the male has to do nothing. You can blame nature and/or the God of your choice for that. A man walking away scot-free while the woman is left deciding if she wants to be a single mother or get an abortion is not fair or balanced.
It's already unfair and imbalanced because the female has to either carry the child to term or go through an abortion while the male has to do nothing. You can blame nature and/or the God of your choice for that. A man walking away scot-free while the woman is left deciding if she wants to be a single mother or get an abortion is not fair or balanced.
She can kill your fetus if she decides to for any reason, you don't get a say, you want the kid? too bad, its in her hands.... you don't want a kid? too bad, its in her hands.
It puzzles me how this is flying over your head, if the woman doesn't want to sacrifice her future for the baby, she can bail out.... a man doesn't have that choice, his future will be ruined if the woman desires to, that is bullshit, either both can walk away or both face responsibility.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Sep 05 2019 08:27. Posts 2226
people see it as a kind of group karma like some guy is a serial impregnator then he's at fault so if another guy gets trapped by a woman who lied about the pill or something then it's a kind of revenge and it's also his fault for believing someone
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
blackjacki2 United States. Sep 05 2019 08:58. Posts 2581
It's already unfair and imbalanced because the female has to either carry the child to term or go through an abortion while the male has to do nothing. You can blame nature and/or the God of your choice for that. A man walking away scot-free while the woman is left deciding if she wants to be a single mother or get an abortion is not fair or balanced.
She can kill your fetus if she decides to for any reason, you don't get a say, you want the kid? too bad, its in her hands.... you don't want a kid? too bad, its in her hands.
It puzzles me how this is flying over your head, if the woman doesn't want to sacrifice her future for the baby, she can bail out.... a man doesn't have that choice, his future will be ruined if the woman desires to, that is bullshit, either both can walk away or both face responsibility.
It puzzles me even more how it's flying over your head that both can't "walk away" as if you're pretending to not understand basic human physiology
if she decides to keep it
you can decide not to pay
thought?
one of the comments:
Child support is forcing a man to perform the traditional role of a provider. If modern women can abandon their traditional roles then modern men can abandon their traditional roles too. That’s true equality and that’s fair. Dave is a genius.
93% Sure!
Last edit: 05/09/2019 18:04
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Sep 05 2019 19:24. Posts 2226
On September 05 2019 17:01 LemOn[5thF] wrote:
Chapelle on abortion
if she decides to keep it
you can decide not to pay
thought?
very interesting I can't believe nobody's mentioned that idea here before
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Also, the woman doesn't "give up" on the child you ..., it's not a fucking child, thats the whole point of the argument of pro-abortion. It has no consciousness, it has not developed into anything.
She has full responsibilities for the child when she decides to keep him. Also no, the man doesn't "Get to decide" since you can take proper measures to avoid it.
Abortions have huge negative impacts on women, it fucks up their hormones, it could also ruin them mentally and has physical risks.
The woman will still feed him, put him to sleep, take care of him during his life if she has custody ... and the man doesnt want to .... give money to support his child? Thats pretty retarded thing to even argue about
