Abortion - Your Opinion

[Dirius]

It’s all life though that you passionately defend. To what extent are you passionate about it? You wouldn’t have your career in finance I think it is if you fell pregnant and chose to have a baby. You might, but the likelihood falls drastically because most single mothers struggle to get out of poverty - they might just sacrifice their own life to raise their children and hope they don’t make the same mistakes.

Yes I probably wouldn't have the life I do now, I would have another type of life. That doesn't mean it is correct or justifies such an action.

Or, if when I fell pregnant you were the father, would you have taken on that task rather than me abort the baby? Maybe there should be things in place to stop potentials fathers not being as effected by it as women, and maybe I would have kept the baby but instead I thought of myself a a single mother with no family support and that’s why I made the decision I did. And I don’t regret it, even though I do believe to a *certain extent* it was murder.

Hard to say - because when I was college aged I wasn't opposed to abortion, and the me in the present can only see things in retrospect and with a biased view. I would love to stand here all high and mighty and tell you that I would have done everything correctly, but the truth is I don't know. But that doesn't mean my actions would have been correct or justified.

As I mentioned though, I don't hold anything against women who have gotten abortions, in fact I understand them, because society as a whole pushes and manipulates women into aborting fetuses rather than keeping them. However, there is a large section of the population which promotes and supports abortion, even though they would personally never get it. There is another section of the population which profits over it -> which reveals the true nature of why so many politicians, businessmen, celebrities, etc. actually make the push for abortion.

 

[Ukpoohbear]

Well, perhaps if society was less sexist and pushed men to be single parents and not just women then I would have felt more supported. So I could have my career and ambitions and not be the only person making the sacrifice.

I do think it is important that women are allowed to have the final say over their own body however, I also agree it’s not just about women and it’s nice to see a man defend the rights of babies as you are doing. Babies should have rights.

The real argument is when is a baby a baby, and I see you and David had that debate. That’s where the real answer lies.

But I never regretted my decision, even though there is guilt for it being partly murder.

 

[Dirius]

Well, perhaps if society was less sexist and pushed men to be single parents and not just women then I would have felt more supported. So I could have my career and ambitions and not be the only person making the sacrifice.

I do think it is important that women are allowed to have the final say over their own body however, I also agree it’s not just about women and it’s nice to see a man defend the rights of babies as you are doing. Babies should have rights.

The real argument is when is a baby a baby, and I see you and David had that debate. That’s where the real answer lies.

I agree there is a lot of things we need to work on in our society to prevent abortion in the first place. There are obviously a whole lot of things in a woman's life to push them into such a decision.

But I never regretted my decision, even though there is guilt for it being partly murder.

I don't think you murdered anyone, because you were young, with (probably) limited understanding or knowledge of what abortions is, with society and people all around you telling you it was the best thing for you, and that it isn't something to be worried about.

To me the people responsible are the doctors and politicians who promote and manipulate the people into getting one.

 

[Ukpoohbear]

I personally don’t see anything wrong with your point of view, it’s admirable to protect babies.

Maybe we can start making these changes since charity begins at home and maybe your argument would be better received by women if you first talked about sexism and the attitude men have and give women a bit of a break because we have to put up with a lot.

So let’s talk about men. Now, you know I don’t have a problem with traditional roles, but part of the problem is with men thinking they can’t be emotional and have to provide and be tough and aggressive. Those type of men are truly the types to make women single mothers.

Let’s teach men to be respectful and put a law in place to make them have to be single dads in sole responsibility so a woman can walk away if she wants to.

 

[Dirius]

I personally don’t see anything wrong with your point of view, it’s admirable to protect babies.

Maybe we can start making these changes since charity begins at home and maybe your argument would be better received by women if you first talked about sexism and the attitude men have and give women a bit of a break because we have to put up with a lot.

So let’s talk about men. Now, you know I don’t have a problem with traditional roles, but part of the problem is with men thinking they can’t be emotional and have to provide and be tough and aggressive. Those type of men are truly the types to make women single mothers.

Let’s teach men to be respectful and put a law in place to make them have to be single dads in sole responsibility so a woman can walk away if she wants to.

I would say its the other way around. It is the lack of masculine ideals, of men willing to provide and assume their responsabilities which is the problem. It is the fact that we infantilize men, and push them to be irresponsible towards women and society in general, pushing for egocentrical life perspectives, instead of teaching them how to be men

 

[Ukpoohbear]

Well yes I totally agree with that. I wonder why some Mum’s baby their sons? The good thing is they can be sensitive and caring, the bad thing is the lack of responsibility and being a man!

I think it also works the other way though. So many men tell white lies to women (and women believe it) when they are being unfaithful. Men think they need to be aggressive and like an alpha male and protect their women, which is why it’s to cheat because they are just ‘hunting,’ which of course makes women the prey.

But the women don’t like overly sexual women because they are seen as the type to have affairs with these types of men, and women then have to be virginal Mary types.

It’s like Mary v’s Lilith types but I don’t know the Male biblical equivalent, but it should be just as well known. But if these problems with sexism goes right back to biblical times, how can we begin to change this?

Well, we need to make men more men (as you say) and men more emotional (as I said), and in between there is a balance.

 

[Dirius]

Well yes I totally agree with that. I wonder why some Mum’s baby their sons? The good thing is they can be sensitive and caring, the bad thing is the lack of responsibility and being a man!

I think it also works the other way though. So many men tell white lies to women (and women believe it) when they are being unfaithful. Men think they need to be aggressive and like an alpha male and protect their women, which is why it’s to cheat because they are just ‘hunting,’ which of course makes women the prey.

But the women don’t like overly sexual women because they are seen as the type to have affairs with these types of men, and women then have to be virginal Mary types.

It’s like Mary v’s Lilith types but I don’t know the Male biblical equivalent, but it should be just as well known. But if these problems with sexism goes right back to biblical times, how can we begin to change this?

Well, we need to make men more men (as you say) and men more emotional (as I said), and in between there is a balance.

I wouldn't say men need to be emotional. There is nothing wrong with caring, and most men do feel emotions quite a lot (depression is common for us) and can be understanding of how a woman feels. But a lot of men happen to be overtly sensitive, and been brought in a way in which they are encouraged to feel and express in such a manner, and complain when things don't go their way, rather than being taught to suck it up and man up. Its the sheltered and feminist lifestyle of the west which is ruining men.

You are not going to get a super sensitive and caring man that is also a good provider. Its just very rare. Being succesful implies that you need to be competitive, which is not a matching quality.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, women don't want a naturally "sensitive" or "caring" guy. What women want (again my opinion) is a man that just behaves that particular way with them, even if he is an a-hole to the rest of the world. Because this is how a woman feels "special", by having someone act against his nature with them only.

 

[Blaze]

I wouldn't say men need to be emotional. There is nothing wrong with caring, and most men do feel emotions quite a lot (depression is common for us) and can be understanding of how a woman feels. But a lot of men happen to be overtly sensitive, and been brought in a way in which they are encouraged to feel and express in such a manner, and complain when things don't go their way, rather than being taught to suck it up and man up. Its the sheltered and feminist lifestyle of the west which is ruining men.

You are not going to get a super sensitive and caring man that is also a good provider. Its just very rare. Being succesful implies that you need to be competitive, which is not a matching quality.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, women don't want a naturally "sensitive" or "caring" guy. What women want (again my opinion) is a man that just behaves that particular way with them, even if he is an a-hole to the rest of the world. Because this is how a woman feels "special", by having someone act against his nature with them only.

My experience as well. Too many men have moved away from the natural lifestyle, that is, building oneself up to compete with other men for a mate. Hence the birth of "incels" and such, but I digress.

Great arguments in this thread and props to you Dirius for sticking to your principles. Respect, man.

 

[Ukpoohbear]

Well no, I wouldn’t want a sensitive or caring man at the expense of him not being a provider. I would like an alpha male provider who cares about my feelings and respects me.

My first ever boyfriend was like that. Conor McGregor is like that too with his fiancée Dee Devlin - he is obviously a great provider but he cries when he is with her etc. But, it’s so obvious he cheats on her all the time and we don’t want that. We want faithfulness.

Yeah I agree, props to Dirius for defending babies.

My only thing is men are as much to blame as women and should be given the same pressures.

 

[Dirius]

My experience as well. Too many men have moved away from the natural lifestyle, that is, building oneself up to compete with other men for a mate. Hence the birth of "incels" and such, but I digress.

Great arguments in this thread and props to you Dirius for sticking to your principles. Respect, man.

Its true, and I think the biggest problem is that men are being encouraged to just complain and do nothing about it, rather than persist in their goal of getting better, and most end up giving up as a result.

Thanks mate

 

[chay]

Yes children in the foster system suffer. But your alternative is to kill them with an abortion instead?

Measures to take care of dispossessed children have existed in Europe since at least the middle ages, and none of these are perfect. But all of them are preferable to aborting the child. Sometimes the state has taken care of them, sometimes a guardian is appointed, sometimes the religious institutions have taken care of them. These may not be perfect, but its preferable to live and have a life, than be dead.

I'm sure most people who were orphaned or adopted will tell you they would have prefered to die, wouldn't they?

The world is bigger than Europe and there have been abysmal orphanages in Europe. Look at Romania. Being left to suffer and die in a cot is not a life. An embryo is pretty much a clot until a certain stage. Mothers in the west will mostly only abort later than 12 weeks if there is serious illness or risk to both their lives and a child's. I don't think being murdered or starving to death or dying in a blast from bomb as a tiny baby is any better than being aborted. Also where you have women who clearly are not mentally fit and are going to abuse...better to not be born. I don't think you can have a blanket black & white solution to abortion, circumstances are not all the same. I think you are a bit naive and sheltered.

 

[chay]

I would say its the other way around. It is the lack of masculine ideals, of men willing to provide and assume their responsabilities which is the problem. It is the fact that we infantilize men, and push them to be irresponsible towards women and society in general, pushing for egocentrical life perspectives, instead of teaching them how to be men

So what about meanwhile, how many women & children have to suffer while males get it right? What about the 11 year old girls in Africa who are raped by grown men who believe intercourse with a virgin will cure them of Aids? Which child's life is more important? The mother who is still a child & is now infected with HIV, damaged internally, highly likely to die as she gives birth to her HIV infected baby that she has no means to feed? The man gets away with just the disease he brought on himself while the girl and infant suffer 1000x more than him. To me the girl should be the priority. She is the victim.

 

[chay]

Is this debate only about middle class fetuses of people who forgot birth control? Because that's a limited and comfortable way of thinking about abortion...easy to judge and have an opinion.

 

[Dirius]

The world is bigger than Europe and there have been abysmal orphanages in Europe. Look at Romania. Being left to suffer and die in a cot is not a life. An embryo is pretty much a clot until a certain stage. Mothers in the west will mostly only abort later than 12 weeks if there is serious illness or risk to both their lives and a child's. I don't think being murdered or starving to death or dying in a blast from bomb as a tiny baby is any better than being aborted. Also where you have women who clearly are not mentally fit and are going to abuse...better to not be born. I don't think you can have a blanket black & white solution to abortion, circumstances are not all the same. I think you are a bit naive and sheltered.

So what about meanwhile, how many women & children have to suffer while males get it right? What about the 11 year old girls in Africa who are raped by grown men who believe intercourse with a virgin will cure them of Aids? Which child's life is more important? The mother who is still a child & is now infected with HIV, damaged internally, highly likely to die as she gives birth to her HIV infected baby that she has no means to feed? The man gets away with just the disease he brought on himself while the girl and infant suffer 1000x more than him. To me the girl should be the priority. She is the victim.

Most of the people from this forum that participate in "political" threads live in the western world, in countries of an european christian culture. Orphanages were an european creation, developed in the christian Roman Empire and showcase the attitude european cultures have regarding the safeguarding of children since ancient times.

Life expectancy in Africa is the lowest in the world. Some countries in Africa don't even have running water. The discussion of abortion in Africa is kind of a moot point, given that continent is plagued by horrors none of us experience in our daily lives.

But this isn't the case for most western nations, where even an orphan has good chances of surviving and growing up to be an adult. In most of european countries, children who are born in dire situations do have the capacity to live good lives, even if they struggle at first - and our cultures are well developed enough to help them.

 

[chay]

Most of the people from this forum that participate in "political" threads live in the western world, in countries of an european christian culture. Orphanages were an european creation, developed in the christian Roman Empire and showcase the attitude european cultures have regarding the safeguarding of children since ancient times.

Life expectancy in Africa is the lowest in the world. Some countries in Africa don't even have running water. The discussion of abortion in Africa is kind of a moot point, given that continent is plagued by horrors none of us experience in our daily lives.

But this isn't the case for most western nations, where even an orphan has good chances of surviving and growing up to be an adult. In most of european countries, children who are born in dire situations do have the capacity to live good lives, even if they struggle at first - and our cultures are well developed enough to help them.

Young girls get raped in western cultures & live in slavery...look at the Mormon Polygamists. Perhaps the thread should be renamed Should western women be allowed abortions and the answer will still be yes. Its also a moot point pretty much everywhere but Texas because abortion is legal. So you could sit there and pro-fetus all day but the majority that have actually studied all the factors have already said abortion is permitted.

 

[Dirius]

Young girls get raped in western cultures & live in slavery...look at the Mormon Polygamists. Perhaps the thread should be renamed Should western women be allowed abortions and the answer will still be yes. Its also a moot point pretty much everywhere but Texas because abortion is legal. So you could sit there and pro-fetus all day but the majority that have actually studied all the factors have already said abortion is permitted.

Well first of all, most nations in Africa are highly religious, and abortion is illegal or restricted in nearly all of them. Second, getting an abortion in some African hospitals (specially rural ones) is just as dangerous as giving birth under the conditions you've mentioned.

Its a moot point, due to these reasons, mainly that in Africa abortion is very rare and quite dangerous for the woman.

 

[chay]

Well first of all, most nations in Africa are highly religious, and abortion is illegal or restricted in nearly all of them. Second, getting an abortion in some African hospitals (specially rural ones) is just as dangerous as giving birth under the conditions you've mentioned.

Its a moot point, due to these reasons, mainly that in Africa abortion is very rare and quite dangerous for the woman.

Abortion is legal in a lot of the west, my country included. Sadly 3rd world countries do still abort, birth and abortion is a risk....which brings me back to vasectomies. Would prevent a lot of deaths...makes more sense because abortion & birth risk two lives not one. I don't think there is a high rate of accidental vasectomy death & as people say semen is not technically a life until it fertilises and egg. This farm used to be owned by a home kill butcher, I could try my hand at some backyard vasectomies...hang from a hook and snip.

 

[waybread]

Dirius, please take your head out of the sand. Maybe you've just explained why you are not a husband and father yourself. You're not actually the expert on marriage here.

You mistake "sensitive" for "weak." Is this a frequent problem for you?

Nobody-- male or female-- wants a weak, needy spouse or partner who is constantly complaining. But many women have no interest in an autocratic, patriarchal ice-man sort of male. We saw that with our own fathers, thank you very much, and have no wish to repeat it in our own marriages.

If feminists are "ruining men," such men deserve what they get. As the old feminist saying goes, "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality." What you're saying is that men were never all that strong to begin with.

Your Darwinian view of sensitive men vs. "providers" is 1950s rubbish. When were you ever a "provider"?

My husband of 25 years is a "sensitive guy" with a good income prior to his retirement-- now he has a good pension. Most women today with heads on their shoulders know they need to have their own incomes.

Why? Because at some point she's likely to need it.

I wouldn't say men need to be emotional. There is nothing wrong with caring, and most men do feel emotions quite a lot (depression is common for us) and can be understanding of how a woman feels. But a lot of men happen to be overtly sensitive, and been brought in a way in which they are encouraged to feel and express in such a manner, and complain when things don't go their way, rather than being taught to suck it up and man up. Its the sheltered and feminist lifestyle of the west which is ruining men.

You are not going to get a super sensitive and caring man that is also a good provider. Its just very rare. Being successful implies that you need to be competitive, which is not a matching quality.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, women don't want a naturally "sensitive" or "caring" guy. What women want (again my opinion) is a man that just behaves that particular way with them, even if he is an a-hole to the rest of the world. Because this is how a woman feels "special", by having someone act against his nature with them only.

 

[waybread]

Since the Middle Ages?

Oh, great, Dirius. Your naivete is so charming.

Tell us about the realities behind David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, the Baker Street Irregulars. Study the Irish Magdalene laundries' forced labor of ostensibly "fallen women." for an alternative take on humane treatment of pregnant girls..

Speaking of the Middle Ages, take a look at Pieter Bruegel's painting of the beggars. https://arthistoryland.com/pieter-bruegel-the-elder-the-beggars/

You seem utterly unaware of the practices of infanticide.

You live in a dream world, Dirius.

Yes children in the foster system suffer. But your alternative is to kill them with an abortion instead?

Measures to take care of dispossessed children have existed in Europe since at least the middle ages, and none of these are perfect. But all of them are preferable to aborting the child. Sometimes the state has taken care of them, sometimes a guardian is appointed, sometimes the religious institutions have taken care of them. These may not be perfect, but its preferable to live and have a life, than be dead.

I'm sure most people who were orphaned or adopted will tell you they would have prefered to die, wouldn't they?

 

[waybread]

So what are you saying, Dirius? That because you willfully ignore facts about pregnancy complications, you can safely assume they're irrelevant to an abortion debate?

By turning a blind eye to them, you align with "morons" [sic] who would admit no legal grounds for abortion. That's a big problem with your argument.

Ectopic pregnancy is not all that rare (1 in 50,) and it is a condition that endangers the life of the mother, with no chance of the fetus surviving.

A pregnant 13-year old incest victim seeking abortion is not doing so out of "convenience." Surely you can understand that.

Surely you can understand that a woman might have a viable fetus yet be in a situation where abortion seems like the best of some very troubling options. Take the example of a poor wife and mother who cannot manage or afford baby #7. You're not going to look after it.

You've amply demonstrated by now that you must give up any pretense that you actually care about human rights.

Because you are using a small percentage of cases that involve unviable pregnancies, to advocate and justify the general practice of abortion on viable and healthy pregnancies. These are not same.

Cases in which the pregnancy endangers the mother's life are very different, and usually the treatment will cause complications for both child and mother - the death of the fetus is in most cases certain if you attempt to save the mother's life, and if you don't both of them will usually die.

Trying to jujstify an action by using a rare and complicated instance as the prime example is moronic.