Abortion

Every woman should be alowed to have that right

There is no right to kill innocent

There is no right to kill innocent

Daniel mulder is a b.. person

That was one of Tusk's promisses, haha.
Free decisions in Poland, good joke guy!
And by the way...you say you are pro-life...but on your profile picture the is a gun...looks like you are against life. That's what a gun is used for ... TO END LIFE!
A man should be silent. It is a woman's thing.

You have knives in your kitchen. Knives are used to end lives. You are against life.
Women are know practicing parthogenesis and "fall pregnant" alone? I think I msised a chapter in my studies of biology.

abortion should always be a decision of man. Men earn more so they are the main support for family therefore they should have deciding voice when it comes to keeping baby or not. In the end it is their money mostly that will be spend on new family member.

EXCUSE YOU? You're not the one who has to carry life for 9 months! Also, not every man earns more money than a woman. In relationships you should discuss it, but if one is to decide, it's defenitely the woman.

🤦🏻

You don't seem to understand so let me simplify it:

- You are judging someone for a picture of supposedly him holding a tool he could do absolutely anything with. You have no reason whatsoever to think that his hobbies his to kill people like there is no reason to think that women who do an abortion have "killing babies" as hobby. That's a poor and irrelevant fallacy, also called "poisoning the well".

- When someone say that men should be silent for abortion, it's like they forget that we are a species that works with sexual reproduction. In other words, you need a male and a female to make a newborn through fertilization of an egg.
If you look for the root of the problems (being unvoluntary pregnant), then the woman had several choice ahead:
- Choosing her partner (hence not one she doesn't want a child with)
- Using childbirth: Condom, IUD, pill, tubal ligation.
- Asking her partner to use childbirth: Condom, vasectomy if it's their thing.
- Not letting her partner nut inside her.
- In case of an accident, morning after pill.

She already had several choices to take about her body prior to get pregnant. If she does, then the problem is not her anymore, but their, although she bears the main burden. Her, like the man who made her pregnant, as to take responsibilities for their act.
I know it is very hard to conceive in a society full of adulescents, but when you do shit, you accept the consequences or you don't do that crap.

Now, as a good German, you target a Pole. This is lovely and similar to what is happening on a political level with Germans or French polticians who want to dictate what Poles do in Poland.

Biology is one thing economical factors are other. In the end it is a parent who earns more to be deciding person usually it is a man. 9 months of pregnancy means nothing when you compare it to 18 years of constant expanses on o child that need books clothes food etc. keeping the child in your body is nothing hard to do despite all women claims. Earning enough to sustain family is way harder

I disagree. A lot of women have jobs, which they have to give up in order to take care of their child. Also people get child support from the government to take care of the child. And as a man, you have absolutely no idea of how hard and painful child birth is. A lot of women deal with ptss and body issues after giving birth, so it's not only biological and economical related, as well as emotionally and mentally.

you have absolutely no idea of how hard and painful child birth is.

You don't seem to be a mother considering your age, so... Do you?

As for the economical side of the question: Yes, women have job and sometimes give up on it. Yes, some people get support from the government to take care of the child. However:
- Do you really think that support from a government is enough? That many people get it and that government support is free money that appears out of thin air?
- If some women give up on their job, is it true for most? I think most mothers I had around me in my life were working, not to say all of them, because their family would collapse due to lack of money else.

@WisentVincent also raise an itneresting point, despite I don't fully agree with it. When you look at it, women usually take more part time job or work less, but not necessarily because they are forced to raise chhildren, but also by choice to do so. Also, and if you look for divorce/child allowance; that would almost always be the man who would pay it.
Like I said earlier, a child and a pregnancy before that is not a solo work, despite the burden on women's body. It's made by 2 people and it will affect both people in any case. On my part, I prefer people to assume the consequences of their act, both men and women instead of being free to act like adulescents.

You don't seem to be a mother considering your age, so... Do you?

As for the economical side of the question: Yes, women have job and sometimes give up on it. Yes, some people get support from the government to take care of the child. However:
- Do you really think that support from a government is enough? That many people get it and that government support is free money that appears out of thin air?
- If some women give up on their job, is it true for most? I think most mothers I had around me in my life were working, not to say all of them, because their family would collapse due to lack of money else.

@WisentVincent also raise an itneresting point, despite I don't fully agree with it. When you look at it, women usually take more part time job or work less, but not necessarily because they are forced to raise chhildren, but also by choice to do so. Also, and if you look for divorce/child allowance; that would almost always be the man who would pay it.
Like I said earlier, a child and a pregnancy before that is not a solo work, despite the burden on women's body. It's made by 2 people and it will affect both people in any case. On my part, I prefer people to assume the consequences of their act, both men and women instead of being free to act like adulescents.

No, I don't, but stories of mothers and experiences of cramps do give you an idea if you're a female. In the Netherlands you have child support from the government if you don't earn enough to support your family.

Yes, a lot of women do have part time jobs to support their family, plus they do the work around the house and mostly raise the children. That's nothing less than earning money. Also, if the woman and man decide together who works the most and who focuses on raising the kids, then it is the choice of the both of them.

And about child allowence; if the woman raises the kids, then ofcourse the man should help pay for the kids' need, as the woman spends her time with the kids.

I agree it's not a solo work, but in general the man can more easily go away and reject his responsibilty. I think every woman should have the right to decide what happens with their body. How is it alright to force a human being to grow a baby inside of her?

I agree it's not a solo work, but in general the man can more easily go away and reject his responsibilty. I think every woman should have the right to decide what happens with their body. How is it alright to force a human being to grow a baby inside of her?

Then rather to promote irresponsibility, maybe it would be better to enforce responsibilities for men who run away from them.
Also, as I said, se was not forced to have intercourses without birth control or with a partner who doesn't use them either, neither was she to let this man finish his job there. She wasn't forced either not to take an after-morning pill. A woman, like a man in this case, has many chances not to let this happen prior to this last resort. The only women who don't are: 1) raped women; 2) women for whom pregnancy threaten their life. Another rare case would be hyperfertile women, but let's be honest: it's definitely not so common. Maybe there are another case or two that I forget, but again, not the majority of the cases.
I think it's reasonable to ask people to take their responsibilities except in the above mentioned case, and maybe when the child has a huge defect that would severly impact the future parents' life

Then rather to promote irresponsibility, maybe it would be better to enforce responsibilities for men who run away from them.
Also, as I said, se was not forced to have intercourses without birth control or with a partner who doesn't use them either, neither was she to let this man finish his job there. She wasn't forced either not to take an after-morning pill. A woman, like a man in this case, has many chances not to let this happen prior to this last resort. The only women who don't are: 1) raped women; 2) women for whom pregnancy threaten their life. Another rare case would be hyperfertile women, but let's be honest: it's definitely not so common. Maybe there are another case or two that I forget, but again, not the majority of the cases.
I think it's reasonable to ask people to take their responsibilities except in the above mentioned case, and maybe when the child has a huge defect that would severly impact the future parents' life

I agree with your first point. You can't be sure tho who's forced and not: abusive husbands could force their wives to have intercourse with them. Also, birth control doesn't work in 100% of the cases, as sometimes things tear when you don't know. Even when a man doesn't finish, you still have some that comes before it, so it's not a safe option. And what about the cases of people who are happily together, but unwanted pregnant. Shouldn't they have the oppurtunity to be childless if they want to and continue their lives together? Not all people want to become parents.

abortion should always be a decision of man. Men earn more so they are the main support for family therefore they should have deciding voice when it comes to keeping baby or not. In the end it is their money mostly that will be spend on new family member.

Abortion never should be allowed as decision, no matter if it's man or woman who decide.

I agree with your first point. You can't be sure tho who's forced and not: abusive husbands could force their wives to have intercourse with them. Also, birth control doesn't work in 100% of the cases, as sometimes things tear when you don't know. Even when a man doesn't finish, you still have some that comes before it, so it's not a safe option. And what about the cases of people who are happily together, but unwanted pregnant. Shouldn't they have the oppurtunity to be childless if they want to and continue their lives together? Not all people want to become parents.

Like I said, there are some exceptions to considerate, but abortion is an ultimate recourse, whereas you have already several possibilities ahead that can be combined. if people are happy together and think that a child would be a burden, then they should take measures prior to abortion. Again, you have consequences for your acts.

you also talk about marital rape, but abortion, too, could be forced onto women (bonus, you can even get both). If you want to use a minor case, then the ones onthe opposite should count as well.

Are you for smaller government? or are you for parking a government agent in every doctor's office? Pick one please. If you are for the latter
I don't want to hear about cutting the costs of government you don't have a peg leg to even stand on in that discussion.
I have objections to religion dictating laws that people follow as a matter of personal policy. Religious people should keep their fetuses if they want
to follow their religion more than they want to do the best thing for themselves if in fact aborting is the best thing for them, which is their call to make and not mine. But the point still stands. No government should be telling women what to do with their bodies. NO.
I am pro choice.

Abortion never should be allowed as decision, no matter if it's man or woman who decide.

But why not. I personally believe that abortion isn't murder because murder is when you take someones life. Even if a foetus would be a living creature (wich it isn't, it's a parasite) it doesn't have a life. However the mother does and her life or mental health can be safed by removing this creature in her stomach. This foetus isn't a baby you are making an emotional desision where you see a cute baby violentely being murdred. But it is a foetus and as long as it sits in his mother stomach it is sipmly a parisite living trough her. So she can do with her parisite what she wants. Or is removing a tapeworm murder aswell?

But why not. I personally believe that abortion isn't murder because murder is when you take someones life. Even if a foetus would be a living creature (wich it isn't, it's a parasite) it doesn't have a life. However the mother does and her life or mental health can be safed by removing this creature in her stomach. This foetus isn't a baby you are making an emotional desision where you see a cute baby violentely being murdred. But it is a foetus and as long as it sits in his mother stomach it is sipmly a parisite living trough her. So she can do with her parisite what she wants. Or is removing a tapeworm murder aswell?

So if it's 8 month living in stomach, it is a parasite?

Do You have any science for that awful statement?

It's You, who is emotional here, and somehow manipulated, calling the human "parasite". I encourage You to study some ethics, biology.

The rights of unborn isn't religion thing. It's ethical thing.

But why not. I personally believe that abortion isn't murder because murder is when you take someones life. Even if a foetus would be a living creature (wich it isn't, it's a parasite) it doesn't have a life. However the mother does and her life or mental health can be safed by removing this creature in her stomach. This foetus isn't a baby you are making an emotional desision where you see a cute baby violentely being murdred. But it is a foetus and as long as it sits in his mother stomach it is sipmly a parisite living trough her. So she can do with her parisite what she wants. Or is removing a tapeworm murder aswell?

Goon split the proverbial baby.... A fetus, is a collection of cells. A parasite is a living thing. So is a baby. Scientifically and clinically speaking a fetus is a collection of cells. A collection of cells that will eventually grow into a living thing. That collection of cells IS dependent on the body of the mother. The mother is most certainly a living thing. I agree, showing a cute baby being murdered to elicit a response of people saying abortion is wrong is manipulative. Actually yes, removing a tape worm is murder if the result is the death of the tape worm. However as humans, we view non human life as different and view the wormicide therefore differently. Should we? Interesting moral question that one and the question before us is abortion not weather tape worms have Buddha nature.

If it is 8 months in the body, it is viable. It can be surgically removed and put in an incubator and the mother can put it up for adoption and choose to never think about it again. But let's try this another way because turn about is fair play. The mother is over the age of 35 years not months old and walking around on this planet. She is having trouble carrying the pregnancy to term due to her age and health conditions. Do we force her to put her life at risk to carry an 8 months in the womb viable fetus to term? If life is sacred, what about hers? That viable fetus while able to be independent of her is still reliant upon her body. If she dies the chance the fetus dies too is exceedingly high. Or we can try to save both with the understanding when you prematurely remove a fetus, you risk it's life. What do we do then? Do you have a solution?

The science clearly shows a fetus under the age of about 24 weeks is completely reliant on the mother or host's body for it's continued existence. A discussion of an 8 month old baby in the womb and one that is under 24 weeks is NOT the same conversation. I realize like many men you may not understand how the female body works and how babies develop. But your ignorance is not proof of a lack of science on this issue. Just evidence that you care so little about this subject and that it is about punishing women for you over science, that you haven't even bothered to look at the scientific information available. Until a fetus is 24 weeks in the womb, it is absolutely a completely fair comparison on a scientific level to compare it to a parasite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
https://biologydictionary.net/parasitism/

A collection of cells IS NOT A PERSON! IT IS NOT A HUMAN! NOT YET!

Someone bearing false witness as to what a collection of cells is wants others to read ethics and biology? That is rich. Someone calling a collection of cells a human being wants to talk about manipulation? Really??? Bud, you sure you want to do that? Because it's highly unethical and manipulative. Unless you are also proposing the bloody from a bloody nose should be worn forever because to wipe it away and throw the tissue in the trash is to throw away a baby. I DID study some biology. I am trained in medical herbalism, massage therapy thai and swedish, had to study many hours of biology to earn that certification in my state. I am not a medical doctor, but, not all that far off.

Yes the rights of the unborn. What about the rights of the already born and walking around? hmm? Now you could choose to be up in arms complaining that science needs to create a uterus so MEN can carry the baby in the event the woman doesn't want to. But instead you are here argueing you should get to control and make decisions for a sovereign adult educated human being with a life that she is financially responsible for. Who the hell do you think you are to make decisions like that for other people?

Your position boils down to simply wanting to control other people. You get to control yourself. You don't get to choose for other people. They get to choose what makes sense for their own life and body. Why should YOU get to own your body but somehow mine is public property? Hmmm?

It is entirely about religion and patriarchy. At least where I live it is.

In this country you can't get an abortion in the 8th month. How do you murder something by removing it if it can survive outside of you already? It is only guaranteed death up until the 24th week. After that it can be removed and quite possibly kept alive. So why aren't you out there bleating like a goat at medical science to do better rather than sitting here trying to dictate to sovereign human beings what they should and should not be able to do with their own body. On WHO's authority if not God's should they be forced to carry to term in? Certainly not yours just another socvereign no body with personal opinions on someone else's personal issues that have nothing to do with you personally?

Take a seat.

So if it's 8 month living in stomach, it is a parasite?

Do You have any science for that awful statement?

It's You, who is emotional here, and somehow manipulated, calling the human "parasite". I encourage You to study some ethics, biology.

The rights of unborn isn't religion thing. It's ethical thing.

For me i think it depends if abortion is allowed. So for example if you are a victim and somebody abused you then i think you would be allowed to have abortion. But i also know for example stories that others get pregnant bc they are super careless and they just dont care. And it does not happen one time but with some it happened several times. That is not right i think. But also i think it is not right if they are forced as the mom because she cant take care of herself so how can she be a mom. So i dont know for sure really anymore if abortion should be allowed or not. But there are of course also other cases.

We discussed it also here: https://penpal-gate.net/forum/13-anything-and-everything/9742-true-or-false/20 and you have to scroll to the second half of that page. And i still think that maybe the doctor should decide it. But for a doctor it is also difficult to decide when it should be allowed and not.

We discussed it in our society class and in the beginning it was a nice discussion and people are respectful. But after that people really got agressive or super heavy with the discussion. I did not like that. But we did discuss it.

For me i think it depends if abortion is allowed. So for example if you are a victim and somebody abused you then i think you would be allowed to have abortion. But i also know for example stories that others get pregnant bc they are super careless and they just dont care. And it does not happen one time but with some it happened several times. That is not right i think. But also i think it is not right if they are forced as the mom because she cant take care of herself so how can she be a mom. So i dont know for sure really anymore if abortion should be allowed or not. But there are of course also other cases.

We discussed it also here: https://penpal-gate.net/forum/13-anything-and-everything/9742-true-or-false/20 and you have to scroll to the second half of that page. And i still think that maybe the doctor should decide it. But for a doctor it is also difficult to decide when it should be allowed and not.

We discussed it in our society class and in the beginning it was a nice discussion and people are respectful. But after that people really got agressive or super heavy with the discussion. I did not like that. But we did discuss it.

I agree that some people are not fit to be parents, but there is something called adoption. I don't think abortion should be taken lightly, you can't just kill things and think it's fine just because it's legal.

I understand that babies can only be considered as such after a certain amount of time, like @Wildflower-Farm said, but even cells are alive, and I don't think it's right to decide wether a creature of any sort lives or dies. Unless your life is threatened by it or something like that, it's not your soul/existence, so it's not your choice. Like I said before, there is always adoption.