What do you mean they're not legal outcomes? Truancy is a crime.
Last edited:
Society/Culture The Abortion Thread
- Thread starter DivideandMultiply
- Start date
- Tagged users None
What do you mean they're not legal outcomes? Truancy is a crime.
It's a messy situation, but until such a time as 'artificial wombs' become a medical fact allowing foetual development to continue from even the earliest point independent of a mother then the law as far as this goes is going to favour the person CARRYING the foetus rather than the one who supplied the sperm.
I'm pro-choice but even I admit this is horribly unfair on fathers. There are several ethical problems associated with tubed, parentless humans being mass-produced in the future (think of the military applications) but as far as the abortion debate goes the sooner the artificial womb is a reality the sooner this whole mess can become more equitable.
Are we ready for the artificial womb?
In the coming years, the obstacles to ectogenesis --development outside of a mother from fertilization to full-term infancy-- will be dominated more by legal and ethical matters than by technological and medical limitations.
geneticliteracyproject.org
It's all good to have sex and then kill a baby later.
Talking about legality is a false equivalence. It similar to GOP hiding behind constitutions regarding the ability to incite a mob for insurrection at the protection of free speech.
And I don't think the worst thing is the actual act, it's others acting like some kind of religious deity when life actually begins. That kind of apathy is the kind of apathy you have when you require religious/cultish double-think to justify your cause.
Far left radicals will complain about the death penalty and guns but are happy to kill babies
because it is inconvenient for a woman's ability to wear heels 
for a few months.Notice that Chief said he chose not to comment on my foetal development post because he said "it was emotive". The post I wrote was all facts, what emotion you take from it is just self projection.
cartwright
Brownlow Medallist
So much discussion on women’s medical decisions. How sweet.
Did you just assume the gender of all pregnant people??!
Seriously though, I know you won't agree, but I find the 'It's a women's issue to discuss only!' argument to be absurdly child-like and very frustrating. To me, it's obviously an ethical issue that any and all should be able to contribute to. Just like every issue.
cartwright
Brownlow Medallist
no, I think any person can discuss the issue. Was just highlighting how women and women’s health/medical were not even considered.
... it’s a medical issue. If ones ethics don’t align then a) don’t have an abortion b) don’t impregnate someone who may consider having an abortion if they need to.
Fair enough. The discussion almost always centres on the baby rather than the mother. It's less than ideal.
To reframe it as purely a medical issue is just a way of hand waving any dissenting opinion away. All medical issues have an ethical element, and abortion is certainly no exception.
- Aug 21, 2016
- 15,741
- 24,895
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
Ethics doesn't generally come into impregnation by drunken shag. It does come into sober discussions of the consequences.
A significant percentage of mothers suffer PND after giving birth. We should terminate the child as soon as we see this, and the sooner the better, if we are to be consistent with women's medical issues.
cartwright
Brownlow Medallist
this is the dumbest and most ridiculous comment ever made on this topic.
You should delete it from embarrassment.
I'm embarrassed you support murdering babies. You should delete your account.
It's a messy situation, but until such a time as 'artificial wombs' become a medical fact allowing foetual development to continue from even the earliest point independent of a mother then the law as far as this goes is going to favour the person CARRYING the foetus rather than the one who supplied the sperm.
I'm pro-choice but even I admit this is horribly unfair on fathers. There are several ethical problems associated with tubed, parentless humans being mass-produced in the future (think of the military applications) but as far as the abortion debate goes the sooner the artificial womb is a reality the sooner this whole mess can become more equitable.
Are we ready for the artificial womb?
In the coming years, the obstacles to ectogenesis --development outside of a mother from fertilization to full-term infancy-- will be dominated more by legal and ethical matters than by technological and medical limitations.
Thanks for the link.
It's refreshing to see someone with a position in this debate who can at least concede the extreme inequity of the present legal perspective.
I wonder the extent to which an artificial womb would impact the situation. When you look at adoption laws in the US, it's quite easy for a mother to adopt a child out without the father's consent. And should he get wind and try to stop it, there's a number of hoops still to jump through.
Classic ideological abstraction. This is like the "it's just a bunch of cells" distortion.
Yeah nah. Fake news. In many cases, this is no more a "medical decision" than a ******* nose job.
I've noticed Chief dodge a number of inconvenient points and then claim no good argument against his position.
Nope. It's not abortion and slavery being compared here. It's the act of falsely claiming consent where there was none. That could be done in a range of dissimilar circumstances. If you're okay with something being forced upon someone against their will, at least acknowledge their objection. To feign consent where is is none is just out and out rapey.
If you're looking for a greater equivalency of events where this subterfuge could be applied, perhaps the stolen generation is more similar. "You knew there was a chance the government would take your kids, if you didn't wanna lose them you shouldn't have had sex ... thus you've given your consent".
Of course, this is just rubbish. No means no. Pretending otherwise is deplorable.
Applies to both mother and father.
This is not an intelligent argument.
