Abortion

[IBDaMann]

People have had their heart stop before and have been revived.

Be careful to not assume a false contrapositive.

Where there is a heartbeat, there is life. Where there is no heartbeat, there still might be life. [someone might need CPR]
Where there is breathing, there is life. Where there is no breathing, there still might be life. [someone might be holding his breath]

 

[Scott]

The keyword is "murder". Is the termination of a fetus murder?

I definitely don't believe so.

 

[Scott]

I believe legality should follow biology. Biologically speaking, a man never has to worry about becoming pregnant, let alone worry about being forced to carry said pregnancy to term. I don't think women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term.

I say It's a couple's Right to choose. Each gets an equal say in what happens. She wants the child and he doesn't? He's out of the picture entirely and owes nothing, she gets the child.

I don't agree. If he made the mistake of giving her his seed via sexual intercourse and the woman gets pregnant, he's on the hook for child support if she chooses to bring the pregnancy to term. Now, the important thing here is that he has to give her the seed to where she would get pregnant. If he ejaculates into a condom or even her mouth and she then takes the seed and puts it into her vagina, that doesn't count. I don't know if sperm could survive being in the mouth for a bit, but I have already heard of a story where a woman took her husband's sperm from his condom, put it into her vagina and got pregnant. It all worked out (he had thought he wouldn't make a good father, but apparently decided to give it a go), but it might not have.

He wants the child and she doesn't? She carries it to term--because of biology and no other reason--and he gets the child. He pays for all OB gyn services through childbirth for her. She has no further part in things.

I don't believe a woman's bodily autonomy should be able to be bought off. If she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, for whatever reason, I believe she should have the right to terminate said pregnancy regardless of his wishes.

 

[Scott]

In theory. In practice, the man may be unavailable once a pregnancy starts, or perhaps worse, be an abusive partner. There are many reasons why a woman may choose that terminating a pregnancy is her best option. I listed them in the following thread:

Thread 'Why women have abortions'

Sep 11, 2025

After discussing why women have abortions in another thread whose topic definitely isn't abortions, I decided it would be better to make a thread for the subject instead. Below is an excerpt from an article that lists the different reasons women have abortions:
**
Generally, people use the term “abortion” to refer to the intentional termination of a pregnancy.
The vast majority of abortions take place early in pregnancy. In 2020, 93.1% of abortions in the United States occurred at 13 weeks’ gestation or sooner.
The Turnaway study followed 954 people from across the United...

• Scott
• abortions hannah nichols medicalnewstoday.com reasons women choose to have an abortion stacy henigsman
• Replies: 146
• Forum: General Politics Forum

• 

Abusive, rape, etc., are NOT what I'm talking about. Those cases are criminal ones and handled through the criminal courts. I'm talking about consensual sex between two people, married or unmarried. Both parties get equal say in the outcome. That's how civil contract law works. The woman does not get to make those decisions on her own without consulting the man involved. He gets equal say. Obviously, if there were some medical complication and something had to be done quickly without such consultation, that's an exception, and fine and understandable. But the norm is both get equal say.

I think you know that the norm depends on which U.S. state you're in at this point.

If the woman is sleeping with a trailer park, that's her problem. The legal situation doesn't change. She can't carry the kid to term and then expect child support after a paternity test because she didn't do due diligence to find and notify the man involved of the situation legally. That's FAIR AND EQUAL.

No, fair and equal would be that any man sleeping with her would have to ensure that he didn't ejaculate into her vagina. Once they do that, they're on the hook for child support, assuming she can prove it was his sperm. The only wiggle room should be if there's solid evidence that he didn't actually ejaculate into her vagina, but instead into something else like a condom and she then put it into her vagina manually.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I don't agree. If he made the mistake of giving her his seed via sexual intercourse and the woman gets pregnant, he's on the hook for child support if she chooses to bring the pregnancy to term.

Why should that be? She gets all the say, he has none, but once the child is born based on her decision alone, he's on the hook for 18 years of child support?

It should be she's required to notify him immediately of the situation. Both get equal, legal say in the outcome. They decide together, just as they consented to have sex together, and that decides the outcome. Fair and equal.

Now, the important thing here is that he has to give her the seed to where she would get pregnant. If he ejaculates into a condom or even her mouth and she then takes the seed and puts it into her vagina, that doesn't count.

It shouldn't matter. The sexual act(s) were consensual and in legal terms, formed a verbal contract between the two. Both should get to decide any further outcome.

I don't know if sperm could survive being in the mouth for a bit, but I have already heard of a story where a woman took her husband's sperm from his condom, put it into her vagina and got pregnant. It all worked out (he had thought he wouldn't make a good father, but apparently decided to give it a go), but it might not have.

I don't care. Fair and equal is both agreed to sex. Both knew what the potential outcomes of that sex could be. Both get to decide if a pregnancy occurs what the outcome from that will be. Fair and equal.

I don't believe a woman's bodily autonomy should be able to be bought off. If she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, for whatever reason, I believe she should have the right to terminate said pregnancy regardless of his wishes.

Too bad for her. She agreed to consensual sex and knew the potential outcomes, just like the guy did. Both should be equally responsible for what happens during the pregnancy and afterwards if the child is born. That's fair and equal.

 

[Scott]

Now you're getting into your religious beliefs, which not everyone shares.

Yes! You're very astute! I'm definitely dabbling into my religious beliefs a bit here, as it's "what I know best". I am aware that my religious beliefs are not shared by everyone (I even disagree with fellow Christians when it comes to certain beliefs), but I do think that there's practical knowledge to be gained from Christianity even if one doesn't "share the faith". I think that the statement "a woman who doesn't want to have a child shouldn't be having any sex (with a man) in the first place" is one example of such practical knowledge, regardless of one's belief or lack of belief in the Christian faith.

I'm sure you know there are ways to avoid having a child, not to mention that some men and women can't have children for various reasons.

But from the Christian faith angle, having sex before marriage IS a deviation from God's design for sex (which is meant to occur AFTER marriage).

I think we can agree that marriage is a type of contract. I definitely like the idea of some kind of contract before the possibility of impregnating a woman. I see it as akin to having car insurance to drive a car.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I think you know that the norm depends on which U.S. state you're in at this point.

Yes, as it should. Abortion is not an interstate or federal issue.

No, fair and equal would be that any man sleeping with her would have to ensure that he didn't ejaculate into her vagina. Once they do that, they're on the hook for child support, assuming she can prove it was his sperm. The only wiggle room should be if there's solid evidence that he didn't actually ejaculate into her vagina, but instead into something else like a condom and she then put it into her vagina manually.

Not true. Consensual sex means both parties agreed to the terms and conditions that sex would occur under and knew potential outcomes. She could ask, even demand, that the man involved wear a condom. It isn't his decision alone. Fair and equal. What they decide before and during sex needs to be agreed on and the outcomes are known. Fair and equal.

 

[Scott]

I can certainly understand the desire to have sex but not have children. It may not even be that the woman doesn't want children, but rather that, for various reasons, she doesn't believe she is currently ready to have one, or more than one if she already has one or more.

I can likewise understand that desire. Sex is FUN. Sex FEELS GOOD. Heck, even masturbation (a cheap imitation of sex) FEELS GOOD. However, what is fun and feels good is not always what is best for us.

Agreed.

Deviating from God's design in such a manner is not only unfruitful but it can (and does) cause harm/destruction to self and others.

This part may not go over so well with non Christians, but as you know, I do think that contracts before complicated endeavours like potential pregnancies are a good idea.

Humans are creatures of habit, and I have learned that it is important to form GOOD (fruitful/constructive) habits rather than BAD (unfruitful/destructive) habits. Habits can easily become addictions and are VERY hard to break once deeply rooted.

Sure. I think the hard part can be figuring out which habits are good and which ones are bad.

 

[Scott]

I can certainly understand the desire to have sex but not have children. It may not even be that the woman doesn't want children, but rather that, for various reasons, she doesn't believe she is currently ready to have one, or more than one if she already has one or more. I think there's nothing wrong with that desire. This desire can happen in marriage and outside of it.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that desire. This, in Christian theology, gets into the distinction between temptation and sin.

However, one must be VERY careful with such desires, as they easily lead to sin. The "Christian course of action" to take when facing such a desire is to immediately RUN from it (don't even entertain the thought). Don't even entertain the thought of sex outside of marriage. Don't even entertain the thought of sex when there's no intention of procreating. Don't even entertain the thought of watching porn and/or masturbating. All of those thoughts can easily lead to actions that will definitely lead to destruction/unfruitfulness rather than construction/fruitfulness.

While I'm a Christian and I like to promote my faith to others, this really doesn't have to be about Christianity at all. There's still a number of very practical and healthy reasons to view this subject matter in a similar way as I do.

I also don't mean to put myself on any sort of a pedestal either; If I deserve to be anywhere, it's towards the bottom of the barrel. I'm guilty of doing some of the very same things that I speak out against on here. I'm guilty of succumbing to various temptations. I'm even guilty of carelessly allowing certain temptations to become habitual sins (and experiencing firsthand how extremely difficult it is to loose oneself from such sins when it gets to that point).

Well, I'll say right off the bat that I've never been married, but I've certainly had sexual intercourse and I don't think there was anything wrong with that. Only 3 women though. Now, you could say, what about a contract, to which I'd say, my word is my bond . Had I gotten any of these 3 women pregnant, I would have respected her decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. I would have even helped pay for her to have an abortion, assuming I had the money to do so. The first woman, I wouldn't have had the money, but I used a condom, so that would have been unlikely. Second woman, she used protection and we were in Canada, where abortions are paid for by the government. Third time, lots of unprotected sex, but she was on the pill and I had some money at the time.

So in summation, I see absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to have sex and not having children, but to definitely have a backup plan just in case a pregnancy results anyway. And yes, I think that one option should be abortion, but only if the woman is amenable. If not, the man should have to do what he can to pay child support.

 

[Scott]

The problem is when having sex leads to unwanted pregnancies.

... which is precisely why I strongly advise AGAINST any woman and man having sex who do NOT want to have a child. This course of action is not only the "Christian way", but it is also the practical sense way. It is also the "avoiding destruction" way.

From personal experience, I think that desire to have sex can be pretty strong, especially when one is in one's younger years. I think we could say that a lot of people take risks when they are young and then pay the consequences for risks taken that don't turn out well.

Refusal to heed this advice is precisely what leads to the destruction that is known as the subset of 'contract killings'

Here's where we disagree, as I don't believe that abortion is a subset of contract killings.

 

[Scott]

There's also the issue that even a woman who -wanted- to get pregnant may have second thoughts afterwards due to changing circumstances after the fact.

In other words, procreation (and the sexual intercourse that can lead to it) is NOT something to take lightly. Yes, I understand that even the best of preparations are not a guarantee of "smooth sailing" going forward. That goes back to the "life in general is unfair/unequal" preface.

Agreed. Some women decide that it would be best to terminate their pregnancies at this point. I think that should be their choice to make.

 

[Scott]

As to STDs, I have rather strong views on some of those, particularly AIDS, which I don't believe is caused by a virus- I don't believe biological viruses exist at all. I have 2 threads on that if you're interested.

Yes, I am aware of your rejection of the existence of viruses (and of your threads about it). I think it makes sense to leave that discussion over there and to keep this discussion more focused on abortion.

Completely agreed, just wanted to make sure you knew about it in case that was something you wanted to discuss.

 

[Scott]

The proper "order of operations" is: dating > desire to join together as "one" > marriage > desire to have children > sex > procreation (ideal result) --- This (instead of destruction) brings about fruit (e.g. children).

Surely you recognize that not everyone follows your proper order of operations, for whatever reason. I suspect one of my elder nieces didn't, though I know so little of her life that I'm not actually sure. I just know that she now has a 1 year old daughter and I haven't heard much of the father. As with my sister/her mother, it looks like my mother has been helping her out, and she's had some help from elsewhere as well. Many women aren't nearly so fortunate.

To be clear, this isn't MY order of operations (although I do recommend following it). I realize that many people do NOT follow it. I've also seen the destruction that arises from people choosing not to follow it. One such example is widespread abortion [snip]

I think we can agree that in an ideal world, all pregnancies would be desired by the woman getting pregnant. We don't live in such a world, however. So what remains to be determined is what to do when a woman gets pregnant and wants to terminate her pregnancy. The U.S. has now decided that individual states are to make the laws on this and they have. U.S. citizens can vote with their feet, as well as regular votes and campaigns as to which laws they want to live with.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I think we can agree that in an ideal world, all pregnancies would be desired by the woman getting pregnant. We don't live in such a world, however. So what remains to be determined is what to do when a woman gets pregnant and wants to terminate her pregnancy. The U.S. has now decided that individual states are to make the laws on this and they have. U.S. citizens can vote with their feet, as well as regular votes and campaigns as to which laws they want to live with.

What do we do with the women who cant be bothered to do pregnancy prevention......we know this because they go back for abortions again and again?

 

[Scott]

In most cases, yes.

Great. We agree once again. I do also think that "most cases" is what should be focused on rather than the "0.000001% of exceptions" to said "most cases".

If only that were true. Brace yourself for the harsh reality:
**
Reports of forced intercourse remained high during the pandemic, with more than 25% of U.S. females over 40 reporting lifetime forced intercourse in the AFHS (number of females in AFHS: 1,042). There was a significant increase among females aged 24–28 (p<.05) and rates are highest for those who did not complete college. Among females 24–28, 32.5% (S.E. = 5.7%) with less than 4 years of college reported forced intercourse, a significantly (p<.05) higher rate than among those with higher education.

Conclusions:​

Rates of forced intercourse among U.S. women remained high during the pandemic, increasing significantly in early adulthood. This exposure to forced intercourse is likely to produce an increase in unintended pregnancies and other sexual, reproductive, and mental health problems.
**

Source:

Forced Intercourse in America: A Pandemic Update - PMC

Measures of forced intercourse from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) indicate this a high prevalence among U.S. women that is likely to produce unintended pregnancies. However, NCHS did not measure forced intercourse during the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Scott]

Do you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion after being raped?

This is a rather difficult question, and ascertaining the "godly" manner to react to such a situation is not the easiest thing to do.

Depends on your conception of God. I consider myself to be a Pantheist, which believes that God is the universe or something to that effect. I chose be become a Pantheist mainly because I found it online one day and said, that sounds like what I already believe. I just took a look at Wikipedia's entry on Pantheism- it says nothing at all about abortion. If it said that my question was difficult, I'd probably modify my religion to Pantheism, with one difference .

I understand and sympathize with the fact that the woman in this case didn't ask for it to happen (IOW, this is no fault of her own). In that regard, it makes sense that she shouldn't have to go through the struggle of pregnancy, giving birth, and raising a child that she didn't want or plan to have (but rather exists due to the sin of another).

On the other hand, the living human child [snip]

There's those twisted definitions again. I consider a fetus a fetus, a baby a baby and a child someone who's at an age where they can usually walk, some disabled children not withstanding. Have you considered that, consciously or unconsciously, you are saying child to muddy the waters?

Let's instead focus on the remaining 99+% of cases

The question you might want to ponder - is it truly only less than 1% of cases where coercion is involved? Remember that statistic I quoted an earlier post of 25%+ women experiencing forced sexual intercourse in the U.S.

 

[Nordberg]

I say It's a couple's Right to choose. Each gets an equal say in what happens. She wants the child and he doesn't? He's out of the picture entirely and owes nothing, she gets the child. He wants the child and she doesn't? She carries it to term--because of biology and no other reason--and he gets the child. He pays for all OB gyn services through childbirth for her. She has no further part in things.

Abusive, rape, etc., are NOT what I'm talking about. Those cases are criminal ones and handled through the criminal courts. I'm talking about consensual sex between two people, married or unmarried. Both parties get equal say in the outcome. That's how civil contract law works. The woman does not get to make those decisions on her own without consulting the man involved. He gets equal say. Obviously, if there were some medical complication and something had to be done quickly without such consultation, that's an exception, and fine and understandable. But the norm is both get equal say.

If the woman is sleeping with a trailer park, that's her problem. The legal situation doesn't change. She can't carry the kid to term and then expect child support after a paternity test because she didn't do due diligence to find and notify the man involved of the situation legally. That's FAIR AND EQUAL.

Fair and equal is something the Left demands all the time when it suits them. They toss it out the window when it doesn't. I say fair and equal applies ALL of the time and in this case the man gets equal say of the woman is solely responsible for everything and men aren't legally obligated to pay child support.

It should not be equal. If the man is not going to be involved in supporting and raising the child, he does not deserve equal say.
An unplanned pregnancy can take away a woman's chance for education, lose work promotions and, or drop her in the financial hierarchy.
Not so for the sperm donor.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It should not be equal. If the man is not going to be involved in supporting and raising the child, he does not deserve equal say.

He should if he is going to be involved, like he is forced to now by virtually every state's laws on child support even though he got no say in the pregnancy period of things. If she were to have an abortion and he wanted the child she figuratively fucked him over. He deserves an equal say from conception to age of majority.

An unplanned pregnancy can take away a woman's chance for education, lose work promotions and, or drop her in the financial hierarchy.
Not so for the sperm donor.

Then she should keep her fucking (pun intended) legs shut and not go out and pleasure fuck the whole frat house. She is equally, or more, culpable for an unplanned pregnancy.

 

[Into the Night]

So far, so good.



And here's where we disagree. A Proud Lefty actually found an article that gets into the difference between contract killing and abortions. It's here if you'd like to take a look:

Abortion is nothing like hiring a hitman, whatever Pope Francis says

Some careful reasoning shows that comparing abortion with contract murder equates two acts that are far from obviously morally equivalent.

theconversation.com

He can't get away with redefining words any more than you can.

 

[Into the Night]

You are thinking like a conservative. The Party of Death is on the left, where murder, assassination and killing-facilitating defenselessness zones are all perfectly acceptable solutions.

These 'solutions' are their undoing.