Or maybe there is legal grounds to ban guns...

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Why do you value sleeping around more than another person's inherent right to life? Use protection, make sure the woman is using birth control as well. If those safeguards fail then no, I don't think the unborn child should have to suffer for it just because his or her life would be an inconvenience to his parents.

It's not just the value of sleeping around. You are essentially saying that the process that made every human in the planet should be a risk on your life. Either having an unwanted child or going to prison is essentially taking off years of a person's life and those solutions are also in total disregard of the value of one's life and it's quality too. Pro-abortion arguments are selling you the choice between two evils when you could just sterilize people and keep every freedom and every wanted responsability alive in our current society.

Mass sterilization is the only moral answer as you present it.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
There are other ways to get off you know if you don't wanna take the chance of getting a woman pregnant: oral sex, anal (which is gross to me but to each his own), jerking off, pulling out before ejaculation, etc.

Most of this is accurate but due to a prude society and lack of sexual education, it's unreasonable to expect the whole population to manage their sexuality properly. There will be always a group of poor uneducated people that won't have the background to act seriously in building a non-fertile sexuality.

Everything I mentioned about social pressure applies here too: you push people towards having "real sex" and make it a luxury by putting a price tag into it. But every human being was born like that. It's a mixed message.

Our society would probably benefit from sterilizing everyone and making people jump through hoops in order to get the right to have a kid.

Owning a gun has folk getting background checks, etc. Yet you wanna pop out a kid, even if you're like 15? It's okay, we even glamorize doing it at a young age with shows like "teen mom". Awesome.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'd rather say...if women can shirk all responsibility for a kid, why can't men?

Would you be open to men being able to opt out of having to pay for child support for similar reasons women opt out of giving birth? Is it okay for a woman to abort a kid cuz she can't afford to take care of it, but also to be able to force a man to take care of it even if he can't afford it and she decides to keep it?

I'm not against child support, but if the mantra is "her body her choice". Well...why not "her choice...her job to support it" ? It *does* take two to tango, but then that can't apply here unless we're gonna say a man has an actual say in abortion, but he doesn't. A woman can abort a child even if the father is a billionaire who is promising to take care of it and the child poses no serious health risk.

You can count Surtur to introduce a fair sexless evaluation of the situation. The guy who knocked up a woman who aborted should go to prison because it takes two to tango biscuits

To be fair I don't believe that "her body her choice" should be a central part of the argument, to me the problem comes more from the responsabilities you are denied/forced to take than anything else. With that said, giving birth can permanently phuck up your body and then you have to train and upkeep your lower muscles so your organs don't fall off, so I see why a woman wouldn't want to go through that because "there is no serious health risk". Ultimately living 4 bad years of your life because a condom broke is not a pill easy to swallow either.

Originally posted by Bentley
You can count Surtur to introduce a fair sexless evaluation of the situation. The guy who knocked up a woman who aborted should go to prison because it takes two to tango biscuits

To be fair I don't believe that "her body her choice" should be a central part of the argument, to me the problem comes more from the responsabilities you are denied/forced to take than anything else. With that said, giving birth can permanently phuck up your body and then you have to train and upkeep your lower muscles so your organs don't fall off, so I see why a woman wouldn't want to go through that because "there is no serious health risk". Ultimately living 4 bad years of your life because a condom broke is not a pill easy to swallow either.

I never actually advocated for sending anyone to jail.

I'm saying women shouldn't be able to opt out cuz they just don't feel like having a kid while also having the ability to force a man into 18 years of child support if they so choose.

And okay, let's go with "even a normal pregnancy can f*ck up her life for years". Well, so can 18 years of child support for the guy.

So, now Bentley is repeating the already debunked myth that abortion is safer than child birth? I'm not surprised. Anything you have to convince yourself of in order to justify infantacide, eh Bentley? 👆

Originally posted by Surtur
I never actually advocated for sending anyone to jail.

I'm saying women shouldn't be able to opt out cuz they just don't feel like having a kid while also having the ability to force a man into 18 years of child support if they so choose.

And okay, let's go with "even a normal pregnancy can f*ck up her life for years". Well, so can 18 years of child support for the guy.

The prison thing was just a joke to highlight how the responsabilities on these topics are stupidly loopsided.

I pretty much agree with your observation. It also makes a good argument to settle with default sterilization. If a guy declares he rather have the woman have an abortion he should by all means be extempt of paying (providing abortion is legal). But then you'd have cases where the guy found out after the legal date of abortion or got told later and many other tricky situations that are just a legal mess in the making.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
So, now Bentley is repeating the already debunked myth that abortion is safer than child birth? I'm not surprised. Anything you have to convince yourself of in order to justify infantacide, eh Bentley? 👆

Or you can address the actual argument I make.

What's your stance in sterilization?

Originally posted by Bentley
So the argument here is "everyone who has sex should be willing to ruin their lives", well, women that is.

Thanks for being brave enough to respond despite the pack-attack in full force.

I think a better characterization of what you just said is as follows:

"The argument here is 'everyone who willingly rawdogs should be willing to raise a child that results from that instead of murdering it. And if you want to keep it and your man doesn't, you should be on the hook for the cost and care of the baby.'"

Originally posted by Bentley
All this by allowing enormous social pressure on sex, objectifying people, having reduced taxes for multimillion dollar firms that leech on dating stigmas etc.? This all happening while keeping contraception a luxury because everyone has to pay for it. And kids don't even get proper sex education. But your government has a solution for you in that dire situation: you can go to prison.

Instead of putting so much money into campaigning to ban abortions more resources should be allocated to develop temporary sterilization techniques so only people who want children are fertile awesr

Healthcare for all which includes free contraceptives is a must. You cannot be pro-life without healthcare for all and free contraceptives. It's a moralistic contradiction.

Originally posted by Bentley
Or you can address the actual argument I make.

What's your stance in sterilization?

The default should be "everyone is sterilized and only those who get a license can have babies."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No one, including an unborn child, has a fundamental right to use the body of another person to live. Period.

Erm, the unborn child fundamentally uses the life of it’s surrogate because it’s life depends on it. It’s basic biology. Forget whether or not it has a voice in the issue — it doesn’t — but to say it doesn’t have a right to use it’s surrogate’s life is so inane I can’t understand what you were thinking.

Biology > Adam_POE’s philosophy on human rights.

Originally posted by Bentley
Or you can address the actual argument I make.

What's your stance in sterilization?

Not to interject between you two, but out of curiosity, are you aware of the United States history with sterilization?

Originally posted by cdtm
Not to interject between you two, but out of curiosity, are you aware of the United States history with sterilization?

Lol well we sure have made some mistakes, but with some moxy and a new attitude...

Originally posted by cdtm
Not to interject between you two, but out of curiosity, are you aware of the United States history with sterilization?

"An estimated 25,000 people were given unconsented sterilization while the 1948 Eugenics Protection Law was in place until 1996. The law was designed to “prevent the birth of poor-quality descendants” and allowed doctors to sterilize people with disabilities. It was quietly renamed as the Maternity Protection Law in 1996, when the discriminatory condition was removed."

Eugenics is necessary for a society to function without burden. Japan has universal healthcare; in only makes sense that those bound to be a burden monetarily be removed.

^I'm not surprised you support Eugenics considering your abhorrent views on abortion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for being brave enough to respond despite the pack-attack in full force.

I think a better characterization of what you just said is as follows:

"The argument here is 'everyone who willingly rawdogs should be willing to raise a child that results from that instead of murdering it. And if you want to keep it and your man doesn't, you should be on the hook for the cost and care of the baby.'"

Mostly yeah, but the post I responded to implied that even if a condom broke the lady should just suck it up. You are pretty much then forced to assume other chemical methods to get rid of any possibility of breeding, it becomes more expensive.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Healthcare for all which includes free contraceptives is a must. You cannot be pro-life without healthcare for all and free contraceptives. It's a moralistic contradiction.

Free contraceptives and proper sex education, which assumes that your family and Friends won't actively keep/pressure you from getting information/protection. Even then it's hard to ensure that low class people with little education and precarious backgrounds have proper access to contraception and entertain it properly.

But statistically the situation would be much better still.

Originally posted by cdtm
Not to interject between you two, but out of curiosity, are you aware of the United States history with sterilization?

Please share that certainly does sound like a found anecdote).

Here in Europe we do have a stigma against talking about control population politics because of the Nazis.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The default should be "everyone is sterilized and only those who get a license can have babies."

Pretty much, but I shiver at thinking the burocracy behind asking for a licence.

At the end of all this, who's opinion has changed?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
At the end of all this, who's opinion has changed?

Mine. Before I did not give it much of a thought about any real solution that would help resolve these issues and now I feel sterilization is the most responsible choice for everyone.

Thanks for everyone who made it possible 👆

Originally posted by Bentley
Mine. Before I did not give it much of a thought about any real solution that would help resolve these issues and now I feel sterilization is the most responsible choice for everyone.

Thanks for everyone who made it possible 👆

More like sterilization to everyone who can't afford to raise kids without significant govt $$, that seems more reasonable or not. 😱 😘

Originally posted by snowdragon
More like sterilization to everyone who can't afford to raise kids without significant govt $$, that seems more reasonable or not. 😱 😘

For me the willingness to have children as opposed to life being a literal accident is the center of the idea.

If you have to thin out people who deserve to have children (which is something I don't necessarily agree with -more potential of changing my mind!-) my first criterea would be a psychological evaluation.