• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Opinion To Be or Not To Be (An Abortion Thread)

Slightly off topic, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man or a woman having a lot of unprotected consenting sex.

A doctor might advise that person to get on HIV prevention and/or pregnancy prevention pills but there is no reason anyone should have to feel guilty about consenting sex between adults.

Prepare for the consequences or deal with them. No one said being an adult was easy.

Well yeah. If you wanna have unprotected sex, that's fine, and it's great that there are so many contraceptive options.

But if you have hetero sex. Even with contraception. There are risks. Those risks are to be managed, not ignored or escaped.
 
It really feels to me like sometimes what men are saying is that they think they should be able to have as much sex as they want, be able to renounce any responsibilities that may result from it. And on top of that, BECAUSE of that ability, pressure women into letting them not wear a condom.

Yes, I know none of you are literally saying this, but it often feels like this is how it ultimately adds up when listening to what a lot of men say. Like, I think the fact that there are men who pressure women to let them not wear a condom is fairly uncontested. I would say it's pretty reasonable to assume many of those men are also the ones saying when a woman does get pregnant, she should just abort it or raise it themselves without him.

And refuse to accept the simple answer to all these problems, which is just don't have sex.

No not all men are like this, but it seems like a disturbingly large number are, even if not all of them are entirely conscious that that's how their position works out.

I dunno, part of me is just ranting here so try not to be too offended, this isn't directed to anyone specific. It's just this 'vibe' I get from a lot of arguments when they seem to refuse to not have sex, but also try and avoid consequences of having sex.
I agree with you, even if the male doesn't want the child, if it is born, he should be responsible.
 
mal3volent said:
I support her right to end it. But I think it's only fair that males who are in favor of termination ought to have the ability to opt out financially if the woman CHOOSES to have the child.

I disagree. If the woman chooses to keep a pregnancy, the biological father should be required to support the child financially. I understand your logic. It's interesting, but I disagree.
 
Are you suggesting trans people are the only ones being ignored in a heteronormative viewpoint?

That's invalidating the feelings of gender queer, third sex, androgynous, and those who identify as no gender.

I can play this game too. :D
It's not a game. These are peoples lives
 
mal3volent said:
ok so WHY do you disagree?

As far as the intellectual/theoretical argument goes, you have a point.

It's only fair for the man to be allowed to opt out of the pregnancy if the woman is given the choice, but that's impossible... and opting out of responsibilities for a born child is not the same thing. Somebody has to look after the child. Nobody has to look after an aborted fetus. It's not fair for the children who are born to not to be looked after because of some technicality about children who are aborted.

Your logic means that children now suffer because some other children aren't born.

That's more suffering. I want less suffering.
 
Let's keep this thread on the topic of abortion.

Please report individual posts if there are conerns so we can discuss them in the appropriate place.

Also, concerns and complaints regarding moderator actions taken in this thread can be directed to senior staff or admins via PM.
 
mal3ovlent said:
but if the man opts out, the choice to bring the child into existence is the woman's. Otherwise she could terminate.

Look at all the options available to women.
look at the options available to men.

you think it's fair?

I care less about fairness than other people. Fairness will never exist absolutely in the world. This is why I said your argument was (perhaps) intellectually correct, yet I still disagree with it.

Absolute freedom cannot exist either. If your freedom infringes on another person's freedom, they are not absolutely free. Fairness works the same way. I think it is impossible to find a balance of pure and perfect fairness.

Is it fair for wealth inequality to exist?
Is it fair for wealth inequality to not exist?
Is it fair for some people to be born with disabilities?
 
Cream Gravy said:
Ehhh... that's really arbitrary.

On the contrary. It's a very obvious distinction that we acknowledge in literally every context other than abortion. With abortion, people say all sorts of strange things like not killing someone is forcing them into existence. Usually not killing something isn't forceful. Killing is forceful.
 
I care less about fairness than other people. Fairness will never exist absolutely in the world.

This is something else where our beliefs are aligned. It actually kinda irritates me sometimes when people bitch about things being unfair. Mainly because I don't think it's healthy as an adult to expect things to always be fair.

We can and should try and make a fair world, but there are limits with how much I think fairness in itself can justify.
 
If your freedom infringes on another person's freedom, they are not absolutely free.

how does a man opting out of fatherhood infringe on the freedom of the woman who wants to be a mother? It is her CHOICE (pro choice, remember?) to go through with the pregnancy or not. a consensual act between two parties resulted in an unplanned pregnancy. Are we pro choice only when it comes to women, then little fascists when it comes to the men?
 
I once manipulated a girl to make abortion, but she deserved it. She did speed shitloads and we had only been fucking for 2 weeks.
I didn't know could I trust her, I didn't know am I even father material.
I used pretty vile threatening tactics against her to get her to do it, but it was the right choice. I feel kinda bad for it - the way I did it.
But she was hardlining on keeping it and you know - I don't negotiate with terrorists. She had a hostage which was my kid so all my tactics were justified.
Now my current one is pregnant.
She wants to keep it, I'm kind of 50/50 because I know CPS will be on our ass for the whole life of the kid.
I don't want the kid to go into foster care like I did, it fucks you up and you'll be 90% addict when you get out of there at 18.
You can't even call a fetus a breathing being.


What even is it?
It has a heartbeat. It's a human.
It's killing a human being. But well, is life of a human worth living? It can be kind of euthanazia too if the baby is mentally handicapped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mal3volent said:
how does a man opting out of fatherhood infringe on the freedom of the woman who wants to be a mother? It is her CHOICE (pro choice, remember?) to go through with the pregnancy or not. a consensual act between two parties resulted in an unplanned pregnancy. Are we pro choice only when it comes to women...

The only reason anybody is prochoice is because this is a weird situation in which a human is living inside another human. Somebody used the word parasite on this thread. It's not a parasite. It's crazy that we've gotten to a point where people think it is normal to describe a naturally developing member of our species as a parasite. If the child developed in an egg - like a reptile or a bird - there would be no equivalent to abortion. Do male penguins have the right to say, "nah. fuck this bro. I'm off to the pub." Can they just leave the egg there?

It is illegal to cause a baby to die by neglecting them. You have to actively keep children alive, but you can actively decide to kill them if they are in the womb. I'm not saying abortion should be illegal, but - at the very least - that's an odd thing to consider... isn't it?

Maybe it is fair for us to treat fetuses and viable pregnancies and third trimester babies as if they are human lives, rather than applying a double standard in the first place.

then little fascists when it comes to the men?

It is fair if everybody gets treated like garbage, because then nobody experiences privilege. This is the problem with applying fairness to something like abortion. Abortion isn't fair, from lots of different angles. It is complicated. What is fair in this situation isn't clear.

It certainly isn't fair for a biological father (that wants to keep the pregnancy) or for the little human that is aborted, but that doesn't mean - in the name of fairness - we should make it shittier than it already is for the mother either by allowing men to opt out of the financial responsibilities they have for their children.

This is fairness being used for evil.
 
w01fg4ng said:
What even is it?

Depends if you are looking at it from a spiritual/religious perspective. Scientifically, at a very early stage it has functioning organs. Babies don't experience a giant developmental leap upon birth. At some stage, obviously, it is a human prior to being born. If you induce labour one week early - or one month early - it is still a baby. This is why it is harder to qualify for a late term abortion, because (at that stage) you are killing a baby... How much you a want to separate yourself from this is impossible for me to define. Very early on, fetuses don't look much like humans. They look more like something from the Alien franchise. I think that is the image people are more comfortable with. It doesn't take them long to develop into tiny humans. Throughout the majority of the pregnancy, they are clearly small people. They are not clusters of cells.
 
Top