kinbard

On another forum, in a thread about abortion, I ran across this post.

As for the mothers "choice" why don't we give the father the "choice" of killing the mother if her being pregnant is inconvenient?
See how rediculous this gets if you leave it up to "choice".

I've not taken part in the discussion, outside of stating I found it interesting no one addressed this post. The thread went on another page. My question is, do you think this is a valid point? If so, why? If not, why? I don't want this to turn into a pro/against abortion. Whether abortion is right or not is not the discussion. Is this or is this not a good argument, and if so why or why not? Lets not have any reasons as "no, because its stupid" or "yes, because its fair".
For me, I am on the fence with this one. There is the inconvience factor, which I can see, but it doesn't address the "its her body" issue.

TriggerFinger

Hi kinbard,

Personally I do not think it is a valid point to kill the mother (assuming I am the father) if her pregnancy is an inconvenience to me or to both of us. I say this because I find it unfair for the mother. It's as if I am putting all the blame on her when in fact, the inconvenience is a result of 'our' own doing and not hers alone. We did something that resulted to this inconvenient situation. So given that the cause is a 'we', my conscience tells me to share the responsibility too. Hmmm short of saying; 'I should have thought about that before I *beep* her'.

kinbard

Very good point. We did it together. But then, that leads to the argument that we need to decide on the fate. But that gets off on the abortion issue (its going to be harder to keep that out of this thread than I thought). I like this reasoning. So, you don't see it gives credit to:
See how rediculous this gets if you leave it up to "choice"

TriggerFinger

-- Leaving it up to CHOICE is good (and not really ridiculous every time) but it should go hand in hand with responsibility and accountability. Making her (the mother) pregnant may not be our choice but 'doing it' is, so whatever the result, we should take responsibility for it. I will stop there before I get into the abortion issue

kinbard

Good point, and one the poster (nor I) thought about.

TriggerFinger

Hmmm but wearing a different cap on this one and putting conscience aside... choosing to kill the pregnant mother because it is inconvenient... hell, yeah!!!


Now if every man/male will do that, how many women would be left given a period of time? Now that ain't fun.

kinbard

But I think cons to the issue are approaching it as a life is a life. But, some sort of measure needs to be contained. Different subject, but its like those animal trials you hear about. Trying an animal And this is done by educated society.

TriggerFinger

And that is not only with the animals. Some big companies test their products on humans as well. The only difference between the two is that the other gets paid while the other only gets fed.

Sorry OFF TOPIC.

kinbard

No, I mean putting an animal on legal trial, reaching a legal judgement against said animal:
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issue...alsontrial.php

TriggerFinger

Sorry... I was focused on the 'life' thing.

Oh yeah and that too... I heard about that.

kinbard

Its just too crazy, and an example of looking to laws before common sense.

TriggerFinger

Hmmm that makes it interesting... just a thought or an idea(bulb blinking on top of my head)... may be that is why there are laws (because we lack common sense??? sssshhhhh)

kinbard

But, it was the very lawmakers who broke common sense by putting the animal on trial. An endless circle. Wait, a circle never ends to begin with. I broke my mind...

asidman

Wow seems like you guys have been having a massive conversation here. Back to the original question
The difference here comes down to conscience and collateral damage. I'm not gonna discuss the points you guys already mentioned but stick to my point
This might sound a bit cruel but an unborn baby hasn't made any real world personal connections except with the parents. The baby has not had to endure sadness or enjoy the good times, he is not conscious of the world and its "touch" (can't think of a better word) on us.
By killing the mother as suggested in comparison, you are not merely ending a life as such, but ripping that person out of their existence. their personal connections that have been made ended, theirs dreams halted and on and on...
I will admit that i am pro choice so maybe my view is a bit bias that way, but this is a perspective i offer...

kinbard

Ah ah ah ah You are discussing the abortion issue The question is why or why not the post is a valid point.

TriggerFinger

I think CHOICE cannot stand alone. If that is the case, hell would break loose (IMO).

asidman

hmmm...well by what i was saying the point isnt valid...but had to discuss the "a" word to make my point...

EDIT: well maybe i couldve made my point with referring to abortion but then i would have had to explain in a different way to which my brain was thinking

kinbard

Give us the reason why you think the post is not a valid argument? The post wasn't dealing with baby. Its a reasoning about choice.

asidman

It's difficult to ellaborate without going to the abortion issue, but comparing the mother having the abortion, to killing the mother is where my point comes in...make sense?

kinbard

Yeah, by the time of my second post I saw it was really going to be hard keeping the issue out. As long as it doesn't turn into a full on abortion discussion.
I see your point, now, though. As TF said, more than choice comes into play.