• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Responsibility [W:411]

Kal'Stang

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There are so many anti-abortionists using this word. I figured it deserved its own thread. They are always saying that if you have sex, and the result of that sex is a baby then the woman (and sometimes they include the man in there) needs to take "responsibility" of that child (sometimes even using the word "full" in there somewhere). That having abortion is just a way of abrogating that responsbility. And then in the same breath say that if the woman does not want the child then she should give it up for adoption. ....:dohTalk about conflicting messages huh? I mean come on...if having an abortion and getting rid of the baby is considered not taking responsibility for their actions of having sex then how in the hell is having a baby and giving it up for adoption or to some foster care system taking responsibility for thier actions?

Because of these conflicting messages I'm pretty sure that the "responsibility" line is nothing more than a meaningless talking point designed to base their argument on some moral highground which obviously does not actually exist.

Anyways thats my :twocents:. Discuss.
 
You operate under the faulty assumption that some foster care system is the only adoption option. But for the law, people would be cranking out babies and selling them on Ebay.
 
There is no doubt abortion is lack of responsibility because half of the women who get an abortion get a 2nd abortion
 
Kal'Stang said:
There are so many anti-abortionists using this word. I figured it deserved its own thread. They are always saying that if you have sex, and the result of that sex is a baby then the woman (and sometimes they include the man in there) needs to take "responsibility" of that child (sometimes even using the word "full" in there somewhere). That having abortion is just a way of abrogating that responsbility. And then in the same breath say that if the woman does not want the child then she should give it up for adoption. ....:dohTalk about conflicting messages huh? I mean come on...if having an abortion and getting rid of the baby is considered not taking responsibility for their actions of having sex then how in the hell is having a baby and giving it up for adoption or to some foster care system taking responsibility for thier actions?

Because of these conflicting messages I'm pretty sure that the "responsibility" line is nothing more than a meaningless talking point designed to base their argument on some moral highground which obviously does not actually exist.

Anyways thats my :twocents:. Discuss.
Click to expand...

Giving a child the opportunity to live, even if it means giving that child up for adoption, is certainly more responsible than getting pregnant when you don't want a child and then making the decision to abort it. You're talking apples and oranges. Or, rather, life and death.
 
MaggieD said:
Giving a child the opportunity to live, even if it means giving that child up for adoption, is certainly more responsible than getting pregnant when you don't want a child and then making the decision to abort it. You're talking apples and oranges. Or, rather, life and death.
Click to expand...

It is not necessary nor desirable to give EVERY zygote an opportunity to live, any more than it is necessary to attempt to gove every egg or sperm an opportunity to continue living. It is sometimes more responsible to abort rather than give birth.
 
OKgrannie said:
It is not necessary nor desirable to give EVERY zygote an opportunity to live, any more than it is necessary to attempt to gove every egg or sperm an opportunity to continue living. It is sometimes more responsible to abort rather than give birth.
Click to expand...

Equating a zygote with eggs and sperm is not legit.
 
A pregnant woman has several responsibilities that will change as the situation progresses. At the outset, she has the responsibility to determine what the best course of action is regarding the circumstances. She has the responsibility to determine if she is capable emotionally, physically, mentally, and financially to care for a child. She has the responsibility to determine if the child would be best served in her care or the care of another, and if the latter, she has the responsibility to determine whether or not that action would negatively impact her life and the lives of those involved.

The word they're looking for is "obligation"....as in "obligation to the child". Their belief is that the woman is obligated to maintain a pregnancy because the "child's" "rights" are sacrosanct. The idea that holding yourself accountable for the consequences of sexual activity means you must carry a pregnancy to term regardless of reality...that's silly.

Abortion isn't a means of skirting responsibility or shirking accountability..it's just a different means of accepting both.
 
If having an abortion is an irresponsible decision, does that mean that the right to make that decision should be taken from the individuals involved and given to the government?

Is it always an irresponsible decision, anyway?
 
OKgrannie said:
It is sometimes more responsible to abort rather than give birth.
Click to expand...

Nope. Harming others just to free yourself from a temporary inconvenience that is the consequence of your own actions... that is never responsible. It is selfish and destructive.
 
JayDubya said:
Nope. Harming others just to free yourself from a temporary inconvenience that is the consequence of your own actions... that is never responsible. It is selfish and destructive.
Click to expand...

Who is harmed?
 
tessaesque said:
I'm not being humorous. I'm asking you who you think is harmed.
Click to expand...

Abortion victims are living human beings, violently killed on their mother's whim.

Being violently killed in aggression sort of constitutes harm. Little bit.
 
JayDubya said:
Abortion victims are living human beings, violently killed on their mother's whim.

Being violently killed in aggression sort of constitutes harm. Little bit.
Click to expand...

How can it harm something that isn't sentient, has never been sentient, and does not have the capacity to be sentient within several months of the procedure?
 
To kill a living thing, even one that temporarily lacks higher order awareness, does constitute harm.

Harm is about more than pain or emotion.
 
sangha said:
Which is why it is illegal to eat meat and vegetables
Click to expand...

Cows have no rights to violate... But they are harmed, for certain.
 
JayDubya said:
Every human has rights.
Click to expand...

Not according to SCOTUS...and even if they did, they certainly aren't always equal all of the time.

It would do you well not to confuse actual facts with personal opinions and beliefs.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There are so many anti-abortionists using this word. I figured it deserved its own thread. They are always saying that if you have sex, and the result of that sex is a baby then the woman (and sometimes they include the man in there) needs to take "responsibility" of that child (sometimes even using the word "full" in there somewhere). That having abortion is just a way of abrogating that responsbility. And then in the same breath say that if the woman does not want the child then she should give it up for adoption. ....:dohTalk about conflicting messages huh? I mean come on...if having an abortion and getting rid of the baby is considered not taking responsibility for their actions of having sex then how in the hell is having a baby and giving it up for adoption or to some foster care system taking responsibility for thier actions?

Because of these conflicting messages I'm pretty sure that the "responsibility" line is nothing more than a meaningless talking point designed to base their argument on some moral highground which obviously does not actually exist.

Anyways thats my :twocents:. Discuss.
Click to expand...

There are other words I see them using as well

1. Consequences

2. Innocent

3. Responsibility like you said

These are the words I see them overuse all the time. It get's old after what now? 40 years? NO 100 years? YES
 
tessaesque said:
it would do you well not to confuse actual facts with personal opinions and beliefs.
Click to expand...

I don't.

As a matter of fact, every human has rights.
 
sangha said:
A fetus has no rights
Click to expand...

Exactly if a entity is not a person it has no rights regardless of it's species

They can keep bringing up science all day but science doesn't decide what's a person and what's not

If membership to the species homo sapien really matter then Roe v Wade would've be overturned by now.

The abortion issue can be debated endlessly and has to do with how one defines a person and self.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom