Catapultam Habeo

just-smith:

skycry:

just-smith:

I see feminists talking about how awful it is all of the time. According to them, it’s one of the most painful things you can go through. That’s why we need abortion. Contrary to what pro-lifers say, abortion is safe and harmless. In fact, abortion does negative harm, because it alleviates the harm of childbirth. It’s more of a cure.

I’ve heard unwanted pregnancies referred to as a sexually transmitted disease, and so maybe the metaphor of a cure is a good one. Abortion is just the safe removal of what could be a harmful condition, and so it’s definitely not something we should be opposing. It’s a medical force for good.

Now, this disease can be fatal. Even if it isn’t, it causes a lot of discomfort over a nine month period, culminating in a large amount of pain. But, of course, this isn’t the end. At this point a new human being is created. If this human being wasn’t wanted, the disease spreads. The original sufferer, the mother, will continue to suffer after being forced into parenthood. The father will also be affected, and will suffer to the same degree from this point. If either parent is seriously unprepared or emotionally or financially unable to bring up the child, their suffering will be a serious problem. If either parent was raped, forcing them into parenthood seems immoral. I could go on. 

As for the child, bringing them into the world is a serious business. If they aren’t wanted, that’s not a good thing to do. If they are themselves ill with a serious condition, that will mean that they’ll live a short life of suffering, then we’re obliged not to force them into such a life. Or rather, the parents are obliged, and as both parents can care equally, both parents are equally obliged to protect their children from harm. To protect their children from catching this disease.

Abortion is, of course, the cure. We’ve shown above that it is a brilliant thing, designed to ease suffering of all three parties, and that it causes negative suffering - even before the suffering of the man and child are taken into account. As it is by far a better option than childbirth in every case except that where both parents have consented to have a healthy child, it should always be the preferred option given any doubt. If - when the doubt is cleared up - the parents do decide that they want a child, they can have one. One-term abortion doesn’t stop that. But if they decide that they didn’t want a child, and they didn’t abort… there is no going back. So abortion is once again undeniably the most sensible and the most painless option for all concerned.

So why, when a woman wants a child, do we hear the same feminists talking about how awful ‘forced abortion’ is? Surely, if the pregnancy is spotted early, this involves little more than taking a pill and having a slightly heavier period. Please explain to me how that is more traumatic than going through pregnancy and childbirth?

Especially seeing as the latter option turns a man’s life upside-down for the worse, forces him into being a father with all of the psychological (you can imagine how being forced into supporting a child you aren’t ready for, or walking away from your own son or daughter, must be devastating), social (‘deadbeat dads’ aren’t exactly loved) and financial (child support isn’t cheap, but it is a legal and a moral obligation) implications that brings. Oh, and we haven’t even explored the possibilities mentioned above. Is abortion still more traumatic if the latter option lets my rapist have my child? Is it still more traumatic if the latter option lets my girlfriend have our child only for it to die a few days later in my arms, screaming in pain, because I wasn’t allowed to spare it from being born? Is this really not worth me being able to ‘force’ her to take a pill? To be ‘forced’ into being spared from suffering?

In the context of all of that, autonomy suddenly seems much less important. Remember: it may be her body now, but it is going to unleash a lot of pain on others in the future, and this can be stopped whilst A) leaving her choices free in the future and B) taking away more of her own pain than it adds. It is a cure. A forced cure is still a moral thing. Remember, this disease is contagious. If I have a contagious disease that will spread to others and harm them, it doesn’t matter if I personally want the disease, or that it is in my body at the moment - those around me have a right to self-defence, and (as it doesn’t harm me) they definitely have a right to cure me. Once they have done so, I am 100% free to go off and catch the disease again, and go live with those who also enjoy it. So no, this doesn’t affect my personal freedom at all, only my freedom to hurt others. An abortion removes the problem, and everybody is happy.

The only way this wouldn’t be the best outcome would be if there was a medical complication, and that the abortion would be more painful than the childbirth would have been. Given the invention of anaesthetics (which I’m guessing are easier to use in abortion than childbirth anyway, because we’ve not worried about brain damage), I find this very unlikely - which is why I’m advocating a pro-choice, pro-abortion stance. Yes, that includes ‘saving people who don’t want to be saved’, particularly if not saving them leads to them hurting others. Even if a suicide bomber wants to kill themselves, we have the right to stop them doing so in a public place. That doesn’t stop them doing it elsewhere later, and so we really aren’t taking away their autonomy or their freedom to do what they like with ‘their body’, only protecting the freedom of the others affected. That’s what being pro-choice is all about. 

Wait, is this serious? This can’t be a serious post. No way can this be serious. Gotta be a troll, right?

Wow. Misogyny much? I am disgusted by what I just read. Is this serious? If this is not a serious post then sorry.

“So why, when a woman wants a child, do we hear the same feminists talking about how awful ‘forced abortion’ is? Surely, if the pregnancy is spotted early, this involves little more than taking a pill and having a slightly heavier period. Please explain to me how that is more traumatic than going through pregnancy and childbirth?”

I’m actually speechless.

Please tell me you’re not seriously asking this question. Are you kidding…you’re not kidding, are you?

Let me explain why it’s bad: Because. The. Pregnant. Person. Wants. The. Child.

It is not always about physically pain. It’s more traumatic because they are being forced to do something they don’t want. They want that pregnancy. They want that baby. To have something you want forcibly taken away from you?

 ”Is abortion still more traumatic if the latter option lets my rapist have my child? Is it still more traumatic if the latter option lets my girlfriend have our child only for it to die a few days later in my arms, screaming in pain, because I wasn’t allowed to spare it from being born? Is this really not worth me being able to ‘force’ her to take a pill? To be ‘forced’ into being spared from suffering?”

Well yes, it is more traumatic if the pregnant person wants the child. Well, that’s your girlfriend’s choice, not yours. She has her own mind and her own opinions, and her own choices. You’re not ‘allowed’ to do anything that takes away her rights. She’s the one carrying the baby. Not you. She’s the one who gets to choose if she has an abortion or not. Hey, if you got pregnant, it would be your choice and nobody else’s.

“Is this really not worth me being able to ‘force’ her to take a pill? To be ‘forced’ into being spared from suffering?”

You claim to be pro choice? You’re not pro choice if you think forcing someone to have an abortion is okay. Pro choice is about the pregnant person’s choice - THEY get to decide if they are pregnant or not. 

I don’t know why you’ve put ‘force’ like that. Forcing her to take a pill? Do you realise how disgusting you sound? Oh gosh, you’re such a nice, kind person to want to spare her from suffering by FORCING her to do something she doesn’t want. You don’t get to decide what ‘suffering’ is. It’s her choice whether she ‘suffers’ or not.

“Especially seeing as the latter option turns a man’s life upside-down for the worse, forces him into being a father with all of the psychological (you can imagine how being forced into supporting a child you aren’t ready for, or walking away from your own son or daughter, must be devastating),”

Omg because it’s all about the menz. Poor menz. I mean, because what they want makes it okay to abuse women’s rights, doesn’t it? Or maybe I should specify ‘you’, because not all men are such jerks.

“you can imagine how being forced into supporting a child you aren’t ready for, or walking away from your own son or daughter, must be devastating”

You can imagine how being forced into an abortion you didn’t want because the poor menz don’t want you to have it must feel, right? That’s devastating. You may have already though of a name for your baby, got yourself excited.

“In the context of all of that, autonomy suddenly seems much less important.”

No. No it does not.

I can’t deal with any more. You’re either a really, really good troll, or you’re serious. Either way, I just can’t deal with this disgusting spew of misogyny. You are not pro choice.

There is so much wrong in this post.

I just can’t

I’m going to have a bath.

Well, that’s not what I was expecting. I know all of the decent anti-male-choice arguments, and I know how to deal with them. This isn’t one of them. This argument skips through all of the regular logic, and completely undermines the pro-choice position in doing so. It clearly reveals itself as not being pro-choice or pro-abortion at all, and merely pro-women. 

Even crossing out the parts where you were being directly obnoxious to me personally, rather than actually reply with argument, this is a shambles. The system of ethics you propose goes something like this:

Women should always get what they want, regardless of how that causes suffering to other people, because otherwise it’s traumatic.

To quote you: seriously? 

The moment you said that it’s not about the physical pain, you lose the trump card of any argument that would have defended your position. Instead you decide that the ‘trauma’ we are discussing is in ‘making someone do something they don’t want’. 

You say that the biggest cause of suffering here is not letting a woman have a child against a man’s consent, because she ‘may have already thought out a name’. That is your central argument. Forgetting that my proposal clearly allows the woman to have that child when she is with a man who consents, therefore not restricting her at all, you decide that the trauma of her having to delay the birth of her child for nine months is equal to the lifetime of effects brought by being forced into parenthood with a child you don’t want. You just bluntly said that it is more traumatic for one individual to not be allowed to force another individual into being a parent with her, than for a rapist to have your first child against your will. You said, with a straight face, that one women not getting her way on a temporary basis was more traumatic than watching your disfigured newborn suffer and die. Have you never met a human being? Do you have no grasp of how people can be damaged psychologically in much worse ways than the ‘trauma’ of not being given complete power over other people’s lives? Making this purely psychological was a very bad move.

If you honestly think that not being able to have the child you have picked out names for is the worst thing that can happen to a person, you are no more than a pro-lifer. The ‘trauma’ of your fictional woman is not greater than the ‘trauma’ of a man whose partner has had an abortion, because both have had their dreams of parenthood equally crushed. You already took the physical out of this, after I cornered you on that, so don’t go crawling back. Purely discussing the psychological implications of not being allowed to have a child for the time being, you would be forced into saying that men would suffer from the disappointment just as much as women, and therefore prohibit all abortions where both partners don’t agree. That’s as good as the typical anti-abortion stance, and as such it’s a lot more contrary to mainstream feminism as my own, pro-choice suggestion. 

Your misandry is also offensive, acting as if a great deal of suffering is irrelevant if it happens to ‘menz’, whilst treating a woman’s comparative slight discomfort (again, not being able to have a non-consenting man’s child is hardly ‘trauma’) as if it is the worst crime in the world. Your priorities are messed up, and they are badly sexist as a result. 

I can respect many arguments against this position, arguments which have some logic behind them, but not this one. This one is ridiculous, and seeks to weaken the position of all pro-choice movements, paving the way for a pro-life solution. Enjoy your bath. I hope you give your brain a good scrub.

I read the second part and figured I’d have to deal with it, but just-smith already did in probably a more measured fashion than I would have.  The particular point I lost it was right about here: “It’s more traumatic because they are being forced to do something they don’t want.”  Tell me now, what’s it like being forced to raise, parent and/or support a child which you didn’t want?  Oh, I forgot, you feel that internal reproductive organs should completely exempt you from ever having to consider that.  (Check your privilege, sweetie….god that phrase always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.) 

Compare an abortion which is comparatively safe, painless and temporary versus the responsibility of raising a child.  Can you honestly say with a straight face that the first is a worse thing to be forced to do against your will than the second?  If you can, congrats, you’re either fundamentally ignorant or possibly mentally disabled, because an educated person with their faculties intact sure as hell couldn’t. 

I don’t necessarily completely agree with just-smith’s position on this, but yours is quite frankly an idiotic mess.