Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 08:01:05 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:55:34 PM

Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:50:29 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:44:32 PM

Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:40:38 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:32:54 PM

Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:31:07 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 07:17:46 PM

Quote from: Ghost of Reach on March 17, 2016, 07:15:06 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on March 17, 2016, 06:59:11 PM

Quote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:58:05 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 17, 2016, 06:24:37 PM

Quote from: challengerX on March 17, 2016, 06:21:07 PM

The fuck what are you guys talking about.

I'm saying if the dad wants the kid and the mom doesn't, the child should still be born. Abortion should only go through if both parents don't want the kid, or if the dad isn't present then it's obviously up to the mom.

Which is pretty much what I'm saying, except you're missing one detail.

If the dad doesn't want the kid, too bad--it's not up to him.

It's up to both of the parents. Simply because the woman is the one giving birth, that doesn't mean she owns the kid. The kid is a product of the mother and father.

Are you blind to the fact that childbirth is not a trivial act?
And that consenting to sex is not reasonable grounds to irrevocable obligation?

The risks are known, but if consent still goes through, then they are responsible,

6 months is a long ass time (going to go pre third trimester here to be generous to you) to have your views and mind change and adapt. Sex is not a fucking record deal or business contract, it's an unwritten, unspoken, social contract. The huge implications and obligations you try to wedge into it are naive and burdening to everyone for reasons you have yet to justify.

The risks are known before hand, Ramifications happen, learn to deal with them.

You haven't produced anything compelling as to why they have to be dealt with. Remember, you're the side of the argument arguing that there is a moral imperative that we are obligated to do something. "deal with it" is not valid.

The moral being - Be responsible for your actions.

Being responsible for your actions would be realizing you are not prepared to bring a person into existence, and that thinking you can just whip yourself into ideal shape to do it is naive at best, and possibly grossly putting that child at potential detriment otherwise. Following some arbitrary, undefined (you haven't demonstrated otherwise yet) rulebook about "potential life" that has no grounding in reality or actual care for the well being of a child's well-being is the irresponsible and childish thing to do.

Being responsible would be dealing with your consequences dead on, not taking out the easy way out.

"I was irresponsible in making this child, so instead of considering potential consequences to following through with this and avoiding unnecessary suffering, I'm just going to follow through with it because...uh..."

If you can't justify your ideas and you refuse to consider consequences for your actions (having a kid no matter if it'll put the kid in detriment or not) I'm just going to conclude that you don't understand the concepts of consequences and how they're supposed to shape your decisions and that you don't understand being a rational person.

You were responsible for making this child, so the right course of action would be dealing with it, dealing with the mistake you made & learning from it. Not just jumping out like a Coward and aborting it.

Does the child just not exist to you?
The child could potentially suffer from that action, is that not relevant? Do you not care?

Nothing about something "being the easy way" means it's inherently bad.

You're using "responsibility" for the absolute opposite.