Is it really so bad if a man slips a woman an abortion pill?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by JoakimFlorence, Jan 6, 2016.

  1. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Imagine there was a magical pill that could cause a woman to miscarry without causing the woman any harm or side effects. A man slips his pregnant girlfriend this pill into her drink when she’s not looking. She wants to have this baby. He doesn’t.

    So here’s a question for pro-choicers: Would this be so terrible? If so, please explain why??

    She’s also planning to put the baby up for adoption as soon as it’s born, so it’s not like she’s planning to keep it.

    There are many of you who believe that, apart from the woman, the life of the fetus itself doesn’t matter.
    I know you think a woman shouldn’t be forced to endure a pregnancy if she doesn’t want to. But what exactly is so important about her choice to have a particular baby?

    I know some of you will say “she has the right to regulate the functions of her body”. But it’s not the functions of her body, it is another body (which happens to be inside of her) that is being affected. Her body is not being directly affected. I use the example of a magical abortion pill that doesn’t have any effects on her, but maybe in real life the physical effects are just very minimal. If you try to stress this point you are just deflecting from the primary issue at hand. Boo hoo, her body might have been affected a little bit, that part in itself doesn’t sound so terrible.
     
  2. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Slipping anabortificant to a woman is disgusting and criminal.
     
    CriminyRiver likes this.
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you spend so much time thinking up so many weird scenarios on what nasty things men can do to women?
     
  4. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why? You don't think it is so disgusting and criminal when the woman does it to herself.
    And pro-choicers in this forum keep repeating that "there's no one in there", so what's the big deal?
     
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    You are obviously just not capable of knowing what the word "choice" means.


    Just because a woman becomes pregnant by a man doesn't give that man any right to do anything to that woman.
     
  6. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like I said, pro-choicers have clearly explained why the woman's "choice" is important when she doesn't want the baby, but why is it so important when she does ?
    If she loses one fetus, can't she just get pregnant again and try for another baby? What's the big deal?
     
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are obviously just not capable of knowing what the word "choice" means.

    Pro-CHOICE is about women having the CHOICE (look that word up in a dictionary) over what happens to her body.


    If you can't understand "it's the woman's choice" then you will always be "wondering". ...no one will ever be able to explain it to you.


    Another "hint"...men have no right to do anything to a woman without her consent....making a woman pregnant does NOT make her their property.
     
  8. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,950
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    If a woman aborts her pregnancy, she's exercising her consent to end her pregnancy.
    If she wants to give birth and I slip her an abortion pill, I've violated her right to give birth and have the child.

    Do you honestly not know the difference?
     
  9. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s fundamentally impossible for any such pill not to have a physical and psychological effect upon the woman. The change from being pregnant to not being pregnant will do that regardless of how that occurs. The whole reason that this is such a complex issue is because the mother and foetus are so intertwined, physically, psychologically and morally.

    Regardless, it is fundamentally wrong for someone to given someone else any kind of drug or medicine without their knowledge (outside obvious exceptions such as medical professionals treating comatose patients or very young children). The lack of harm or side effects (real or perceived) is irrelevant.

    Your hypothetical might work better if the pregnancy is entirely removed from the mother, imagining a system where a foetus is grown in some kind of external tank. Of course, the morality and practicalities of that situation would be so distant from the realities of the real abortion debate to be all but irrelevant.
     
  10. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,950
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sure what you are complaining about. Are you saying we should forbid her to give birth if some man wants her to abort? Why should we hold that position?
     
  11. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't think the father is psychologically intertwined?

    By this logic, wouldn't you say it is very wrong for the government to force mandatory vaccinations on children?

    This argument sounds nice here, but I suspect most pro-choicers would be rather inconsistent when it comes to applying it in other areas... which suggests a degree of hypocrisy.

    That is an interesting thought. Maybe in the future such a situation could exist, or perhaps even become commonplace.

    But are they really that different? If all we are talking about are the effects on the woman's body, I really do not see how making her un-pregnant is such a big deal.

    OK, here's another take on the issue. What if the woman is brain-dead? Is it ok then?
     
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You: """"but I suspect most pro-choicers would be rather inconsistent when it comes to applying it in other areas... """


    OF COURSE THEY ARE..."Pro-Choice" only means one thing, believing women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies concerning reproduction.

    You: ""I really do not see how making her un-pregnant is such a big deal.""


    It isn't IF it's her choice.
     
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Certainly, to an extent. As I said, it's complicated. I think the best way to look at the situation in that there are three (adult) roles involved. The mother, the father and the pregnant person. All three bring with them rights and responsibilities, the first two being essentially equal. The obvious complication is that the mother and the pregnant person are the same individual, with a combined set of rights and responsibilities as a consequence.

    Not as they're currently implemented, because that's with their (or their parent's) knowledge. They can also be refused (albeit not without practical consequences).

    Then you're completely ignorant of the medical realities of pregnancy.

    Not for the boyfriend alone. It'd be part of the wider clinical decisions between her doctors and whoever her next-of-kin was.
     
  14. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Regardless of whether it harms the woman or not, the man commits an illegal act the second he places the pill in her drink and she drinks it, it is illegal to administer drugs to another person without their consent - even doctors can only do that in very specific circumstances - and even more of a crime if the person doing it is unqualified.

    By your logic it should be ok for someone to drug your drink, without recourse.
     
  15. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whether he is or not is irrelevant, his psychological involvement does not over rule her physical involvement, by your logic a person should be able to kill their love rival because they are " psychologically intertwined" ... pure stupidity.

    Compulsory vaccinations are necessary in order to protect the greater public good, and that out weighs the individual right to refuse them.

    There is no hypocrisy except in your feeble attempts to create it.

    The difference between mandatory vaccinations and covertly giving a pill to someone is glaring obvious, all parents know that the state requires them to have their children vaccinated where as a woman has no knowledge of the pill covertly placed in her drink.

    IF that happens the debate on abortion will become almost moot, though it is worth noting that the women would still have the right NOT to have the fetus removed and grown in a tank but instead aborted, you seem to forget that a person has the right to decide what medical treatment they do or don't receive.

    They are totally different.

    If the woman is brain dead then the decision lies with her next of kin .. in fact such a case was decided in Ireland in favour of the family who wanted her life support switched off - http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ead-pregnant-womans-life-support-switched-off
     
  16. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,425
    Likes Received:
    2,860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well... how would you feel if you wanted to have children now and somebody slipped chemical castration pills into your drinks to prevent that? Nobody was murdered so it must be fine right? :roll: Not to mention just how (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up either scenario would be for a relationship.
     
  17. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what you're saying is it wouldn't be that different if the man slipped the woman birth control pills instead of abortion pills?

    Same thing, right? The woman is being given a medication without her permission that interferes with her reproduction.

    Why would an abortion pill be so much worse than a birth control pill?
     
  18. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you an American?
     
  19. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you post responses when you don't READ the posts responding to you?????


    READ the post I quoted here above yours, read slowly, think.... read it again, think....


    And, again, why do you spend so much time thinking of terrible things to do to women??
     
  20. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It wouldn't be different at all, both are infringements of her liberty.

    pretty much yes.

    An abortion pill removes her right to decide on an already existing pregnancy, a birth control pill removes her right to decide whether to become pregnant in the first place.
     
  21. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting...
    So you believe that a man who slipped an abortion pill into his girlfriend's drink shouldn't be punished much more than a man who had been drugging his girlfriend with birth control pills, correct?

    Because the fetus has no rights of its own here, the issue is all about the woman.
     
  22. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yet again you attempt to misrepresent other people, please show me anywhere I have said the foetus has no rights, to say that would be a mistake as the U.S. government and legal system already provide some rights to the unborn.

    The glaring point you are missing is that an abortion pill takes more away from the female than a contraceptive pill and as such the punishment is greater to the person who covertly gave her the abortion pill than to the person who covertly gave her the contraceptive pill, just as the punishment given to someone who steals a million dollars is greater than the person who steals a thousand.
     
  23. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And what does it take away from her? Her baby?

    Why does she have any special rights over it? Do you think the fetus is her property?
    You obviously do not believe the father has any special rights here.

    You keep saying it's all about the woman's body. But the fetus is not the woman's body.
    According to you, shouldn't it all just be about how the woman's body was physically affected?
     
  24. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,425
    Likes Received:
    2,860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well one reason they're different is because the side effects are different. Abortion pills are a bit harsher than a daily contraceptive in terms of side effects. Also abortion pills have a greater effect upon your medium-term fertility... not sure about long-term... Regular D&C abortions do have the potential to cause scarring and reducing future fertility, but not sure about the pills.

    By the way please use the "Reply with quote" button when replying. That way the person you reply to will be notified of your response. Otherwise they won't even see your response unless they remember to come back and look for it.
     
  25. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63

Share This Page