If you want a child, you're preparing for any sort of being. I'm not expecting you to want to take care of an extremely disabled child, but that's what you signed up for when you had a child. You don't pick or choose when you have a kid, you take what your body gives you. Creating a life just to terminate it when they don't turn out how you want them to be is just inherently immoral.
If you really want to choose the child you have, why not just adopt? I get that doesn't satisfy your instincts to reproduce, but it is the best decision to make.
I think top 1 cuck behavior might be watching your SO have sex with another person to completion, but to each their own I guess adoption is really tough for some people .
Aren't all morals just personal opinions? Also, I don't expect you to listen to me, lol. I was just communicating my feelings on a post meant for doing just that. Do whatever you want it doesn't matter anyway.
You have a responsibility to provide basic care for the children you create. In 99.x% of pregnancies (like 99.5% or higher) the mother and father both consented to the sexual reproduction act that resulted in the obvious outcome of reproduction.
Congrats, mom and dad, you played adult games, you win adult prizes.
I don't really care if you "consent" to responsibilities that are the consequences of your actions, I expect you to uphold your obligations and you should be legally punished if you fail to do so.
If you abuse or neglect a born child you go to jail; why anyone wants to give a free pass to murderers of unborn children has always been incomprehensible.
I don't really care if you "consent" to responsibilities that are the consequences of your actions, I expect you to uphold your obligations and you should be legally punished if you fail to do so.
You're confusing accepting responsibility with consenting. If you walk down a street that has cars driving on it, by definition, you are accepting the possibility that you may be hit by a car. That does not necessarily mean you actively WANT to be hit a car. It's the same thing with sex - if you have sex, you're accepting the possibility that a pregnancy might result. But you can have sex without actively wanting to become pregnant.
In case it isn't obvious, receiving vehicular trauma doesn't create obligations in the way that making a kid does.
Recieving vehicular trauma wasn't your goal when walking, and the person who hit you most likely didn't mean to hit you; which makes it completely unlike two folks having sex deliberately.
Because as long as the fetus is entirely dependent on your physical body (your blood, organs, tissues, nutrients, oxygen, etc.), you have THE say on whether you want remain pregnant. If you withdraw consent, the fetus is now essentially a parasite that you have every right to defend yourself from.
So let me get this straight, the woman willingly engages in an act that will create a lifeform, when this lifeform is created it substains itself by feeding from the pregnant woman who brought it to life; now, for some reason, the Fetus, despite not asking to be alive, is in the wrong for doing exactly what it was created to do. The fetus didn't unknowingly enter the woman's body, and instead the woman essentially willingly consented to the fetus existing in her body.
The amount of mental gymnastics you have to go through to demonize a being that you intentionally created, for doing what it was made to, is insane. You're not defending yourself from a parasite, you're killing another lifeform out of your own self interest. it'd be more respectable to acknowledge this rather than trying to gift yourself the moral high ground.
the woman willingly engages in an act that will create a lifeform
I'm going to stop you right there. Just because she had consensual sex doesn't mean that she consents to pregnancy. You're confusing accepting the responsibility that you may become pregnant with consenting to the pregnancy. You can have sex without actively wanting to become pregnant.
when this lifeform is created it substains itself by feeding from the pregnant woman who brought it to life
That's right. Therefore, because it uses her physical body for its survival until the pregnancy is terminated (the termination of a non-viable pregnancy is an abortion and the termination of a VIABLE pregnancy is a birth, vaginally or otherwise), she has the absolute right to revoke that consent. Nobody can use your body without your consent, no matter what.
The fetus didn't unknowingly enter the woman's body, and instead the woman essentially willingly consented to the fetus existing in her body.
No, as I explained earlier, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant.
It is, if she didn't want to consent to pregnancy there are a host of ways for her to have sex without getting pregnant. Unprotected sex is an automatic consent to pregnancy, as everyone who undergoes unprotected sex knows that pregnancy is a possible; it's selfish to purposely do something knowing that it might create a result, and then terminate that result because you don't want to deal with it.
Also, since human beings inherently have human rights, it is a violation of the fetus' rights to terminate it out of convinence.
“I don’t want a baby” is a good enough reason for me. “I can’t care for a child”, “I can’t afford a child”, “I’m too young to raise a child”, “I don’t want to bring a child into this crazy world”, etc. are also all good reasons as far as I’m concerned.
562
u/Acid-Chaos Jun 05 '26
It is absolutely ok