Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is another 'pickle' for you:
If our society is pro-life, then does this mean that a woman who found out that she is pregnant and doesn't want to have the baby still obligated to deliver the baby?
If she is obligated to give birth to the baby, who is supposed to pay for her medical bills? Abortion is far cheaper than going through pregnancy and delivering a baby (if you have complications) if you have no health insurance.
Abortion is up to the woman,it's her body so it's easy,
Many of us feel the fetus is its own "body" as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KT13
Here is another 'pickle' for you:
If our society is pro-life, then does this mean that a woman who found out that she is pregnant and doesn't want to have the baby still obligated to deliver the baby?
If she is obligated to give birth to the baby, who is supposed to pay for her medical bills? Abortion is far cheaper than going through pregnancy and delivering a baby (if you have complications) if you have no health insurance.
She consented to becoming pregnant and delivering the baby when she consented to sex, IMO. That makes her and the man obligated. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to making the man legally responsible 50% of the costs.
In the case of rape, I am 100% supportive of a woman's right to an abortion.
Many of us feel the fetus is its own "body" as well.
It actually isn't. That is for now. Until we invent the technology by which we can extract the fetus from the woman who doesn't wish to continue pregnancy and implant it into the body of another one who does or into some sort of the incubating device to bring the fetus to the term. So far, this is science fiction, and therefore the fetus is not viable outside of the woman's womb and doesn't have the same rights as the individual already born. I am not being extreme 'left wing' here, I am simply being rational and the claim that the fetus has the same rights as a person already born makes no sense to me. I also understand that sometimes there are situations where a couple wants to adopt the unborn child and decide to sponsor the pregnant woman to help her with continuing her pregnancy. They provide support and not just financial, but also very importantly the moral support. At this point, this is the only acceptable option by which a woman who doesn't wish to continue pregnancy should continue it and again it's up to her if she wants to help out the childless couple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
She consented to becoming pregnant and delivering the baby when she consented to sex, IMO. That makes her and the man obligated. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to making the man legally responsible 50% of the costs.
In the case of rape, I am 100% supportive of a woman's right to an abortion.
This is the exact response I expected. It's very predictable argument. A woman consented to have sex... Hmmm... where is the man? Oh, yes, you are mentioning the man as being responsible for the costs. But what about the actual process of pregnancy and labor? A man doesn't have to carry the baby in his womb for 9 months having to make life altering sacrifices to make sure the baby is born healthy, doesn't have to deal with the side effects of pregnancy on his body and definitely incurs no risk whatsoever that labor brings about. So, it's not really even no matter how you turn this around, catch my drift? It's not fair to penalize the woman more for having sex, in most situations the woman is the ONLY ONE penalized, because rarely a man would pick up any responsibility (and certainly not the costs) for a baby not wanted from a relationship (or a one night stand) that didn't work out. Abstaining from sex is not something that only a women should do, it takes two to tango, after all the man is just as responsible and enjoyed the act just the same I am sure , so should bear the same burden, financially and physically.
Here is another 'pickle':
When a woman does something wrong during her pregnancy that causes miscarriage, is this woman penalized by law for 'killing' her baby? Should she be if you can prove she did something wrong? How do you prove she did it by accident or intentionally? If a child dies because of the neglect of the parents, the parents are penalized by law. Should a pregnant woman be penalized if she doesn't do all the right things to carry the baby to the term?
Basically, the bottom line is, it's inside the woman's body. For some time nobody but the woman herself knows she is pregnant. A woman can self-abort - do something that would cause miscarriage if she really wants to get rid of the fetus and not go through with the pregnancy. Technically it's possible and probably has been practiced since the ancient times as a 'self- abortion'. As a matter of fact, 'self-abortion' is something practiced by other species too. A female rat for example would self-abort if the future offspring's father abandons her. I am not saying we should take examples from animals, but I am simply saying that there is nothing that can prevent the woman to doing things to her body that would harm the fetus. To enforce the law we would then had to confine all the pregnant women in a facility used for self-mutilating mentally ill. The argument that I see coming is that making abortion illegal we at least aren't participating in killing the life. Ok, but then you also can't enforce the rights of that life, you simply cannot guarantee this 'life' that it will be brought into this world unharmed.
So, given the two facts:
1) Fetus currently cannot survive outside of the woman's body (unless it's x-number of months along and can be put on the artificial support system).
2) Woman can do things to her body that would harm the fetus and nobody can prevent her from doing that.
I have a very hard time buying into the human rights for fetuses campaign. It simply cannot be enforced.
Here is yet another 'pickle'
Suppose that a woman is forced to go through with the pregnancy. What incentive does she have to do 'all the right things' a woman will do during pregnancy when she desires the baby? Would she be compelled to stop drinking, using drugs, smoking, avoiding certain physical activities, eating healthy, avoiding medications for common illnesses and suffering instead? I don't think so, unless she changes her mind and gets attached to the baby and decides to keep the baby. Yes... here is where we come to, that's the only hope this unborn baby has - a woman changing her mind to deliver the baby she never wanted or could afford to take care of in the first place. The unborn baby can only hope the woman would care for it enough so that it's not getting out of this womb permanently 'injured', so that rest of its life is spent in misery.
So in your world, no mistakes are allowed and everyone is expected to be perfect? Well things are different here in America, we try to think realistically rather than idealistically. Whether abortion is legal or not, people are going to be having irresponsible sex when they are unable to deal with the consequences. Nothing is going to change that. Abortions are going to happen whether they are legal or not. Nothing is going to change that either. So as Americans, we have to think what is best for our country, and that would be to legalize and regulate abortions.
It is true that this is not a perfect world. It's true that no matter how good we are at stressing the importance of abstinence/birth control use, some people will be stupid and end up with unplanned pregnancies.
However, that being said, I see this attitude of "oh well, it's gonna happen no matter what, so we should just let people do whatever they want, 'cause after all it's just a personal choice". I don't agree with that.
We saw the destructiveness of drunk driving, and we did something about it (drunk driving deaths are way down and auto accident deaths are down in general). We see the destructiveness of smoking, and we take measure to limit or discourage it (fewer people now smoke than in a very long time).
We can do the same with the abortion issue. You can be pro-choice and still think 1,200,000 abortions a year is a horror (the latest statistic from the pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute). You can be pro-choice and still not want any woman to be in the position of having an unplanned or unwanted preganancy.
So, yes, we can acknowledge that we will probably never have 0 abortions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies / abortions using a non-draconian approach.
The pro-life crowd needs to realize that simply making abortion illegal will not make it go away. The pro-choice crowd needs to admit that it's best to prevent the need for abortion, since few women want to be in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
The failure rates are stated in percentages (generally between 93-99%). They remain the same percentage for each incidence of sexual activity. Your own personal chances are not higher the thirty-seventh time, or the ninety-third, than they were the first.
But that still doesn't tell us what happens in the "real world". It would seem to me, the chances of having an unplanned pregnancy over a 7 year period (even with consistent use of birth control) are higher than over a 1 year period, right?
What we do affects others. It isn't all about YOU!!! I might add that I am all for MEN restraining THEIR behavior.
How does moonshadow's sex life affect you, if you're not the partner in question?
Yes, yes, and Murphy Brown caused all those little bastard welfare babies born in the early nineties. Except of course for the fact that most young teen moms don't actually give a rat's *** about Murphy Brown, or moonshadow (sorry, moon!).
Come on! Get real. Everything we do has an effect on others. I am not for making abortion illegal. But to suggest that over 1,000,000 abortions a year is no big deal, and has no negative repercussions for the rest of society is ludicrous.
The Murphy Brown comment seems a little out in left field to me. But yes, I do think the media has had a role in promoting the idea that sex outside of marriage is not a big deal. And most TV shows and movies do not show the negative consequences of sex (at least not in proportion to what happens in real life). I can see how popular music and TV had a negative effect on my attitudes about sex when I was growing up in the 1980s. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
So, given the two facts:
1) Fetus currently cannot survive outside of the woman's body (unless it's x-number of months along and can be put on the artificial support system).
The relationship is biologically parasitic. I understand this, yet the fetus IS a life. You can't argue that. You can say it's not a person and I understand that argument. But it IS a life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KT13
2) Woman can do things to her body that would harm the fetus and nobody can prevent her from doing that
I have a very hard time buying into the human rights for fetuses campaign. It simply cannot be enforced.
Here is yet another 'pickle'
Suppose that a woman is forced to go through with the pregnancy. What incentive does she have to do 'all the right things' a woman will do during pregnancy when she desires the baby? Would she be compelled to stop drinking, using drugs, smoking, avoiding certain physical activities, eating healthy, avoiding medications for common illnesses and suffering instead? I don't think so, unless she changes her mind and gets attached to the baby and decides to keep the baby. Yes... here is where we come to, that's the only hope this unborn baby has - a woman changing her mind to deliver the baby she never wanted or could afford to take care of in the first place. The unborn baby can only hope the woman would care for it enough so that it's not getting out of this womb permanently 'injured', so that rest of its life is spent in misery.
Prosecutors in my state have successfully filed charges against women who used drugs while pregnant. Not sure about alcohol, smoking, etc.
I havven't been here in a long time, so I thought I'd check in and see how things are going. Still spinning our wheels, I see.
Anybody out there approve of abortion in the case of rape, but otherwise against it? OK, then. If the precious life of the fetus is the over-riding moral priority, why are you so quick to throw the baby whose father is a rapist into the dumpster? How come that child does not deserve the same privilege of life? What if the mother is equally a low-life? Does that put her on the abortion waiting list, too?
What about a 6-year old, whom we discover was fathered by a rapist? Does that absolve us from any moral compunction for tying him in a gunny sack full of bricks and throwing it off a bridge? After all, the sanctity and entitlement to life of a 6-week old fetus and a 6-year old first-grader are exactly the same, aren't they?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, so should bear the same burden, financially and physically. 
