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.
It's what we would do if a thirteen-year-old were raped.
Why only in those cases? Are the lives of children who were conceived by rape worth less than the lives of children who were willfully conceived? If preserving the life of the child takes primacy over the desires of the mother — which is what you're saying if you oppose any legal abortions — then it shouldn't matter how that life was conceived.
Last edited by corpgypsy; 01-30-2019 at 11:57 AM..
Why only in those cases? Are the lives of children who were conceived by rape worth less than the lives of children who were willfully conceived? If preserving the life of the child takes primacy over the desires of the mother — which is what you're saying if you oppose any legal abortions — then it shouldn't matter how that life was conceived.
Why only in those cases? Are the lives of children who were conceived by rape worth less than the lives of children who were willfully conceived? If preserving the life of the child takes primacy over the desires of the mother — which is what you're saying if you oppose any legal abortions — then it shouldn't matter how that life was conceived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiociolliscalves
Correct.
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?
So, you're arguing that in no context may the state require a woman to do something with her body? Or does this just apply to pregnancy and not other things?
So, you're arguing that in no context may the state require a woman to do something with her body? Or does this just apply to pregnancy and not other things?
What are you talking about? The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. A government should not have the ability to force a woman to continue a pregnancy.
You're making moral arguments throughout this thread and then, when confronted with problems in your logic, retreat to saying that the law is the law and that I should accept that rather than making moral arguments about this issue. Spiffy.
What problem with my logic? YOU are the one who introduced legality into this conversation. Not I. I didn't retreat to saying the law is the law. I didn't retreat at all.
You can make any moral argument you wish. In the end, your opinion isn't decisive. Your "morality" isn't some standard that the rest of the world has to adhere to. In fact, your "morality" isn't even moral, when you consider that your "morality" forces a second-rate status on half the world.
My morality, where I argue that women (adult women, because unlike you, my arguments don't involve conflating women with children, something that is rampant with people who are arguing from a patriarchal viewpoint) are intelligent, responsible and moral, makes women the equal of men. Gasp! My argument, that a fertilized egg isn't a human being is a sound argument. You haven't argued otherwise, you've just put the onus on me to define when a human is a human. And I've told you, I don't know that, but I take as guidelines the current thresholds where we define death as occurring.
My logic is solid and rational. EVERY argument against abortion centers on women being immoral, irresponsible or just plain stupid. And I don't accept any of those arguments. Nor do I think such arguments are moral.
It's what we would do if a thirteen-year-old were raped.
So, abortion is sometimes okay. Only a consenting adult woman should be punished for enjoying sex by having to endure an unwanted pregnancy. If the woman is sympathetic enough for you, then you can support an abortion.
so you are saying women can practice safe sex and avoid getting pregnant? And if she refuses to use contraception and gets pregnant as a result, that's her fault, and her responsibility?
not everyone has easy access to contraception, nor does everyone have a good enough sex education class to know how to use it or where to obtain it. But let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that everyone had access to free contraception and knew how to use it correctly.
Even then, no contraception is 100 percent effective. Presumably, you oppose abortions even in cases where contraception fails (and it does sometimes fail, even when used perfectly). If that's true, you're saying that, by merely choosing to have sex — with or without a condom — a woman becomes responsible for having a child. And that's a belief that has everything to do with judging a woman's behavior, and nothing to do with the value of life.
Yes.
And availability of birth control is pretty prolific in America these days.
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.
