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.
Does it need to be a good choice? Maybe she makes two bad choices. So what? Why should we assume that an inflexible law dictating that she must remain pregnant is always going to result in the best solution?
We allow people the ability to make every other decision in their life, including bad ones. We allow people to go deeply into debt, make stupid business decisions, marry bad people, smoke, drink to excess, make bad career decisions, etc. Why is this one area of human activity regulated for only one gender?
It makes no sense, and it is discriminatory.
Why can't we limit to early in the pregnancy? Why does it have to be the ENTIRE pregnancy? What we have an issue with is late term abortion which lefties see to really want.
Why can't we limit to early in the pregnancy? Why does it have to be the ENTIRE pregnancy? What we have an issue with is late term abortion which lefties see to really want.
On what basis do you limit it to early for in pregnancy? Upthread phetaroi correctly noted that we could pass allows defining many things, but I think we should have a good and valid reason for legislating things.
My thought is that female bodily autonomy is absolute, and nobody should infringe on this. Pregnancy is an imposition on a woman's body, and can therefore be terminated by the woman.
I think we can draw a line at viability, but then we need to define viability. That is another debate.
You seem to want to draw a different line. Can you define why early is ok, but not late? Where is that line? Why is a woman’s bodily integrity supreme earlyin the pregnancy, but not later in the pregnancy?
Thats an interesting stance to take...the young girl is pregnant due to a BAD choice she made...so when it comes to whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, 'her choice' should prevail?
Since she made a bad choice in getting pregnant, what makes you feel her choice to end it would be any better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Does it need to be a good choice? Maybe she makes two bad choices. So what? Why should we assume that an inflexible law dictating that she must remain pregnant is always going to result in the best solution?
We allow people the ability to make every other decision in their life, including bad ones. We allow people to go deeply into debt, make stupid business decisions, marry bad people, smoke, drink to excess, make bad career decisions, etc. Why is this one area of human activity regulated for only one gender?
It makes no sense, and it is discriminatory.
You beat me to the punch. EMTs are obligated to save the life of someone who caused mass injury/death, who's eaten FAAAR too many Oreos, cholesterol is faar too high, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I think that wording was awkward. The government tells us what we can and cannot do all the time. They're called laws.
Yes, but the laws need to be reasonable. Remember when the US tried to completely outlaw ALL alcohol? That's a far cry from saying "you need to be 21 or older". Also, alcohol is soo ingrained in our culture that there was a huge black market for it. Don't kid yourself, even people who are against abortions will get it for themselves, their children, or their mistresses they've impregnated. Some of them have the resources to fly to where safe abortions are legal is all.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 17 days ago)
35,665 posts, read 18,034,145 times
Reputation: 50706
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Does it need to be a good choice? Maybe she makes two bad choices. So what? Why should we assume that an inflexible law dictating that she must remain pregnant is always going to result in the best solution?
We allow people the ability to make every other decision in their life, including bad ones. We allow people to go deeply into debt, make stupid business decisions, marry bad people, smoke, drink to excess, make bad career decisions, etc. Why is this one area of human activity regulated for only one gender?
It makes no sense, and it is discriminatory.
I'm firmly pro-choice, but I think the answer to your question is obvious.
Because the other decisions affect only the person doing them. Abortion affects a completely other life, killing it.
And that must be part of the conversation. To pretend to not notice that makes the your statements disingenuous.
Those who are prochoice, like myself, have to be able to say, yes, that's a human baby and yes, the mother should be able to decide (up to a certain point, I say 10 weeks) not to carry it to term.
Someone made an interesting comment above (except I could not find it). Should the father be allowed to force the woman to either get an abortion or absolve him of all responsibility for the child? Why or why not?
Pro choice big 3 are usually: rape, incest, life of the mother. What about young ignorance?
Young ignorance.. Well that should be PAID for by the parents of both the young lady and young man. I can guarantee that those parents will be more involved with the sex life of their kids.
The only free abortions that i am ok with are rape, incest, life of mother or baby will have issues.
Someone made an interesting comment above (except I could not find it). Should the father be allowed to force the woman to either get an abortion or absolve him of all responsibility for the child? Why or why not?
As to the first part of the question, NO of course a man should not be able to force a woman to have an abortion. Surely that is obvious enough that I don't even need to explain why not.
Second question, also NO, he should not be absolved of responsibility for the child if the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy and have the baby.
Some may say that's not fair. I say it's biology. It is the woman who gets pregnant, whose physical body is affected, and that physical burden absolutely cannot be shared by the father (and yes I say "burden" because even a planned pregnancy takes a toll on the mother's body; there is sickness and exhaustion and pain beyond what a man could imagine). So, sorry, woman's body, woman's choice.
Every man needs to accept that any act of sex he engages in could result in a new little human for whom he will be financially responsible. Who else should be responsible? Taxpayers? They already pay for plenty of children. If the father has any financial resources, he must provide what he can (or I should say what the law requires) for any children he helped create.
Someone made an interesting comment above (except I could not find it). Should the father be allowed to force the woman to either get an abortion or absolve him of all responsibility for the child? Why or why not?
As to the first part of the question, NO of course a man should not be able to force a woman to have an abortion. Surely that is obvious enough that I don't even need to explain why not.
Second question, also NO, he should not be absolved of responsibility for the child if the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy and have the baby.
Some may say that's not fair. I say it's biology. It is the woman who gets pregnant, whose physical body is affected, and that physical burden absolutely cannot be shared by the father (and yes I say "burden" because even a planned pregnancy takes a toll on the mother's body; there is sickness and exhaustion and pain beyond what a man could imagine). So, sorry, woman's body, woman's choice.
Every man needs to accept that any act of sex he engages in could result in a new little human for whom he will be financially responsible. Who else should be responsible? Taxpayers? They already pay for plenty of children. If the father has any financial resources, he must provide what he can (or I should say what the law requires) for any children he helped create.
Not fair? Life's often not fair.
You beat me to the punch.
Historically, when women have gone through pregnancy and childbirth, they have actually died! Men do not incur this same danger. I recall one C-D poster actually retorted that the lives of her family and friends are affected, and they should have some say in this too! Well, here's me "smh" to such a remark.
.
There are those who are anti-abortion have accused women use abortions "as a convenience for not wanting to raise the child". Well, a man who wants a woman he impregnated to have an abortion so that he can be absolved of financial and other responsibility is just as guilty as that! Double standard indeed.
And that remark remains true.. if you don't want a woman to have your child, then don't have sex with her. It's about as reckless as thinking "I can drive and text responsibly", or "I can handle driving while drunk".
I'm firmly pro-choice, but I think the answer to your question is obvious.
Because the other decisions affect only the person doing them. Abortion affects a completely other life, killing it.
And that must be part of the conversation. To pretend to not notice that makes the your statements disingenuous.
I am not ignoring that, although I have come to the conclusion that the embroyo/fetus is inconsequential in the debate, for a couple of reasons.
1. The embryo/fetus is unlikely to feel pain, cannot anticipate the future, has no concept of the past, and for all practical purposes has no idea what is happening. There is no fear, no loss, no regret on the part of the unborn. It is not yet a human being, it is only a potential human being. On this stance alone I consider abortion to be acceptable, until the point of viability.
2. Female bodily autonomy should be considered paramount. Just because a woman is pregnant does not give her an obligation to submerge her needs and desires to another, by which I mean the embryo/fetus. If we compel a woman to do this with force of law, we are setting a precedent that people will find unacceptable. At what point does the rights of another trump the rights of an individual? If you say the rights of the fetus trumps the rights of the mother, logically the rights of a cancer victim needing bone marrow will trump your rights if you are a match, and you will of necessity be compelled to donate your bone marrow. How about kidneys or eyes? If your cornea can help a completely blind person to see, and you will only lose one eye, do you have a legal responsibility to that person?
A person's body is theirs. 100%. I do not have a right to any portion of it, at any time. Neither do you. Neither does a fetus.
Quote:
Those who are prochoice, like myself, have to be able to say, yes, that's a human baby and yes, the mother should be able to decide (up to a certain point, I say 10 weeks) not to carry it to term.
Why 10 weeks? How do you justify that? Why not 9, or 11, or 1, or 26? Viability makes sense to me, but I see no logic in any other milestone.
Why can't we limit to early in the pregnancy? Why does it have to be the ENTIRE pregnancy? What we have an issue with is late term abortion which lefties see to really want.
Lots of "lefties" would accept that compromise.
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.
