Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:33 PM
 
11,412 posts, read 7,760,479 times
Reputation: 21922

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
I flubbed on that point. I should have used "foolish action" for women who are having unprotected sex then get pregnant then have an abortion.

Using a contraceptive during consensual intercourse still has the chance of getting pregnant. Call me harsh, but I think if a woman has consensual sex knowing or should have known full well there is the chance she should get pregnant, shouldn't she carry out whether or not she wants the child? Now, compared to a woman having unprotected sex then getting an abortion vs. having protected sex then getting an abortion, I am more sympathetic with the latter.
Based on your logic that it’s ok to punish a woman for having sex by forcing her to carry the fetus to term, then you’d be ok with also punishing her partner by forcing a vasectomy on him? After all, she wasn’t the only one who knew sex (even with contraception) could lead to pregnancy. If we’re punishing her by denying her body autonomy, it’s only fair we do the same to him. Right??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Camberville
15,832 posts, read 21,358,127 times
Reputation: 28124
More than a quarter of Alabama's existing, living children live in poverty. It has the 6th highest infant mortality rate. Women are more likely to die in childbirth or from complications from pregnancy in the US than in any developed nation.


Alabama is telling women they must risk their life in a particularly dangerous, poor place to have children whether they want to or not. And then they're offering no required paid time off (FMLA is limited and unpaid), limited job protections, no maternity or paternity leave, no universal healthcare, and limited welfare to women who is risking her life to give birth to a child she may or may not want.



We hear you loud and clear: women don't matter to you as much as fetus that can be used as a plot device to control women.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:35 PM
 
21,382 posts, read 7,894,372 times
Reputation: 18149
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpgypsy View Post

If preserving the life of the child takes primacy over the desires of the mother — which is what you're saying if you oppose legal abortions — then it shouldn't matter how that life was conceived.

It needs repeating and repeating: 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?
Absolutely. Thank you for pointing out that babies are babies no matter how they are conceived.

A woman has lots of reproductive choices.
Abstinance
Birth control
Adoption

Motherhood


She also can choose MANY forms of birth control:
pills
rings
patches
injectables
implants
IUD
condoms
sponges


Abortion has nothing to do with the above. It is killing another living being.

To avoid an abortion? You've got lots of options. LOTS of options.

No one is taking away "reproductive choice."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:36 PM
 
11,412 posts, read 7,760,479 times
Reputation: 21922
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
More than a quarter of Alabama's existing, living children live in poverty. It has the 6th highest infant mortality rate. Women are more likely to die in childbirth or from complications from pregnancy in the US than in any developed nation.


Alabama is telling women they must risk their life in a particularly dangerous, poor place to have children whether they want to or not. And then they're offering no required paid time off (FMLA is limited and unpaid), limited job protections, no maternity or paternity leave, no universal healthcare, and limited welfare to women who is risking her life to give birth to a child she may or may not want.



We hear you loud and clear: women don't matter to you as much as fetus that can be used as a plot device to control women.
100% all of this. The same people who are for forcing women to be incubators against their wishes are the same ones complaining about providing for the children that result.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:37 PM
 
21,382 posts, read 7,894,372 times
Reputation: 18149
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
More than a quarter of Alabama's existing, living children live in poverty. It has the 6th highest infant mortality rate. Women are more likely to die in childbirth or from complications from pregnancy in the US than in any developed nation.


Alabama is telling women they must risk their life in a particularly dangerous, poor place to have children whether they want to or not. And then they're offering no required paid time off (FMLA is limited and unpaid), limited job protections, no maternity or paternity leave, no universal healthcare, and limited welfare to women who is risking her life to give birth to a child she may or may not want.



We hear you loud and clear: women don't matter to you as much as fetus that can be used as a plot device to control women.
So babies only matter if their parents are wealthy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:40 PM
 
36,160 posts, read 30,636,498 times
Reputation: 32437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
I flubbed on that point. I should have used "foolish action" for women who are having unprotected sex then get pregnant then have an abortion.

Using a contraceptive during consensual intercourse still has the chance of getting pregnant. Call me harsh, but I think if a woman has consensual sex knowing or should have known full well there is the chance she should get pregnant, shouldn't she carry out whether or not she wants the child? Now, compared to a woman having unprotected sex then getting an abortion vs. having protected sex then getting an abortion, I am more sympathetic with the latter.
I just cant understand that line of thinking. Is it you believe she should go through a pregnancy and have a child she doesn't want, perhaps because she cant afford another child, has no father in the picture, no family support, might lose her job, ect. out of guilt because she did not use contraception.
To me that line of thinking stems from wanting to punish the woman, not out of some belief its killing a baby and definitely not out of concern for the well being of the unborn child or any existing siblings, much less the woman. Not using contraception or failed contraception is not going to change the fate of those involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Camberville
15,832 posts, read 21,358,127 times
Reputation: 28124
Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid View Post
Completely disagree. When you see a 3d sonogram of your unborn child you would disagree too.

I saw a sonogram before my abortion. At 8 weeks, it was a blob. After taking 3 pills that would ensure that my very fragile body would remain as healthy as possible so soon after 2 forms of birth control failed following chemotherapy, I had what looked like a typical period.


So how am I supposed to disagree again?


Would you have paid my living expenses for months of bedrest I would have needed? Would you have replaced my lost wages and for my insurance when I lost my job due to overrunning FMLA?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,553,872 times
Reputation: 9675
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
Well no. Responsibility is in the understanding that killing babies is wrong. Responsibility is not killing someone just because you feel like it.

Abortion? It's horrific. And no amount of posting changes that fact. No amount of demanding that babies must be/need to be killed by claiming "it's the responsible thing to do" will make that statement true.

Personal responsibility is taking precautions. Personal responsibility means treating sex with the respect it deserves. Personal responsibility means understanding that having sex means you might get pregnant.

Personal responsibility means being accountable for your own actions without killing anybody else.
So to you, a lot of women can't run their own sex lives and need something like the sex police force created to make them live their sex lives right and proper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Camberville
15,832 posts, read 21,358,127 times
Reputation: 28124
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
So babies only matter if their parents are wealthy?

No, but we're not talking about babies.


We're talking about women. I was about to type "adult," but even 10 year olds who are raped by their fathers will be forced to give birth under Alabama's law.


Do women and girls only matter if they are wealthy enough to manage the medical and financial concerns of pregnancy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 01:43 PM
 
11,412 posts, read 7,760,479 times
Reputation: 21922
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
Absolutely. Thank you for pointing out that babies are babies no matter how they are conceived.

A woman has lots of reproductive choices.
Abstinance
Birth control
Adoption

Motherhood


She also can choose MANY forms of birth control:
pills
rings
patches
injectables
implants
IUD
condoms
sponges


Abortion has nothing to do with the above. It is killing another living being.

To avoid an abortion? You've got lots of options. LOTS of options.

No one is taking away "reproductive choice."
They’re trying to do exactly that in Ohio. No more contraceptive methods that keep an egg from implanting. Not to mention the defunding of Planned Parenthood who provides free or low cost BC to those who can’t afford it. Reproductive “choice” becomes what BC the state says you’re allowed to use and they’re removing the most reliable ones like IUDs.

If it was really about preventing abortion, they’d be making BC as cheap and available as possible. But, it’s not. It’s about controlling women’s choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top