Rape and pregnancy: the ignorance of the GOP

[BlueStar]

Here's an excellent article about the wider thinking behind the 'pro-life' movement that Akin exposes

http://prospect.org/article/akin-unmasks-pro-life-movement

 

[BlueStar]

A fetus isn't a human being.

That's what it boils down to, isn't it? Whether you agree with this statement, or not. Because if you don't agree that a fetus isn't a human being, then abortion is clearly intentional, cold-blooded, self-serving murder. And if you think a fetus (which is not "two cells" as someone put it, but by the time most abortions are performed has a face, ten fingers, ten toes, etc.) is not a human being, then what is it exactly??

What I was getting at with the two cells comment is that if you believe life begins at conception (a relatively modern idea, even in religious groups) then a fertilised egg with no brain, no human shape, no heart, nothing, is just as human as you or me. Therefore, the idea goes, late term abortion is the same as the morning after pill is the same as slitting the throat of a two year old, is the same as contraception methods that prevent the fertilised egg from attaching to the wall of the womb.

Or so people claim. I have a hard time actually believing it and I think in most cases what people really mean is "I'm morally opposed to abortion" and "I think it's the murder of a human being" is an easier argument to make. If there was a fire in a hospital and you could save either 5 test tubs containing frozen fertilised eggs or a three week old baby, would people really save the test tubes? Similarly, for those who want exceptions in order to save the life of the mother, would they save an adult woman over a 2 year old?

 

[shortz1994]

this dude is a douche, he is old, an set in his ways. no matter who says he was wrong for what he said. he still thinks he his right. the only reason for the "i'm sorry". it's all about that vote.
Just as Obama did with the "illegals" all for the 1 extra vote for office.
as i tell my kids, no matter what, make sure your wrapped, if not it's not worth the 5 min.( shit if i would have followed my own advice when i was 18 ).
i'm not "pro choice. i do think that there are times that an abortion should be done.(serious medical an [censored]). i hate when people know what they are doing, an decide to get one. (you an your girlfriend decide to do a "quickie" on the city bus,you forgot your wrapper,an still go at it. she gets pregnant, you break up, an she goes gets an abortion. an her excuse." i can't do it on my own"
that's bull shit. If a dude(me) can raise twins because his girlfriend/wife becomes a crack head.(her excuse was stress). then their is no reason 1 person can't raise 1 baby.
i guess my point is, if your over 15. you know what your doing. man up/women up an deal with what you did.( all for a 5 min blood rush.)

!! were the hell is my first amendment..censored= R..A..P..E..... wtf.

 

[Hanafuda]

Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.

I've been hearing this catchy little argument my whole life in favor of abortion-on-demand. And I consider the logic flawed, because the mother's choice extends well beyond her body if she decides to have the child, and yet the father's circumstances and interests are completely disregarded .... if you get a girl pregnant and want to keep the baby and would even raise it on your own without her help, but she wants an abortion, then there's nothing you can do to prevent that baby from being snuffed out. But if you get a girl pregnant and you feel you're not ready and want the abortion done, but she doesn't, then tough shit you're gonna pay.

You say, "I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want," but that's exactly the power the pregnant woman is given over the father. Should the father be allowed to 'opt out' of his responsibility for the child he helped create if he wants the pregnancy aborted but the girl refuses?? It seems to me all the arguments for forcing the father 'own up' to his responsibility for the child are the same arguments that are disregarded when it comes to the girl's responsibility, if she wants an abortion.

 

[shortz1994]

Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.

I've been hearing this catchy little argument my whole life in favor of abortion-on-demand. And I consider the logic flawed, because the mother's choice extends well beyond her body if she decides to have the child, and yet the father's circumstances and interests are completely disregarded .... if you get a girl pregnant and want to keep the baby and would even raise it on your own without her help, but she wants an abortion, then there's nothing you can do to prevent that baby from being snuffed out. But if you get a girl pregnant and you feel you're not ready and want the abortion done, but she doesn't, then tough shit you're gonna pay.

You say, "I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want," but that's exactly the power the pregnant woman is given over the father. Should the father be allowed to 'opt out' of his responsibility for the child he helped create if he wants the pregnancy aborted but the girl refuses?? It seems to me all the arguments for forcing the father 'own up' to his responsibility for the child are the same arguments that are disregarded when it comes to the girl's responsibility, if she wants an abortion.

i've got to say . most of that argument is true. when it comes down to it. if you are not with mommy, when the child is born, the father has limited rights. an that is wrong.( this was the only reason i stuck it out with my x. until my older twins were 16.).yes while it takes two to make a baby.(unless your octo-mom). it only takes one to destroy that life.
the ones that refuse to destroy or terminate, are the vindictive ones.( i want his money, or make his life hell so he will come back.) and that statement is all not true. some times it's done like that cause of religion. but as it is said. it's her body, she can do what she wants. even if it's abortion.(my thing is, medicaid/welfare shouldn't pay a dime...i.e.. planned parenthood an those alike.).
believe me if i could carry a baby, an give birth. i would. but males body can't handle the stress of pregnancies. an fathers can give up their rights, yes you'll have to pay. but if the women merry's a dude that makes more then you. then you really don't have to pay.( some states, NC an the south. they make you bend over, an don't have the niceness to use KY..). in the south fathers have no rights when it comes to kids/devorce/abortion. or any thing like that. fathers re cash cows to those states.(south)

 

[leic7]

I may be the one who used the words "unwanted pregnancy" and "sickness" within the same paragraph, but that doesn't mean there's an implied equivalence between them. I never said nor implied an unwanted pregnancy was a "sickness" in my original analogy. Why are you getting all indignant over nothing?

That's simply how I understood the statement - if that was not your point, fair enough, but that's how it came across to me.

If someone doesn't want the pregnancy, she obviously didn't ask for it. Whether you think her situation could've been preventable is irrelevant. It is what it is now, and that's what matters. If a smoker gets lung cancer, if a drunk driver gets hurt, if someone catches pneumonia after being out in the cold without a jacket, if someone who doesn't know how to swim goes on a boat without a life jacket, and drowns... Do we help them? In Canada, yes we do, with public funding. I would never say because I did nothing to cause their suffering, they should either pay out of their own pockets, or continue to suffer. Could any of those situations have been preventable? That's irrelevant. What's done is done. Let's focus on helping people who need help now.

I think you're mistaking a direct consequence of someone's actions and accidents and illnesses. If a smoker gets lung cancer, that's an actual life-threatening sickness. It may be a consequence of the smoking but it doesn't necesarily have to be connected with it, but that's besides the point - the treatment is beneficial to the patient's health. Unwanted pregnancy, is not an illness, it's not life-threatening - it doesn't have to be "treated", it's simply unwanted and that makes a huge difference. If someone catches pneumonia after being in the cold without a jacket, again, he catches an actual illness. Pregnancy is not an illness, it's a bodily function. If someone starts drowning because he or she had no life jacket on him or her, it was irresponsible to go swimming or sailing, but again, a life is at stake here. In case of pregnancy, there are two lives at stake, which is why abortion "just because I didn't feel like making sure I was safe" should not be legal. A fetus is not a pimple, you can't just pluck it out and get on with your life - it's a developing human being and if you didn't want it in the first place, you had more than enough options to prevent your pregnancy. Doctors vow to first and foremost not harm patients, and abortion is harmful - to the developing fetus and in some cases to the mother as well.

There's something I don't know how to stress enough: the importance of a person's right to their bodily integrity. I think it's absolutely paramount that a person be able to retain full control over their bodily integrity, that this control should override even the right to life of another human being.

So, let's say that you have siamese sisters or brothers who share vital life organs and their separation would mean that one of them dies. What do you do then? It's the exact same relation - you have two human beings and one of them has to die for the sake of the other, right? Wrong. Hardly any doctor would agree to perform surgery in such a case as it spells a death sentence to one of the twins, yet when there's a mother and her unborn child, people are quick to simply scoop up the fetus. How come? Because it cannot speak for itself yet?

So the life of the fetus, even if you do consider it a person, takes a backseat to the right of the woman to maintain her bodily integrity. Why is the right to maintain one's bodily integrity paramount? If it wasn't, the state could forcibly take anyone's kidney, bone marrow, blood, etc. in order to save another person's life, without the donor's consent. But we can't do that, even if you're the only match for them, and your refusal would lead to their certain death; we'd still honour your wish, simply because that's your body, your call.

It's nothing like that situation at all - the patient and the would-be donor do not share a mutual relation like the mother and the fetus do. You're boldly talking about the bodily integrity of a woman completely forgetting about the bodily integrity of the unborn child - you value one life higher than the other, that's a logical fallacy, life is life. Once the embryo turns into a proper fetus and becomes an entity separate from the mother entirely and only connected to her via the womb and the cord, you should consider it as a separate person because that's who it is in biological terms. As I said, if the pregnancy was not wanted, the mother had time before the fetus was formed - why didn't she use that time to take a "Morning-After"? Why didn't she think ahead and protect herself from unwanted pregnancy? Why didn't her partner do it? The couple is at fault and the couple should deal with it - you're shifting the responsibility for their actions from themselves onto the doctors when they had all the chances to prevent their "predicament" from happening.

I'm anti-abortion (on-demand, not when it's necessary for health-related reasons or in case of [censored], where it could cause further psychological trauma), I'm pro education. Teens should be properly taught about how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, contraception should be widely available and affordable and every clinic should have a "safety window" where mothers can leave their "unwanted children" - I choose that option over practically murder for the sake of someone's comfort.

My posting probably counts as continuing a topic that had run a course and was beginning to falter.

No qualms with the present incarnation of your options and methods (hence their being chopped)- there are some minor discussion points later (not sure about the last few years but the UK did not care for spermicide for the longest time where in the US at least it was common) and I should note condoms are free to anyone that wanders into a sexual health clinic in the UK among other places (schools and universities will also have things here). What I will posit is some of the chemical methods are quite far reaching with the end result being the foetus being broken down into chemicals and reabsorbed- how might this figure into things?

"When it develops organs"..... if that is your stance then fair enough and I am far too lazy right not to look up the human foetus development chart to reconcile development phases/times with accepted times for various types of abortions but I do have to note it is but your opinion which will probably alter the weight it can carry depending upon the situation. I can certainly see where philosophical issues might arise between abortions being performed at one stage yet with serious medical intervention there is chance that someone could survive at the same stage but that is an adjunct discussion at best.

"Tough [you get to carry it through]". Adoption and such is certainly a viable option but assuming the square bracketed text is accurate I would find that objectionable both on a general philosophical/game playing level (you have a quick, easy and relatively hassle free option and you are choosing the hard method?) and I will go further and say something like then the several months it will realistically cost the would be mother and related support networks are not inconsiderable (even immediate adoption will probably see some maternity leave happen).

""unwanted pregnancy is as much a sickness as any other" - .... I just want to say that I find this statement disgusting"
Far be it for me to interpret the words of another but I would argue it could be read as seen as it is a problem for some that is potentially solved by medical science (be it the results of it or people practising it). Pregnancy is certainly a natural state but it will have a decided impact on lifestyle as mentioned in the previous paragraph and although it is often forgotten medicine is there to improve quality of life as well as make sure you carry on as close to breathing/a normal state should you so desire/for as long as possible. Likewise there are occasions being sick is beyond the control of the person that gets sick but it is not clear cut (see also health and injury insurance rates variation according to activity for a basic one and take to it further I will look at something like teeth- your gnashers might be fine but for at least partially aesthetic reasons braces might be an idea or even come the other way and ponder if not having a completely healthy diet plus exercise plus whatever might trouble something somewhere) which means we have a spectrum rather than a binary classification and as such people can fall along it. Carrying on from that pregnancy is not the only potentially negative outcome of sexual activity and I fail to see a logical leap between denying someone an abortion (time issues aside in the case of purely socio economic reasons) and denying them assistance with a STD/STI/VD/[insert current acronym/initialism de jour] if indeed the object of medical care* is quality of life. As for the phrase I could agree the phrasing itself was not very choice unless it was picked so as to be succinct in which case I might have to say success.

*given everybody living will interact with medical care at some level I probably want a better term but something like "wellbeing management" seems somewhat akin to manglement speak.

I suppose in the end in it a matter of philosophy on what constitutes life, what constitutes viable life/what is a useful abstraction, what is justifiable as far as preventing things from going further, what possible modifiers there are (geography, resources, state of science.....) and assigning/determining value. Given that for each of those there possibility for near endless debate before it even comes to attempting to wring a universal philosophy from it.

I agree, it is a never-ending debate. It really is simple to me though - pregnancy is not an STD, it's not an illness and requires no "treatment" - it's not something that's broken in your body - it's a natural consequence of sexual intercourse and the resulting "life" should be treated with utmost respect - the same level of respect the mother recieves. People carry on saying that doctors are all about "improving the quality of life" - to me, they're all about tending to the sick and protecting life. I'm just glad that the thread didn't magically turn into a flamewar, really. It's an interesting discussion and I'm glad it's on an appropriate intellectual level so-far.

I hope it's not your intention to imply pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience for the women who don't want it? Because it's certainly not just a minor inconvenience, and most women don't treat it as such. It's a long and delicate process, and a life-altering experience that could change the woman's life forever. It's also not a risk free process, pregnancy and childbirth can be "life-threatening" too, maternal mortality is real. If a woman doesn't want to go through with it, she shouldn't be forced to.

And *precisely* because of the special physiology of the relationship between the fetus and mother, that the woman should not be compelled into carrying it inside her if she's unwilling. Physiology dictates an inherent unequal relationship between the mother and the fetus, when one is completely inside another and just uses the body of another to serve its own needs. This is the physiological relationship between a donor/host and a recipient/parasite. To restrict the rights of the giver, and/or to arbitrarily impose "equal" rights on an intrinsically and fundamentally unequal relationship, would in fact not make the relationship any more equal, but elevate the status of the taker to a level above the giver.

If a fetus was granted the right (or worse, if *others* were given the right) to demand that another person's bodily integrity be compromised in order to protect its own bodily integrity, then it would actually have more privileges than any living person would. It would definitely have more privileges than the person who's in desperate need of a kidney transplant, the pregnant woman, newborn babies, and even the adult "Siamese twins". Doesn't it strike you as something even slightly off that a potentail human being should be granted more rights than an actual person? Why should society have such an inordinate interest in protecting the fetuses, exactly? Would you advocate the same level of protection for sperm cells, too? Foetal development is a continuum, during the first trimester, where the vast majority of abortions occur, the fetus doesn't even remotely resemble a human being. If you could assign the exact same moral worth of a grown person to this fetus, then you could also do the same for a sperm cell. Personally, I draw the line on personhood at birth.

There's a marked difference in the nature of the relationship between the twins, and the relationship between mother and fetus, even though both appear to have the same element of "attachment". The twins are on more or less of an equal footing, whereas the other relationship is anything but.

You also seem to be approaching the right to bodily integrity (and autonomy) from the wrong angle. The right to bodily integrity simply means that a person can unilaterally decide what they want to do with their own body, or their own parts of the body, without needing permission from anyone else. It's not about one person having to die for the sake of another. It means a donor can refuse to provide their own body parts for the service of another. It means if one of the twins decides to shut down their own part of the body, and commit suicide on their own part of the body, the other twin does not have the right to order them to stay alive.

When it comes to pregnancy, there's absolutely no question about the ownership of the uterus: a woman 100% owns her uterus. If the donor withdraws her consent to using her uterus as an incubator, and to using the resources produced by her own body for the service of the fetus, no one else should have the right to force her. btw to me abortion means "to abort the state of pregnancy for the woman". It's not about killing the fetus for the sake of the mother, it's about "when a woman no longer welcomes this foreign entity inside her uterus, it no longer has the right to stay." That's what the goal of abortion is: get the fetus out of the woman's body. But of course the fetus won't be able to survive outside. But that doesn't mean we can force the woman to keep it in just for the benefits of the fetus.

 

[Hanafuda]

It's not about killing the fetus for the sake of the mother, it's about "when a woman no longer welcomes this foreign entity inside her uterus, it no longer has the right to stay." That's what the goal of abortion is: get the fetus out of the woman's body. But of course the fetus won't be able to survive outside. But that doesn't mean we can force the woman to keep it in just for the benefits of the fetus.

'
That "foreign entity" is her own child, but never mind that. Let's consider your closing, and the assumption that, "But of course the fetus won't be able to survive outside."

Suppose the fetus could survive outside the womb? And I'm not talking about the "partial birth abortion" scenario. I mean, suppose that through advancements in medical science it becomes possible in the future to "get the fetus out of the woman's body" but keep it alive through to full development?? It's not such a long shot. A few years ago I had a discussion with someone who worked in an neonatal ICU who told me that just during his career the number of weeks at which a 'preemie' could be kept alive had shrunk from around 28 weeks to about 22 weeks. So, when science reaches the point that any fetus can be saved, and a pregnant woman decides she wants that foreign entity out of her body, should she still be held responsible as the parent of that child if it survives? Or is abortion really just about eliminating the consequences of irresponsible behavior?

 

[Foxi4]

You also seem to be approaching the right to bodily integrity (and autonomy) from the wrong angle. The right to bodily integrity simply means that a person can unilaterally decide what they want to do with their own body, or their own parts of the body, without needing permission from anyone else.

I would adress the entirety of your post, but I don't think I could affect the way you percieve this issue in any way so I won't - you're set in your beliefs and that's alright.

What I don't appreciate is that you call my angle wrong when the only argument you have to support it is that it's not the angle you approach the subject from. The unborn child can decide whether it wants to be scraped out with a spoon or not, it's just unable to execute that wish. I'm not talking about a few cells that barely started multiplying, I'm talking about a fetus that is in the process of forming organs which already has a nervous system in place or is in the process of forming one. I see a huge difference between using a Morning-After pill to prevent a fertilized egg from nesting and an actual growing embryo that's already nested - one is acceptable to me, one is not.

I don't think it's up to the mother whether or not the child should live and it is quite unfortunate that she has to carry it when she doesn't want to, but that's how human reproduction works. As I said earlier, the couple gets all the chances to prevent this from happening and yet chooses unprotected sex out of nothing else than negligence and I don't feel okay about giving them an option to kill a developing human being simply because it's still in the woman's womb. I simply can't accept denying the right to life to a developing child simply because its life is inconvenient to someone.

Suppose the fetus could survive outside the womb? And I'm not talking about the "partial birth abortion" scenario. I mean, suppose that through advancements in medical science it becomes possible in the future to "get the fetus out of the woman's body" but keep it alive through to full development? It's not such a long shot.

If that technology was developed and is proven to give the child equal chances to those held in the womb throughout pregnancy, I would be more than satisfied with that resolution since it's a win-win situation.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.

It's funny how people are pro-choice, yet ignore the original choice that got them pregnant in the first place.

 

[Foxi4]

Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.

It's funny how people are pro-choice, yet ignore the original choice that got them pregnant in the first place.

Exactly. That kind of attitude opens many doors that should remain closed. Young people will grow up believing that whether they protect themselves or not, everything's going to be fine since worst-case scenario they can get an abortion. That's not how it's supposed to work - couples need to be well-aware of the consequences of unprotected sex and they should face consequences of their actions if they refuse to acknowledge the risks.

Like you said - they had a choice. They made theirs. The fetus didn't magically appear in the uterus - they put it in there and it's their fault entirely.

 

[Hells Malice]

Suppose the fetus could survive outside the womb? And I'm not talking about the "partial birth abortion" scenario. I mean, suppose that through advancements in medical science it becomes possible in the future to "get the fetus out of the woman's body" but keep it alive through to full development? It's not such a long shot.

If that technology was developed and is proven to give the child equal chances to those held in the womb throughout pregnancy, I would be more than satisfied with that resolution since it's a win-win situation.

and then we can have lots of children born into a world that never wanted it.
Wonderful. We didn't have enough sad, depressed, lonely children already.

The sentiment is pure, the result not so much.

 

[Foxi4]

and then we can have lots of children born into a world that never wanted it.
Wonderful. We didn't have enough sad, depressed, lonely children already.

The sentiment is pure, the result not so much.

Hardly any newborn left in the hospital ends up with no family of his or her own - most couples unable to have children prefer to adopt younger children rather than older ones.

And by the way, contraception is either really cheap or free (depending on where you live) so what should be invested in is education, not abortion.

 

[Hanafuda]

Suppose the fetus could survive outside the womb? And I'm not talking about the "partial birth abortion" scenario. I mean, suppose that through advancements in medical science it becomes possible in the future to "get the fetus out of the woman's body" but keep it alive through to full development? It's not such a long shot.

If that technology was developed and is proven to give the child equal chances to those held in the womb throughout pregnancy, I would be more than satisfied with that resolution since it's a win-win situation.

and then we can have lots of children born into a world that never wanted it.
Wonderful. We didn't have enough sad, depressed, lonely children already.

The sentiment is pure, the result not so much.

Yeah, you're right. It's much better killing them all.

 

[Hells Malice]

and then we can have lots of children born into a world that never wanted it.
Wonderful. We didn't have enough sad, depressed, lonely children already.

The sentiment is pure, the result not so much.

Hardly any newborn left in the hospital ends up with no family of his own - most couples unable to have children prefer to adopt younger children rather than older ones.

And by the way, contraception is either really cheap or free (depending on where you live) so what should be invested in is education, not abortion.

Hardly any, right now. Because there aren't many.

You cannot (properly) educate the stupid, most were already taught, they just don't listen anyway. At least, that is certainly the case around my area.
No matter how many trillions of dollars is spent on educating people, there will be plenty of morons still getting knocked up.

Yeah, you're right. It's much better killing them all.

So you'd rather most live a sad, miserable life?



EDIT:

and since I don't plan on actually debating (this thread is depressing), i'd like to point out: I'm in support of abortion with a reason. [censored] victims (as this thread ORIGINALLY targeting) should not be forced to keep a child of [censored]. That's insanely cruel. You could say the child did nothing wrong, but hell neither did the 'mother'. If she doesn't want to keep the baby, she should never be made to.
I think stupidty and ignorance should be phased out. But, good luck with that. It's the best solution to PREVENT pregnancy, but with so many morons out there, it's never going to be viable, and thousands of unwanted children being born is not an ideal situation in the least. Abortion is cruel, being born into a world that doesn't love you is crueler, even if some would be happy, many wouldn't.
There's really no right answer, solution, or choice when it comes to abortion. It's all situational and based on chance, whether it would be better to keep a child or not. Some children may be born and end up enjoying life, but others would be born and hate every moment of theirs.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

and then we can have lots of children born into a world that never wanted it.
Wonderful. We didn't have enough sad, depressed, lonely children already.

The sentiment is pure, the result not so much.

Hardly any newborn left in the hospital ends up with no family of his own - most couples unable to have children prefer to adopt younger children rather than older ones.

And by the way, contraception is either really cheap or free (depending on where you live) so what should be invested in is education, not abortion.

Hardly any, right now. Because there aren't many.

You cannot (properly) educate the stupid, most were already taught, they just don't listen anyway. At least, that is certainly the case around my area.
No matter how many trillions of dollars is spent on educating people, there will be plenty of morons still getting knocked up.

Yeah, you're right. It's much better killing them all.

So you'd rather most live a sad, miserable life?

If a mother chooses to relinquish her rights to the child at the hospital, the child will most likely have paperwork written up within 24 hours for prospective parents. Adopting out a newborn to a good home is a piece of cake, since most people that go to an adoption agency are looking for children from Newborn to 6 months. The fact of the matter is, a representative of one or more adoption agencies have an office within the hospital for this very reason.

In most cases, the mother, already knowing she doesn't want, or can't take care of the child, finds adoptive parents before she even gives birth, either to someone in the family, or to another couple through an adoption agency.

Newborns find no lack of good homes to go to. It's the older children that are looked over constantly.

 

[BlueStar]

Isn't the main problem for newborns the fact that people are often unwilling to adopt outside of their own race and therefore if you're the 'wrong' race in terms of the amount of kids up for adoption and the type of people wanting to adopt, you quickly end up too old and unadoptable and are many, many times more likely to end up unemployed and in prison?

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia....racial_adoption

 

[Hanafuda]

Some children may be born and end up enjoying life, but others would be born and hate every moment of theirs.

I believe that's what's known as "the human condition."

My hypothetical future in which all fetuses can be kept alive throughout their development does not exist, yet. But there could be a time, in the not so distant future relatively speaking, where birth control is absolutely effective, and even carrying a child in natural pregnancy could be seen as criminal neglect. When we master human incubation to the point that it is safer for the mother and the baby to "grow" the child in an artificial womb, we may finally be done with the abortion controversy. (But the technology will bring new problems)

 

[Foxi4]

And since I don't plan on actually debating (this thread is depressing), i'd like to point out: I'm in support of abortion with a reason. [censored] victims (as this thread ORIGINALLY targeting) should not be forced to keep a child of [censored]. That's insanely cruel.

Oh, I think you might've misunderstood me, I'll clarify just in case. I was talking about abortions on-demand - I'm okay with abortions when [censored] victims request them. Asking a woman to carry a child she never asked for would only enhance the trauma, it would be monstrous to ask her to do so. I'd appreciate if the police or the ambulace crew were equipped with Morning-Afters to give them to [censored] victims free of charge to prevent pregnancy, but if those fail or if the victim was held prisoner and had no option of preventing the pregnancy - fine, I can understand how abortion would be a necessity. I was only talking about those couples who have the problem because of their own negligence, couples that chose to have unprotected sex and refuse to deal with the consequences of their actions. A [censored] victim doesn't ask to be raped and if abortion will improve the victim's mental state and she wishes to have one, sure (as long as it is not an advanced pregnancy, of course).

 

[Judas18]

Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.

I've been hearing this catchy little argument my whole life in favor of abortion-on-demand. And I consider the logic flawed, because the mother's choice extends well beyond her body if she decides to have the child, and yet the father's circumstances and interests are completely disregarded .... if you get a girl pregnant and want to keep the baby and would even raise it on your own without her help, but she wants an abortion, then there's nothing you can do to prevent that baby from being snuffed out. But if you get a girl pregnant and you feel you're not ready and want the abortion done, but she doesn't, then tough shit you're gonna pay.

You say, "I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want," but that's exactly the power the pregnant woman is given over the father. Should the father be allowed to 'opt out' of his responsibility for the child he helped create if he wants the pregnancy aborted but the girl refuses?? It seems to me all the arguments for forcing the father 'own up' to his responsibility for the child are the same arguments that are disregarded when it comes to the girl's responsibility, if she wants an abortion.

I do see you point, but it's the woman who will have to carry the baby for 9 months not the guy. Although yeah it would be nice if the potential father had more of a say, it's just not his body to command. It's hers and if she decides having a baby is not for her then what on Earth gives anyone the right to say otherwise?

Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.

It's funny how people are pro-choice, yet ignore the original choice that got them pregnant in the first place.

So she chose to be raped? She decided the contraception won't work this time around? That argument is flawed. I don't think abortion should be used as a contraceptive, however none of us have any rights to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. I'd rather someone get an abortion done properly rather than doing it the old fashioned way by forcing a miscarriage. So that's why I think women should be allowed to do it without any consequences. They have to live with the fact that they've taken something that could have been there's away. So if they can make that choice then all the power to them.

 

[Hanafuda]

Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.

I've been hearing this catchy little argument my whole life in favor of abortion-on-demand. And I consider the logic flawed, because the mother's choice extends well beyond her body if she decides to have the child, and yet the father's circumstances and interests are completely disregarded .... if you get a girl pregnant and want to keep the baby and would even raise it on your own without her help, but she wants an abortion, then there's nothing you can do to prevent that baby from being snuffed out. But if you get a girl pregnant and you feel you're not ready and want the abortion done, but she doesn't, then tough shit you're gonna pay.

You say, "I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want," but that's exactly the power the pregnant woman is given over the father. Should the father be allowed to 'opt out' of his responsibility for the child he helped create if he wants the pregnancy aborted but the girl refuses?? It seems to me all the arguments for forcing the father 'own up' to his responsibility for the child are the same arguments that are disregarded when it comes to the girl's responsibility, if she wants an abortion.

I do see you point, but it's the woman who will have to carry the baby for 9 months not the guy. Although yeah it would be nice if the potential father had more of a say, it's just not his body to command. It's hers and if she decides having a baby is not for her then what on Earth gives anyone the right to say otherwise?

I don't think you do see my point, because I was never advocating that a woman be prevented from having an abortion if that is what she wants. I abhor abortion, but if you read my previous posts you'll see I am opposed to any legal prohibition or government involvement. My point was about the unfair Catch-22 of helplessness the father is put in. -- If the girl wants an abortion but he doesn't, tough shit the kid gets aborted. Now, it's her body so I agree with you this is how it should be. A woman should not be forced to go through with a pregnancy and give birth to the child if that is really against her wishes. But if the father wants her to have an abortion, and she refuses because she wants the baby, why is he forced to provide financial support, health insurance coverage, and etc for 18 years?? If you think the woman has the absolute legal right to get out of the responsibility of having the child, why isn't the man given the same option? We're supposed to have equal rights for women and men, so let's have equal rights.


So, here's my question --- do you think it is right to force financial responsibility, i.e. a child support obligation, on a man who didn't want the child and made his request known that the pregnancy be aborted as soon as he learned of it? If so, why should he be held responsible for it?