Lets say this and get a reply. Man impregnates woman. Woman encounters other man and he tells her to be with him, she will have an abortion. He explains to prove she did, he has to do her abortion. I presume you accept the deal?
Why is it a bad point when it is true?? This is not about personal speding but INCOME LEVEL. Repeat INCOME LEVEL https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states Nearly half were not only living below the American federal poverty level (which is a bloody sight lower than Australia) but were living well below that income level When you combine that with the stat, from that same page that 59% of women having an abortion had had at least one birth and you realise we are talking of women not concerned just for themselves but for thier families
Do you think it is OK for men to drink to the point of causing foetal alcohol syndrome in babies?? Do you think it is OK to smoke around pregnant women? Do you think it is OK for a man to infect a woman? What about vaccinations - are you in favour of herd immunity?
SUUUUUUURE! That just about wipes out all but 10% of the population and THOSE you can deny on the grounds that they were exercising too hard!!!
So...... You are fine with the subtle pressures put on women to comply? The blackmail attempts by young men to slander girls if they do not "open thier legs" Drink spiking is still a "thing" and many many women do not report it because of embarrassment Then there is "stealthing" - look it up And those women in poverty? How many are runaways who have been conned by pimps into going on the "game" and deliberately hooked on drugs so they will remain compliant?
FoxHastings said: ↑ YUPPERS! It ALWAYS boils down to " Force these lazy sluts to have babies by banning abortion so we can call them names for having babies" So typical of Anti-Choicers "reasoning" ability... All you did there was paraphrase: "" Force these lazy sluts to have babies by banning abortion so we can call them names for having babies" No "babies" are killed in abortion, that's hysterical hyperbole.
Women may have an abortion for any reason they choose. Their finances and how they spend their money does NOT prevent them from having a legal medical procedure.. Poverty may be a reason.
WHERE did you ever get the ASSinine idea that women needed an excuse to have an abortion? They don't .
Bowerbird said: ↑ And where is your condemnation of the boys/men doing the impregnating I may have missed it but surely there is equal condemnation both sides HERE, you "missed" the part of the post you must've thought was too INCONVENIENT: """And in the history of this world which currently has over 7 billion people - how often has the "keep your knees together" idiocy worked """
What justice? Taking away a person's right to their own body isn't justice. And what "duty and obligation" are you talking about...??? NO one has a duty or an obligation to give birth.
The idea that humans always have sex wisely has been proven a fantasy by the history of the world. All your "shoulds" will not change anything ……
Come on ... you're not seriously going to try and tell us that First World 'poverty' isn't a factor of personal responsibility and choices, are you? Sorry, I know of a huge family (5 kids) on basic welfare get so far ahead of the game that they ended up owning the building they lived in. THEY did it, while their tenants kept smoking, drinking, buying fast food, getting ink, and wearing $200 shoes. And there were no unwanted pregnancies. You know the drill.
You are wasting your energy on this idea. We KNOW that people don't always act wisely, that's the point!
Once again, this seems to be more about standard of living and lifestyle choice than it does about real poverty. We're not even talking about keeping the kid long-term, we're talking about a 9-month pregnancy.
