Ownership isn't irrelevant if someone is saying the woman doesn't own the fetus. I agree with your "if its in/on my body, it is i who has the only say as to what to do about it. its no one else's business"""
Okay let's pretend for the sake of argument I said "And as for abortion it is still **** society and its costs I got a right to have an abortion dude." What does that mean? A lot less to taxpayers. Fewer impoverished kids that grow up to be burdens to society. Less children that grow up with incompetent abusive parents. Is that what you mean by an increased burden to society?
IMHO, all women are masters of their individual biological processes and no government should have the right to legislate what she can and can't do with her own body. Therefore, a woman's right to an abortion is a universal right regardless of her current condition.
You're on the fence... about "To an abortion if she is not pregnant?" You'll be on the fence a long time then. Maybe try a complete sentence for clarity if you really have a question at all. I figure you're a man with an interest in abortion when you'll never go through one/not go through one personally yourself. So as far as our arguments being able to tip you one way or another - as you are suggest - is irrelevant. It's not about you. Abortion is not about you... or your fence.
Actually the question is more about rights and abortion is the subject I choose to use as the base for asking the question. Personally, like many here, I think the right exists separate from her actual condition, but I am close enough to the line that a good solid argument could put me in the camp of she only has that right when she is actually pregnant.
Every one has a right to their own body, all the time, pregnant or not. A "right" doesn't appear because a woman becomes pregnant.... That's pretty simple.... wouldn't you agree? Do you understand what the right to your own body means?
Agreed ! Given that universal and unilateral right - as per the Rule of Law "one person is not to be punished for the actions of another" - no other person should be made financially responsible for the consequences of the woman's exercising those unilateral rights. This means that unless there is an agreement in place prior to procreation (Marriage would count as such - but there could be other forms such as a signed consent form) - the man is not responsible for the financial consequences of the unilateral decision of a woman to carry an accidental pregnancy to term.
Unless there is an agreement in place prior to copulation you mean, since procreation can only result from the act in which two people must consent to engage in, in the first place. After the fact consequences must be faced by both with the implicit understanding that the female ultimately has ultimate rights over her own body, either way.
even if by some fluke bs law comes about saying the woman doesn't own it, she still has a right to get rid of it , as well as any other parasitic pos attached to or within her body... i understand how the right to lifers feel about life, but they neglect to care about the living and they wont step up to raise these parasites, they want to impose that upon the woman even if its in poverty & abused/molested, all they care is to force it to living...
Consent to sex is not consent to carrying an accidental pregnancy to term. The onus should be on the woman either way. If there is no agreement in place - agreement that the dude is OK with an accidental pregnancy being carried to term - the financial consequences of the unilateral decision to carry an accidental pregnancy to term should be on the woman.
The the child is "his" via genetic relationship is a separate question. A sperm donor is genetically related to offspring that may come out of that sperm however the donor is not financially responsible for those offspring.
You do the time for the crime. There is a mutually accepted risk when engaging in copulation. Even the pill is only 99% effective. Bareback is just askin' for it. But I get how a guy who thinks with his "small head", wouldn't consider the consequences for his "big head" until after his load is blown. It seems many a "small head" thinker laments about taking having to take social responsibility for their own dna not to mention the consequences of their carnal desires.
Ok, can we agree on this? Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. Consent to getting pregnant is consent to either carrying an accidental pregnancy to term, or killing a fetus. If killing a fetus is wrong, then a woman who consents to the possibility of pregnancy knowing she is not going to carry an accidental pregnancy is in the wrong. In such as case, she would be consenting to put herself into a situation where her only choices are between one thing and something else, where one of those things are wrong. Thus her original consent to put herself into that situation would be tantamount to consent for that something else.
What fetus ? and who said killing a fetus was wrong ? 1) say the condom breaks ... the woman then goes and gets the abortion pill - while pregnancy might have occurred - no fetus exists if she does it right away. 2) some contraception works by preventing implantation in the uterus - while this is after conception - it is prior to the entity being a fetus. So - consenting to pregnancy does not mean one is consenting to a fetus due to the ability to end the pregnancy prior to the existence of a fetus. Second - consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. Consenting to the possibility of pregnancy is not consenting to pregnancy. Getting in to a car is consenting to the possibility of an accident - this does not mean one consents to an auto accident.
Yes, then no fetus (theoretically). Yes, technically, but you know that wasn't really what we were talking about. That seems more like a semantics argument. But I suppose there is a tiny bit of validity to your point. One could, for example, try to make an argument that risking pregnancy when you know you would just kill the fetus is okay when the risk is less than 10%, but maybe not ethical when the risk is over 40%, let's say. (To make that argument you'd have to presume killing a fetus when you find yourself pregnant is ethically acceptable, but that making certain prior choices that you knew could put you in that situation carry certain ethical obligations)
Your whole argument is based on the premise that a fetus exists such that termination of a pregnancy necessarily kills a fetus. The problem with your argument is that the above premise is false due to the fact that a pregnancy can be ended prior to the fetus existing.
