Sigh. You are being logically inconsistent. She doesn't WANT to kill it. Why do you keep saying it like there's an actual choice, here? The reality is that boys and men get high 5's for conquering and getting a woman/girl to open her legs. Women/girls get nasty labels. Of course, in the heat of the moment, it's totally the girl's fault that the condom broke, or just plain old got forgotten. Women deserve agency over their bodies. This isn't absolute, but before the glob of cells is an actual baby, she should be able to end it safely, without having to figure out how to intentionally cause a miscarriage in order to avoid a 600 mile round trip.
NO, it is the FETUS that is causing harm to the woman... The woman had sex, which isn't a crime....or is it to you? A crime that requires her rights be taken away and be forced to gestate like a cow... This is the ABORTION forum...... But YOU could explain what your feelings are on the draft, vaccine mandates and prostitution (???) to explain how they compare to a woman being forced to gestate.. In none of these are people required to use their body to support the lives of others as is done in pregnancy...... But, again this is the abortion forum....if you have to segue off topic....????? Why
The old "punish women for having consensual sex by forcing them to gestate" ....gee, no misogyny there , folks ! No, that would be you...again. You seem to think since women have sex and get pregnant they should be forced to gestate...YES, that is what you repeatedly say... otherwise you'd have some kind of rational argument as to why women should have to give birth..
There it is again, the last sentence. Women should be controlled and punished for getting pregnant...
Here's the UNCHERRY picked post : Yes, it could be considered self defense. IF the fetus is considered a human being, a legal person, then it should have no more rights than anyone other person. To say the woman must take the harm the fetus is doing to her is denying HER right to self defense. With rights come RESTRICTIONS...persons canNOT use another's body to sustain their life. No one can force another to give them a kidney or heart or take their blood. But Anti-Choicers want fetuses to have super rights, more rights than the woman they're in , more rights than anyone else. "morals" should never enter into the equation since "morals" vary from person to person. A fetus is a legal person at birth...no need to complicate it. YOU: """Should a fetus be considered a person? Should abortion be considered the killing of a person? At what stage of development does that change? Is it self awareness? Ability to feel pain? A soul (for the religious people)? Does survival chance matter? Does the life the child will be born into matter, including the income and ability of the parent or state to support the child?"" All questions the PREGNANT ONE should be able to decide.....not the government , not religious wackos and not misogynists.....
Um... 'Pro-CHOICE". She wants to have the choice to kill, because she wants to make the choice and decide to kill. Why is that so complicated? [qoute]The reality is that boys and men get high 5's for conquering and getting a woman/girl to open her legs. Women/girls get nasty labels. Of course, in the heat of the moment, it's totally the girl's fault that the condom broke, or just plain old got forgotten.[/quote] That's you saying that, not me. I say it is the doing (I don't insist on using the word fault, and don't understand why you do) of both the man and the woman. It is NOT however the doing of the fetus. The fetus has had absolutely no say in any of this. The man and woman made the choice not ot be abstinent, in most cases of unplanned pregnancy chose not to use condoms, etc. Betwee the woman and the fetus, the woman is the one responsible for the situtation, not the fetus. Yes they do. And they should also be held responsible for what they choose to do with their bodies. And so should men. I agree. But that's not a fetus. At the stage where its just a few cells, not long after conception, I see no non-religious reason to oppose abortion. But later on in development, I find it just as irrational to declare the unborn near birth shouldn't have his or her own own rights considered, and balanced against the woman's. How that balance ends up I can see a healthy debate over. But simply dismissing the fetus as "just part of the woman" and not worthy of consideration of his or her rights is disgusting to me.
In most cases in modern society it isn't threatening the woman's life. But abortion does eliminate the life of the fetus. That can be taken into consideration. They compare and contrast in many ways, making it an interesting discussion. It also reveals to me if you actually care about bodily autonomy or if you are just a zealot on abortion, as I expect you are from what you post here. Abortion is the only one of these that is balancing against the for sure death of another. Vaccine mandates and the draft may be balanced against possible lives lost if the person chooses against them. Prostitution doesn't at all, yet bans on it is still people demanding what a person do with their body. You are "quoting" something I never wrote and don't believe. You are noticing that I'm not agreeing with all you say, and that I'm more in the middle on this issue, and you are immediately painting me as the most extreme opposite end from yourself, which I am not. No, it isn't. I didn't write that. You did. I am merely open to the discussion and try to understand multiple perspectives and opinions, while you refuse to do that. I never said women should have to give birth. I am pro-choice in most cases. I am undecided on some others. Undecided doesn't mean demanding women "gestate like cows" or that I want to "punish" them. That's your projection and over the top rhetoric. Anyway, I find you to be a complete zealot on this issue, on par with the religious folks who repeatedly should "life begins at conception". I don't see any productive discussion to be posible with you, so I'll ignore whatever else you write on the topic.
Of course they don't. They also never bring up the punishments men face for unintended pregnancies. Women not being able to get an abortion IS equality, but they don't like the kind of equality that results in equality. You'll never hear them clamoring for equal representation in the sewers.
Not really the topic here when it comes to abortion, but I take your point. How is that equality? Equality to what? Men don't get pregnant, so abortions for men is moot.
With all due respect, it is the point. It takes two people to create a life, and those two are handled very differently. Men cannot absolve themselves from their responsibilities, while women expect that they should be able to do so, even though both engaged in the same behavior at the same time and both produced the same result. Men have zero choice, even though participation was 50/50. "I'm the one carrying the baby for 9 months" is far less of a commitment than a man expected to care for the baby and the mother, by law, for 18 years....and where failure means prison and/or complete financial ruin.
PREGNANCY causes harm in some way to ALL women in EVERY PREGNANCY and EVERY pregnancy carries the risk of serious injury and even death.....and the only way to stop that harm is to kill the fetus, the entity causing the harm just like born people can kill those who are harming them to stop the harm.....You don't seem to want women to have the right to self defense... And I'm sure if I showed you the list of harm you would, like Anti-Choicers do, pick out "stretch marks" and claim that's no reason to employ self defense. LOL, so what is your "stand"? I haven't seen a definite statement from you yet.. You go on and on about women and their responsibilities when they get pregnant....why if you don't think they are wrong to have an abortion??? C'mon, take a stand , do you or don't you believe women have a right to take responsibility for their actions by having an abortion . Stand up and say abortion should be legal......can you? ....or just more wishy washy "women should be responsible about something that's none of anyone's business " Why comment on women's responsibility in getting pregnant??? LOL, I accept your concession speech ..
OMGAWD! You actually think women are not responsible for their children !!!! ? What TF!!! Women who can't get a legal abortion are forced to pay for the next 18 years....whether there is a "man" there or not..
Some level of risk to the woman, sure. Guaranteed death to the fetus. Not everyone balances that equation as you clearly do. Glad you finally noticed that. I am undecided. I don't have a stand. I would want to consider the circumstances in each case and I am open to argument in both directions. I am not a zealot like yourself or those who say "life begins at conception". Because I am exploring the issue. I do think they should take responsibility for their actions. I do think they are half the cause of the fetus being in peril and that he/she/it wouldn't be if not for her. But I also recognize her bodily autonomy. So it leaves me undecided. The mere disregard for the life of the fetus that you and others display (claiming the innocent fetus is "attacking" her?) don't sway me. Accusations of hidden motives against Pro-Life people (or against Pro-Choice people) also don't sway me. Cries that "life begins at conception" doesn't sway me either. Good argument could. And it also isn't a binary thing. The answer could change at some point of development. It seems irrational to me to consider a merely fertilized egg worthy of any ethical consideration. And it seems equally irrational to me to view a baby just before birth as just a lump of cells worthy of no ethical consideration. But is it anyone's business? Is it everyone's business? We are talking about if we should excuse the killing of another being. That should be the concern of everyone. It requires us to answer the question of if that being is worthy of consideration as a person or just a lump of cells, and if it is the former then it requires us to weigh the rights of the woman and the "child".
She can't put the child up for adoption in your jurisdiction? If she does, is she still forced to pay for the next 18 years?
Then perhaps the 95% of women who experience unintended pregnancies should start using birth control, and require their companion to also use it as well.
A direct quote from you : ""Anyway, I find you to be a complete zealot on this issue, on par with the religious folks who repeatedly should "life begins at conception". I don't see any productive discussion to be posible with you, so I'll ignore whatever else you write on the topic."""" Actually you HAVE ignored what I wrote on the topic ...but continued to reply anyway....it IS easier to spout off rather than address what was written... Yes, she MAY CHOOSE to put it up for adoption but she pays the rest of her life with the physical damage ALL women suffer from the effects of pregnancy.
FoxHastings said: ↑ OMGAWD! You actually think women are not responsible for their children !!!! ? What TF!!! Women who can't get a legal abortion are forced to pay for the next 18 years....whether there is a "man" there or not.. Oh, ya, ALLL HUMANS SHOULD be perfect but 10,000 years of humans not being perfect should enter into the equarion....or is it just WOMEN you think SHOULD be perfect ?
If you think the woman should have to carry a skull-less baby to term, you definitely have a stand. This thread is about a baby without a skull. That's the case I'm arguing, and you keep telling me she wants to kill her baby. It's already dead; it just doesn't know it, yet.
Ahhhhh! The “just adopt them out” fallacy let’s do the math https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us-statistics/ Abortions each year USA https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm 625,346 - 135,000 = far too many children to be homed, fed, raised - that number is PER YEAR Admittedly the abortion rate is falling with the improved access to LARCs but that is still a huge impact on the social security of any country
If you actually read what I've written, I've taken the opposite position in that case. She does want to kill the fetus. And in this case, that would be a mercy killing. No, it is't dead yet. And his/her/its suffering matters.
