badcrumble
Member
So you support women's choices having consequences, but not women's actual ability to make choices. Uh, got it.
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
See, now this is an interesting issue. IMO if a man doesn't want to have the baby, he shouldn't be obligated to support him/her. And if a woman doesn't want to have the baby, she should be able to get an abortion.
But if we're talking about already-born children, then both parents should be obligated to support them.
And if the man wants to have the baby but the woman doesn't want to ... sorry dude, but I gotta side with women on that one.
Edit:
Sooo ... wouldn't you rather have the choice of going to the hospital or not?
No, I have incredible fear of surgeries. I would rather go home and deal with it (if it wasn't life-threatening obviously; I have a huge phobia of hospitals, though). To me (and I used it as MY analogy, not a general one), going through a surgery and staying in the hospital for recovery would be pregnancy. Reading it again, though, I can understand why you misinterpreted it, but my fear of hospitals and surgery drove that analogy.
And I wasn't ignoring the fact that people who have protected sex can sometimes result in a pregnancy, I just wasn't talking about that facet of abortion.
Because a woman's choice whether or not to have an abortion is the only choice a woman has in life? Don't generalize it. I'm talking about the choice of abortion, not choices in general. I don't "support" women's choices having consequences; I realize that choices can have consequences.
If it was life-threatening, it would be dumb for me to have a choice of going to the hospital or not. And for someone who believes life begins at conception, the idea of abortion would be life-threatening, right?
Devolution
Member
Glad it's helped someone. Forced pregnancy has long been an issue that keeps women from achieving their goals or furthering their careers on top of just being plain awful to go through without any choice in the matter. It's hypocritical how people want children to be raised in the best possible environment but think that me as a student making less than minimum wage should be forced to bear a child.
Allow me to repeat myself. What you're saying is you'd deny instant healing (abortion) and go to the hospital for the scary surgery (pregnancy) since that's your consequence. Which makes absolutely no sense to anyone who's ever experienced an accident.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if it was protected sex. There's absolutely no way to prove there was a lack of precaution taken during intercourse. Using that as a standard is laughable at best for banning abortions. Especially when you take into account what people assume is a safe way to have intercourse.
I actually believe that like women, men should be able to remove themselves for responsibility if desired. Similar to how we don't want to punish women for having sex, why punish men with lifelong responsibility?
If during early term when the woman can decide whether or not to have an abortion, men should be able to decide whether or not they want to claim responsibility. If the man says no, the woman can choose to bring the child into this world without a fathers help, or abort if that's in her best interest. If he says yes, then he becomes financially responsible as he generally does now.
If you're anti-abortion because you believe life begins at conception, that's fine. But framing it as a consequence of women having unprotected sex is a terrible argument.
The idea of instant healing wasn't in my analogy, though? As we have examined the details of my analogy, it may not have been an exact fit. I'm saying that I shouldn't have rode on the interstate to begin with, but since I did, I have to go through the recovery process. It's more an example of choices having consequences, rather than a perfect abortion analogy.
You seem to think that I believe that a choice to have unprotected sex is the only method in which pregnancies happen. I don't believe that. I am not talking about the all-encompassing cause of unwanted pregnancy, but I figure it's probably one of the bigger ones.
But anywho, it's 4:30 in the morning and I have class in about 5 hours, so I need to get to bed. Thanks for the discussion, though. I don't mean to act like I'm trying to get the last word in, by the way, which it seems to come off as. I just don't want to be a zombie when I get up. If you want to reply I will happily read it tomorrow.
Devolution
Member
Ironically that's what it comes down to with most pro-lifers whether they want to admit it or not.
Ignoring it doesn't make it any less an option in your metaphor. So I must ask you, would you ignore the ability to fix the problem instantly based on principle alone.
This.
travisbickle
Member
This forthright moral attitude is at the base of all right wing thinking. I don't know why people who vote right pretend that certain things are just insane extremists, there is literally no other way to explain why a society shouldn't pay for social problems within it other then when you put the blame squarely on the individual.
Roland Deschain
Member
I can't believe politicians are wasting time and money on this when there are so many more pressing matters.
Anyway, it's the woman's body so she decides what she wants to do with it. Not that hard.
Anyway, it's the woman's body so she decides what she wants to do with it. Not that hard.
There is at least one person who has outright advocated this type of abortion. "Her body, her rules" suggests no limitations....and there have been those that have come out and said that there are indeed NO limitations.
Please take a look at my arson example and tell me how that does not explain my position (because you never even referenced it). I think it does a good job explaining why I have empathy for one case and none for another.
Actually I have. I've said time and time again that I wish a mother would never have to go through this, and if there were some other way for a baby to be born (artificial womb), I'd be all for it. But until our technology comes up with a way to make this possible, there's only one way for a baby to be born.
I've tried to empathize with the woman's plight more than once. Perhaps it is you that should take your own advice and put yourself in the shoes of someone who has no voice and must solely rely on those who try and stand up for them.
Would you even be in support of a mother transporting an embryo to an artificial womb so she doesn't have to kill it?
So if I have a child, I "caused" their eye color? Their hair color? Their voice tone? Their need for glasses? Their sexual orientation? Their love for Chinese food?
You can't CAUSE something that you have no control over. To cause suggest control, right? If I had a child and they had no hereditary disease, did I cause them NOT to have it? Exactly.
You don't understand causal relationships.
Why? The mother of a fetus can make no such exception for herself. She has to sustain the fetus (or fetuses) so long as they are in her body. SHE doesn't limit the use of her body.
So I guess this donor can only give away nutrients, rest, comfort, chemical energy, etc.....in a scenario that would help sustain the life of another person. And remember: all of the tangible things that her body "gives away," she replenishes herself because she's "working/eating/living for two....or however you care to phrase it.
Care to venture a plausible scenario in which this would happen? I'll gladly agree that a person must be committed to doing that.
HeLa being a good example of tumours.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Well, yeah?
I mean, think about, how exactly would you implement a "say"?
If you give the husband a right to veto away any abortions, you are forcing the woman to give birth. If you give the husband the right to delay any abortion, you are potentially forcing the woman to pick a riskier abortion option.
This is simply something that couples have to discuss in advance, and either reach an agreement in or split up over.
Posting this image again:
An abortion is 100% okay at day 0 because it is 0% developed, and abortion is 0% okay at day 240 because it is then 100% developed.
Take into account the non-regular development pace, and find plot this in a graph, then you simply select the mid-way point as the cut-off point - when it becomes less than 50% okay to abort.
It's an elegant solution.
I personally wouldn't, because it would be more invasive and dangerous to the pregnant lady than having a medical abortion.
I mean, as a law, I would totally want to leave it open as an option for women who might for an example not agree with abortions.
Did you ever provide a source for this? I remember several members asked for one.
How sensational.
Another question that seems to have been conspicuously avoided. MIMIC, Duffyside, any input?
Ha, wow. Can't say I'm surprised at all. Certainly explains his line of thinking and his method of repeatedly rehashing his old arguments despite how easily they are shot down.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Some statistics (United States):
January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll
(Generally available), (Available, but with stricter limits than now), (Not permitted)
Women - 37%, 37%, 24%
Men - 40%, 40%, 20%
Some other interesting data from a recent Gallup poll:
Only 20% think that abortion should be illegal under any circumstances, 25% think it should be legal in all circumstances, and 52% think it should be legal under certain circumstances.
Yet when you look at the numbers of pro-lifers, 50% self-identify as pro-lifers:
I think this is the case because the pro-life label is either a lot more attractive than the pro-choice one, and/or people might be pro-life in that they think abortion is wrong but still want it to be legal (which is in line with the above results, as 77% think abortion should be legal one way or another).
Some more data on females:
January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll
(Generally available), (Available, but with stricter limits than now), (Not permitted)
Women - 37%, 37%, 24%
Men - 40%, 40%, 20%
Some other interesting data from a recent Gallup poll:
Only 20% think that abortion should be illegal under any circumstances, 25% think it should be legal in all circumstances, and 52% think it should be legal under certain circumstances.
Yet when you look at the numbers of pro-lifers, 50% self-identify as pro-lifers:
I think this is the case because the pro-life label is either a lot more attractive than the pro-choice one, and/or people might be pro-life in that they think abortion is wrong but still want it to be legal (which is in line with the above results, as 77% think abortion should be legal one way or another).
Some more data on females:
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
The GOP doesn't really care about the wittle foetus. Their policy on abortion is simply part of their larger war against the sexual agency of women.
Whether or not I think it's reasonable doesn't matter, because it's entirely unreasonable for me to countermand her private decision concerning the sanctity of her body. It's none of my business, and none of yours--it's between her and her doctor.
We always have to draw a line somewhere--for example, you're doing it at conception, which is a far more arbitrary and less definite transition than birth.
There are a lot of good reasons to recommend birth as the line.
For one, it's a transit through the topological line that I would draw around our bodies, the line where I want my government's powers to end.
Birth is the transition that creates jus soli.
Birth is when we certify jus sanguinis.
This is a moment of great legal and ritual significance, a long-established tradition that binds citizen to nation and nation to citizen.
Birth is often when a name is finalized and recorded.
Birth is when gender is determined if not already known. At this time, gender will usually be announced whether or not it was known in utero.
Birth is the first time a person will hold you in their arms.
Birth is the first intrusion of air into the lungs, entry into the ocean of atmosphere that we all share, a literally spiritual boundary, the first crest of a rhythmic process that will continue until we exit life through the opposite threshold.
Birth is the light of the world in our eyes.
The umbilical cord could not possibly be a better opportunity for symbolic ritual.
We are people, not beings of mere flesh. We are names and words and stories. We live in ceremony and metaphor. These rites are the process by which we create a person-in-progress unto the flesh of an infant ape.
It's a damn good line; whatever your feelings about the status of the fetus in utero, these various rituals and traditions establish quite firmly that the newborn is a person like us.
But I'm not inflexible on this point.
If you wish to get into questions of viability, to declare an invisible line somewhere in the gradual development of the fetus--a line that cannot be broadly established but must be determined uniquely for each specific fetus--then I'm not going to fight you on it.
Feel free to suggest that medical ethics or law ought to preserve the life of the fetus in your gratuitously contrived hypothetical.
My position is not that the owner of a uterus automatically has the privilege of destroying any life inside it.
My position is that the owner of a uterus has an inviolable right to vacate its contents.
Perhaps abortion should not be an option in this circumstance, if other options are guaranteed to be available. If induced labor or cesarean would not unduly hazard the health of the woman, these procedures might be considered to preclude abortion for the sake of preserving the life of the fetus. The death of fetuses is not the object of my moral principle.
It does not matter whether or not it is reasonable for a woman to terminate her pregnancy--what matters is that a woman always has the right to terminate her pregnancy.
No, I was making a negative claim rather than a positive one; that the act of creation does not create a duty to preserve. I'm saying that you have not shown that her act of creating life creates a moral obligation upon her to refrain from destroying it.
There are many moral obligations other than the fact that she conceived you that would prohibit your mother walking up to you and slitting your throat--the same obligations, for instance, that would prohibit your mail carrier from giving you a second smile--so my agreement that it would be wrong for her to slit your throat does not constitute my agreement that this obligation is created by the act of intercourse which conceived you.
Now that's just silly. We're arguing about what the law should be, so what the law is is of no account. I'm pretty sure that you're just flat-out wrong here, in any case.
I want to make it very clear to you that I do not agree that the mere fact that a life is alive creates a moral obligation not to destroy it. You've got to found this in other ethical principles; it's insufficient merely to assert an axiom that is a strict superset of your conclusion.
It's not necessarily that a woman has a right to do whatever she pleases with the fetus, but that she has a right to do what she pleases with her uterus, a right which is not limited by consequences to the fetus.
If we don't have the right to our own flesh then none of us have any rights at all, merely permissions granted by our masters.
The "hardcore" opposite of pro-life isn't pro-choice.
As Squiddybiscuit has pointed out, pro-choice is the position of least compromise.
The extreme opposing position to pro-life is a policy of government mandated abortions.
My position is in the center, and I find both extremist positions equally distasteful for more or less exactly the same reasons. I use the same moral arguments against each.
I hope this helps to communicate my position. I feel the same way about forcing a pregnancy on a woman who doesn't want one that you might feel about forcing an abortion on a woman who doesn't want one.
Yes, I should. Even if I agree that life begins at conception, it's a life within the body of someone else - not yours. You should have no domain over them. The comparison to being a kid, after you are born, is a distraction without any relation to the topic at hand.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
yet people who have nothing to do with anything in the process have the right to dictate rules/laws/crazy shit like "well they consented to sex so..." ?
This is fucking crazy - sometimes you just aren't ready to be parents and things don't work out. Different people , different circumstances.
Also - if we follow your examples through : what if the mother has a bad diet? if the fetal child dies as a result is that negligent homicide? If not - why not? if so... err...
And then the other solution is to send the forced pregnancy into the foster system which is extremely underfunded, terrible, and constantly attacked by conservatives.
Brian Griffin
Member
In a past abortion thread I posed a hypothetical to the anti-abortion crowd that never really got answered so I want to try it again here.
Say that evolution "leaps forward" X-Men style and women find that they have full conscious control over their uteri. They know the instant their eggs become fertilized from sperm and have the ability, at any time before birth, to dissolve the fetus and flush it from their body. This process is completely safe and requires no doctors or medical care of any kind. Each time they do this, a marker is left behind in their blood so any basic blood test can determine how many times a woman has self-aborted.
Now, if you are anti-abortion and support abortion being illegal, how would you feel about women doing this?
Would you punish them for doing it, even though their bodies are built to do it?
How far would you go in this hypothetical world to stop women from aborting their fetuses?
I want to know the level of your conviction against abortion. I think if you are truly against it for "it's killing life" reasons, you would support laws mandating the screening of all women's blood and punishing them for aborting. They are killing babies right?
Would any of you support this?
If you wouldn't support this extreme invasion of privacy and punishment, why would you support making it illegal in our world to get an abortion? Abortions are going to happen, legal or not, so if you make them illegal you are effectively punishing women who need them by forcing them to risk their fertility and lives to get them.
If you would punish women in both scenarios, then congrats you are consistent in your views, but if not then where is the difference for you?
Say that evolution "leaps forward" X-Men style and women find that they have full conscious control over their uteri. They know the instant their eggs become fertilized from sperm and have the ability, at any time before birth, to dissolve the fetus and flush it from their body. This process is completely safe and requires no doctors or medical care of any kind. Each time they do this, a marker is left behind in their blood so any basic blood test can determine how many times a woman has self-aborted.
Now, if you are anti-abortion and support abortion being illegal, how would you feel about women doing this?
Would you punish them for doing it, even though their bodies are built to do it?
How far would you go in this hypothetical world to stop women from aborting their fetuses?
I want to know the level of your conviction against abortion. I think if you are truly against it for "it's killing life" reasons, you would support laws mandating the screening of all women's blood and punishing them for aborting. They are killing babies right?
Would any of you support this?
If you wouldn't support this extreme invasion of privacy and punishment, why would you support making it illegal in our world to get an abortion? Abortions are going to happen, legal or not, so if you make them illegal you are effectively punishing women who need them by forcing them to risk their fertility and lives to get them.
If you would punish women in both scenarios, then congrats you are consistent in your views, but if not then where is the difference for you?
Only in perfect usage, which is mathematically impossible. Someone on BC can have the BC nullified by certain medication. Guess that person should be forced to full pregnancy though, huh?
I will never understand why people should be saddled with something as permanent as a child for a momentary trip up, BC failure, or other reason when we have the technology to ensure they don't have to.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I don't buy the responsibility-argument.
Someone responsible is punished for being responsible if they accidentally get pregnant, and the answer I've gotten is that they either have to be responsible and take care of the kid or give it up for adoption.
Then, someone who is irresponsible is punished pretty much the exact same way, given a burden that they cannot possibly be considered responsible enough to handle, and given the option of either taking care of the kid or give it up for adoption.
Seems to me like the end result would be not the people who get pregnant "taking responsibility", but rather society taking responsibility as it now has to deal with an even larger amount of parent-less kids in foster homes.
Someone responsible is punished for being responsible if they accidentally get pregnant, and the answer I've gotten is that they either have to be responsible and take care of the kid or give it up for adoption.
Then, someone who is irresponsible is punished pretty much the exact same way, given a burden that they cannot possibly be considered responsible enough to handle, and given the option of either taking care of the kid or give it up for adoption.
Seems to me like the end result would be not the people who get pregnant "taking responsibility", but rather society taking responsibility as it now has to deal with an even larger amount of parent-less kids in foster homes.
Devolution
Member
I'm still bemused at how the pro-lifers keep avoiding the subject of fertility clinics.
Brian Griffin
Member
Because people have arbitrarily assigned the highest level of sacredness to a joined sperm and egg. If you ask them why human life is so special they will probably say something along the lines of "because it's human". Circular reasoning.
The earliest forms of human life in the womb must be protected at all costs, ignoring the mother, ignoring economic impacts, ignoring social impacts, etc. just because. Some people claim to be anti-abortion and be non-religious but it's religion that put human life on the pedestal in the first place all anti-abortion views have religious roots.
Too much science, not enough emotionally driven, arbitrary circular "logic".
No interest in the reality. It must be the thought that counts.
If the argument was about the suffering of a fetus there'd be something in it. If it can always be done painlessly, there's not much of a reasonable argument against abortion.
Devolution
Member
Not enough punishing of sluts too I guess.
MIMIC, no, your arson example does not explain anything. It is asinine and nonsensical, though.
Splendid. It was not immediately apparent to me at first, either.
Right. I can see how straight men feel a bit trapped in a system where they have no legal recourse to avoid responsibility for a pregnancy if a woman decides to keep the child after previously having said she did not want to (though I suspect that this is decidedly more rare than the apocryphal horror stories would suggest); women at least have the option of deciding to have an abortion if all else fails. So I think it is a good thing that we are approaching the point where men have more options beyond snipping or condoms for controlling their own fertility. But I think that requiring monetary support is a necessary evil; even if he did not want the child, he played an equal part in its creation and - barring some sort of possibly legal agreement (which I don't know would necessarily be recognized, but let's say hypothetically) - he has as much responsibility for the financial well-being of the child as she does. If we did not do this, women would bear an unfair proportion (e.g. all of) the financial burden associated with having a child and would make the notion of shared responsibility a farce.
Splendid. It was not immediately apparent to me at first, either.
Right. I can see how straight men feel a bit trapped in a system where they have no legal recourse to avoid responsibility for a pregnancy if a woman decides to keep the child after previously having said she did not want to (though I suspect that this is decidedly more rare than the apocryphal horror stories would suggest); women at least have the option of deciding to have an abortion if all else fails. So I think it is a good thing that we are approaching the point where men have more options beyond snipping or condoms for controlling their own fertility. But I think that requiring monetary support is a necessary evil; even if he did not want the child, he played an equal part in its creation and - barring some sort of possibly legal agreement (which I don't know would necessarily be recognized, but let's say hypothetically) - he has as much responsibility for the financial well-being of the child as she does. If we did not do this, women would bear an unfair proportion (e.g. all of) the financial burden associated with having a child and would make the notion of shared responsibility a farce.
Brian Griffin
Member
Are all the pro-lifers gone? If my hypothetical question above was too much for you how about you just answer what you would do to punish women who have abortions should it be made illegal.
Say the police get an anonymous call about a girl bleeding in a hotel room and they find her barely conscious on the bed with blood flowing from her vagina and a bloody wire on the floor. It's obvious she has had an illegal abortion and almost dies before getting to the hospital. She lives but can never have children of her own again. Should she be charged with murder and thrown in jail?
Say the police get an anonymous call about a girl bleeding in a hotel room and they find her barely conscious on the bed with blood flowing from her vagina and a bloody wire on the floor. It's obvious she has had an illegal abortion and almost dies before getting to the hospital. She lives but can never have children of her own again. Should she be charged with murder and thrown in jail?
There's also the fact that even using the silly "responsibility" / slut shaming argument, men have it extremely easier. If you're a dude, you can get your balls clipped with no resistance. If you're a woman, this is what happens:
- "you're too young"
- "you're not married" <-- this one is especially bullshit
- "what if you want kids later?"
Dudes can sterilize themselves, women get an undertext of "don't you dare deny a man a baby". It's about control, and the crazies are coming out of the woodwork because their centuries old grip is finally loosening.
Especially because, again, we have repeatedly established that the state may reasonably find the taking of life to be in its interest. (In fact, arguably a state that DOESN'T do that isn't a state at all, what with the lack of monopoly on violence.)
MIMIC, how do you feel about euthanasia? Should doctors be jailed for it? What about soldiers? If life is an overriding right, how shall we punish our troops when they return from war? (If it matters, assume it turns out to be an unjust war.)
You don't think women do?
NullPointer
Member
Of course I do.
I was watching an episode of the daily show where Al Madrigal shows a video of a sperm swimming towards an egg and seeing him go "not a person.... not a person... not a person... now it's a person..." It's a great bit.
I really think that this link should be in every abortion thread.
Brian Griffin
Member
I've seen that. So good, haha.
Good thing conservatives feel insurance companies should be able to deny people for pre-existing conditions.
Oh wait, pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition and will end up with you being denied for coverage.
Shoulda kept your legs closed m i rite
edit: ninja edit'd
TacticalFox88
Banned
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...e-is-similar-to-having-a-baby-out-of-wedlock/
Guy must love the hole he's in. Cause he's made no effort to climb out
Guy must love the hole he's in. Cause he's made no effort to climb out
Devolution
Member
I tend to love the argument about abortions being birth control in this manner as well. That's pretty expensive birth control.
Sweet fucking hell, how can anybody even think to tell their daughter that? What a piece of shit person.
You have to keep your rape baby, because just like when you get pregnant out of wedlock, you have to responsibility for your actions. When god gives your rape, you make rapenade.
Jibbajabbawockky
Member
I'd consider myself more or less pro-choice but really late term abortion seems fairly nasty. If its medically necessary for the safety of the mother, then by all means do it. In that sort of case it absolutely should be up to the mother as to where the medical professionals allocate resources. I don't have a very rigid stance on abortion one way or another, but for me, it comes down to if the baby could survive outside the womb, then abortion should only be in cases of medical necessity, as decided by doctors and other medical experts as a means of last resort.
But in your example for instance, I'd say it should depend on the circumstances- was the child viable? There was a recent case in the news around where I live where a mother gave birth early and tossed the baby in a dumpster, claiming she thought it was dead. I think she was convicted of something (manslaughter/murder, not sure) and will be serving jail time since it was determined the child was alive at birth. So if somebody botches their own self-abortion when the child is at a viable state, then yeah, I'd think they should be charged with something.
These people are a bit thick, aren't they?
Hell, I don't like abortion. I think it should be a last resort, taken after deliberation, and birth control should be pushed heavily first. But It should still be the woman's choice. The alternative is much worse.
Their position isnt helped by some of the ladies who are hypocrites anyway. All anti-abortion, except when they get pregnant. Then it is all different. The same as the assholes who claim "sanctity of marriage" when they are divorced.
So this is dumb, and I hope their comments lose them the election.
Hell, I don't like abortion. I think it should be a last resort, taken after deliberation, and birth control should be pushed heavily first. But It should still be the woman's choice. The alternative is much worse.
Their position isnt helped by some of the ladies who are hypocrites anyway. All anti-abortion, except when they get pregnant. Then it is all different. The same as the assholes who claim "sanctity of marriage" when they are divorced.
So this is dumb, and I hope their comments lose them the election.
Brian Griffin
Member
That example was directed at the "person from conception" crowd. She just found out she was pregnant so there was no real fetus to speak of but since all abortion is illegal she has to go underground to get one. I would expect someone who agrees with "person from conception" to support throwing this woman in prison for murder and hope some of the pro-life people here to voice how they feel about it.
Lamel
Banned
Why would a woman carry something to 9 months and then decide to terminate it? Again, that doesn't happen.
What do you think an abortion is even like at that stage? It's not a tiny fetus anymore, it's a HUGE fetus.
Ultimately the woman does have the choice. But it needs to have justification at that stage for a doctor to even perform such an idiotic procedure. Fact of the matter is, virtually no one gets an abortion at that stage. The last trimester is months 7-9, only .08% occur at that time and mainly because of health issues. Just think about that number.
I merely asked for your opinion.
So abortion up until birth?
Why don't you just come right out and say it? "Abortion up until birth".
OK. Then it's wrong to take a life.
Why?
How ironic. I suppose the "flesh" inside of the flesh doesn't count then.
I guess the baby was doomed from conception.
How can you not understand the concept of being held responsible for an intentional act? You are WILLFULLY and continuously making an exception for sex. You are intentionally avoiding addressing this concept by saying "you haven't explained" when I've explained it and used this concept more than once. Calling something "asinine and nonsensical" serves no more purpose than a "no u" response.
So you have asserted. I demand that you support this assertion.
Because I have not been given sufficient reason to agree that such a duty exists.
It's not flesh that belongs to a person.
Brian Griffin
Member
Abortion up until birth.
However if the fetus is viable it shouldn't be killed after being removed from the mother, that would be dumb.
To me this is the most logically consistent stance and doesn't infringe on a woman's autonomy at all. Whenever the mother decides she wants to remove the fetus from her uterus, she has the right too. If it isn't viable then it's an abortion; if it is viable then it's a pre-term birth.
There are many instances in medicine where technology has given us control over organs that we cannot control naturally. I don't see abortion as any different. It allows women to have control over the functions of their uterus and what they do with that control should be 100% up to them.
Hopefully, future generations will evolve natural controls like I suggested in a earlier post so we can stop having this dumb debate and women can be free to control their reproduction how they see fit.
- Status