What's your position on abortion? And why?

[Curious cat]

Hi, noob here /waves. I've only read the first post and the recent ones since this thread was revived, so please excuse me if I am repeating what's already been said.

Though my parents will never admit that I was an accident, I am pretty sure I was. I am the youngest of four kids and by a considerable number of years, whereas my siblings are quite close in age. From the rare stories that I've been told over the years, back then my parents were struggling to make ends meet (both worked), so having me would have placed even more financial burden on the family. It's days like today where I am confronted by the idea of abortion that I feel so appreciative towards my parents for choosing to give me life, because my life is/has been wonderful with all it's ups and downs.

I do not judge women who have abortions, nor do I want to impose my ideals on someone who has/will/considering/hold the view for abortion. I'd like to also throw out there that I'm not a religious fanatic, pro-life, hallelujah to jesus, with hands thrashing in the air type of person. In fact, I'm a non-practising Buddhist.

Before I had my own child last year, I was largely indifferent to abortion to be honest. But maybe now because I am a mother, the topic of abortion does hit close to home and I find the idea of abortion heart-wrenching.

A fetus is a life stage of a person. Their heart beats anywhere from week four to week six from conception, and they have tiny arms and legs at week seven, and by the end of the first trimester (12 weeks) they would have developed very human features. I suppose this is one reason why it would tug my heart strings more the later in pregnancy the abortion takes place.

I do believe that if these women were given more time, they may reconsider the abortion and may even fall in love with their child when they see him/her. Unfortunately, in practice, I don't think women are fully disclosed of the gruesome details of what really happens during an abortion by the clinic/medical professional. And I just think that if they were told their baby will be hacked and dismembered inside the womb without anesthetic (the descriptive term thrown around seems to be 'terminate'), that many would not continue with the abortion. And I'm pretty sure they don't get to see the aftermath. Which is probably the best so as to not add more trauma to these women if they were to see tiny, bloodied, dismembered arms and legs, and other body parts.

I actually came across these images described above a few weeks ago, when I was surfing up miscarriage and I regret seeing them somewhat because they will haunt me for many years to come, if not for life, so I can only imagine it's impact on someone who has been through an abortion would be much worse.

As difficult as it is, I believe that abortion should remain legal, because the reality is, abortions will take place irrespective of it's legality. As a society, we need to ensure these women have access to a safe means for these operations. It's just a lose:lose situation if we start turning our backs on these women.

Thanks for reading /backs away slowly.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

That's not true, most households are two-income at this point. Only 7% of married couples still have the man is breadwinner, woman is homemaker arrangement.

Also, where did you get the idea that staying home and raising kids isn't work?



Now that is some word twisting.

a) in how many households are the women the primary breadwinner? (curiosity)
b) this is irrelevant, I was making an analogy based on the specific case of a man who works and the woman who doesn't. There was no overarching stereotyping going on.
c) It is work, but irrelevant to my argument. I was saying that if raising the kids is her responsibility and having kids her choice, than by that logic having a career and spending the money is the sole right of the breadwinner, who in my analogy was a man.


With regards to the word twisting comment: Thank you, I try

[DerekB]

If nothing else, you guys have to give this to me: I definitely know how to revive a thread. Lol

[Agota]

Originally Posted by DerekB

I think that since genetically that child is 50% mine and 50% hers, I absolutely have the right to tell her she cannot kill it.

Meaning you have a right to tell a woman that she has to carry the baby for nine months and give birth because you said so, which means you decide what she should do with her body and with her life, not she?

Therefore, if a man wants to have a baby and a woman doesn't, the man has the final say although the woman is the one who will be carrying the baby in her body for nine months and then give birth to it?

Does that make any sense?

P.S. Anyway, if that's an important issue for you, maybe you should simply get a girlfriend who agrees with you on that, so a discussion like that wouldn't even arise. Meanwhile, let other women make their own choices. Who are you to judge them?

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Agota

Meaning you have a right to tell a woman that she has to carry the baby for nine months and give birth because you said so, which means you decide what she should do with her body and with her life, not she?

Therefore, if a man wants to have a baby and a woman doesn't, the man has the final say although the woman is the one who will be carrying the baby in her body for nine months and then give birth to it?

Does that make any sense?

Its extremely unfortunate for the woman. I admit that freely. But once they've had sex, the woman (and man) accept the risk of pregnancy, even if it is minutely small (.0000000001%). By having consensual sex, both parties accept the risk, however small, of pregnancy, and by extension having a child. It isn't a question of the man saying "you're now going to be pregnant and deliver a child", its the father saying "you're not going to kill my son/daughter just to save yourself from nine months of discomfort.


Edit: I'm not judging them! I'm telling them not to kill my son or daughter. There is a huge difference that people are not acknowledging.

[Agota]

Originally Posted by Curious cat

.


A fetus is a life stage of a person. Their heart beats anywhere from week four to week six from conception, and they have tiny arms and legs at week seven, and by the end of the first trimester (12 weeks) they would have developed very human features. I suppose this is one reason why it would tug my heart strings more the later in pregnancy the abortion takes place.

I do believe that if these women were given more time, they may reconsider the abortion and may even fall in love with their child when they see him/her. Unfortunately, in practice, I don't think women are fully disclosed of the gruesome details of what really happens during an abortion by the clinic/medical professional. And I just think that if they were told their baby will be hacked and dismembered inside the womb without anesthetic (the descriptive term thrown around seems to be 'terminate'), that many would not continue with the abortion. And I'm pretty sure they don't get to see the aftermath. Which is probably the best so as to not add more trauma to these women if they were to see tiny, bloodied, dismembered arms and legs, and other body parts.

I do agree on these points.

I do believe that abortion should be legal. I'm not for abortion myself, but I believe women should have this option, because, well, how can you tell someone what they should do with their own body? Also, as you said, they will get abortions anyway, so it's much better if pregnant teenagers who chose to have an abortion get one done in an actual clinic by the actual doctors, not in some underground place by God knows who.

However, I agree on the point that many people don't realize what's happening during the abortion and the possible consequences. I think that everyone who wants to decrease the abortion rates should stop throwing stones at women who consider having an abortion and instead work on objectively informing young women on what an abortion is and what are the possible consequences, so they'd really think before going through with it. That should work way better than claiming that women don't have rights to decide what to do with their own bodies, which some people here seem to be doing..

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

A child? Yes. A fetus is not a child. Tell me what makes you think a fetus is a person, and at what point (nuance and unsureness is fine, just say why and what qualities make them such). Otherwise, I'll take that as a concession that you have no argument.

Prove to me it isn't. By not aborting, you're guaranteed not to be committing murder whether it is a child or it isn't. If you're unsure whether it counts as a child, it is insane to just assume its not and do what constitutes murder if you're wrong. The onus is on you, not me. Prove to me it isn't a child.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Its extremely unfortunate for the woman. I admit that freely. But once they've had sex, the woman (and man) accept the risk of pregnancy, even if it is minutely small (.0000000001%). By having consensual sex, both parties accept the risk, however small, of pregnancy, and by extension having a child. It isn't a question of the man saying "you're now going to be pregnant and deliver a child", its the father saying "you're not going to kill my son/daughter just to save yourself from nine months of discomfort.


Edit: I'm not judging them! I'm telling them not to kill my son or daughter. There is a huge difference that people are not acknowledging.

Yeah. It's worse. Judge the f*^% away, and you'd be misguided; but if you actually tried to force someone to have a child against their will you'd be despicable.

[xiahoudun]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Its murder, plain and simple. It isn't a potential baby, its just a baby. If I killed a fifty-year old man, I haven't killed a "potential grandfather", I've killed a person. Killing a baby while its still in the womb is no different, they are just easier for some to kill because you're never going to have to look into one's eyes as you take their life. That baby didn't ask to be created. Whoever did that took responsibility for it and agreed, whether they like it or not, to the risk of having a baby. Having sex, even with birth control, is like gambling (albeit with incredibly good odds) that you wont have a baby. Whether you like it or not, there is an implicit acceptance of that risk when you do it. If you're not willing to accept that, than don't have sex, or have some sort of surgery done. But once you're dealt your cards, you cant look at the dealer and say "this isnt what I wanted, I want my bet back", you have to play the hand your dealt. You can always put a baby up for adoption or send it to an orphanage, abortion is NEVER the only solution, if one could even term it that. People who argue for it disgust me. A woman does have the right to choose. Its just that its the right to choose whether or not to have sex, not the right to kill a baby that she created willingly.

Only exceptions: rape, incest, danger to the mother.
Other than that: abortion = murder, abortion supporters = gullible idiots/ willing accomplices.

This, as controversial as that is.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Yeah. It's worse. Judge the f*^% away, and you'd be misguided; but if you actually tried to force someone to have a child against their will you'd be despicable.

It isn't forcing them to have a child. Its telling them they can't undo the process they've willingly started. Tough luck.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by DerekB

I think that since genetically that child is 50% mine and 50% hers, I absolutely have the right to tell her she cannot kill it.

Sure, you do have the right to TELL her anything, but actually 'forcing' her to carry your child to term against her own wishes is quite another thing.

Just curious, how would you suggest enacting such a thing? And are you aware that if a woman is truly serious about expelling a pregnancy from her body there are many ways to do it that don't require surgical abortion? IN some countries, 'uterine massage' is used in early pregnancy to 'bring on the menses' and in others, herbal concoctions.

What lengths would you see fit to go to to ensure that a woman carried through with the unwanted pregnancy?....lock her up...tie her up...?

So long as each of us has a right to manage our body as we see fit, the only opinion that REALLY matters is that of the individual who must bear the pregnancy and who must endure the birth...and then the consequences of bringing a human being into this world.

If you insist upon assigning full human rights to a fetus, then surely there are two sets of rights in competition with each other. My womb, my choice.

Many pro-lifers ( often the male ones) have a tendency to trivialize the effects of pregnancy and child birth. It's a burden upon a woman's body and mind even under the best of circumstances, even when the child is very much wanted.....never mind if she were being forced against her wishes to bring a fetus to term and then birth it.

[ZephyrusX]

I sort of agree with this and this is why I think communication before sex is very important. If you fail to ask a woman what her stance is on abortion and she chooses to get have one after getting pregnant, that is your fault. IF you define a fetus as 'life' and are against abortion, don't have sex with a woman who does not agree with you. You have the choice to choose who you have sex with. You have always had this choice. No one can take that away from you. You only have to exercise your own personal responsibility in exercising that choice. Holding resentment towards a woman who wants an abortion is only an abdication of personal responsibility.

Originally Posted by DerekB

That is because I gave an analogy to illustrate the sexism of saying that its the woman's choice alone.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Prove to me it isn't. By not aborting, you're guaranteed not to be committing murder whether it is a child or it isn't. If you're unsure whether it counts as a child, it is insane to just assume its not and do what constitutes murder if you're wrong. The onus is on you, not me. Prove to me it isn't a child.

Logical fallacy: you can't prove a negative. The onus is not on her, it's on you because you're claiming there's something which magically qualifies a fetus for personhood even though it lacks many human traits until the time of birth.

This line of argument also bears an element of Pascal's wager which says if there is a God you lose by not believing whereas you lose nothing if you do, which is heavily flawed because it greatly alters how you live your life and may ruin aspects of your experience as a human being. You can lose a lot by having a child you don't want or aren't ready for, and you can't count on the system to care for them.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Who are you to judge a handicapped person's happiness any more than me. As I stated, if the child could lead a happy life it should not be murdered. If its going to be born a deaf blind transvestite hemophiliac paraplegic with down syndrome and a speech impediment who spends it's days in a constant state of pain and agonizing depression, it shouldn't be born. If its going to have a below average IQ and skip merrily along the street every day, than obviously it isn't right to abort/murder it.

Your second point about a mother and father deciding that a child won't be happy with them as parents is irrelevant entirely, since the child can be adopted, because (as I said), abortion is not the only option.

And she was talking to me, since it is doubtful that the population reaching 7 billion was being discussed in January (considering it just happened) and she stated that somebody "had nothing new to bring to the discussion". The seven billion population is clearly new, and therefore she was talking to me. So not only are YOU a noob for thinking otherwise, your doubly a noob since before your edit you thought she was, but than thought about it and changed your mind after reading the moderators comment. How do you like them apples, Nooby McNoobnewb

The difference between you and I, is that your judgement of the handicap persons unhappiness, will lead to their execution, while I'm not advocating killing anyone, because they might be unhappy years after they are born, or are currently unhappy. See the difference? No, you probably don't.

You aren't the one to decide who should or shouldn't be born. I swear, you have to be a troll, because there is no way you are serious with any of this.

And, your point is irrelevant as well, because a child that is severely handicap CAN be happy, just like a child born to parents who don't want it, can be adopted . So why does the first child deserve to die in your eyes? Abortion of the child who is handicap, is also not the only option. Well, as long as YOU aren't in the picture, because you don't feel that child deserves to live, so abortion is the only option.

As far as you being a newb. Well, lets just say I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I ASSUMED that she must have been talking to you, for you to react so insanely about it. I never would have thought, that anyone would go off on such a rant, unless they were responding to someone who was actually talking to you.

Only once the mod said something, did I realize how absurd your rant actually was, when it wasn't even directed at you in the first place. I'll fully admit that I didn't pay enough attention to the previous posts to realize you weren't the right person. I was going by YOUR post. I then edited my post to reflect that, and even used the word " apparently" to indicate that the edit I made, was due to something new that I had just discovered. So, try, try as you might, but, you are still the only newb.

And, you do realize, that you trying to pin the blame on me, only makes you look like the lower person, by outing yourself as not knowing that the post wasn't directed at you, even tho you are trying to make ME look like the idiot?

I really want to respond to your other posts, but the wonderful people on this forum, have done a beautiful job of that. I feel like, I don't have anymore to contribute.

[DerekB]

[QUOTE=inri;1013421]

Sure, you do have the right to TELL here anything, but actually 'forcing' her to carry your child to term against her own wishes is quite another thing.

Just curious, how would you suggest enacting such a thing? And are you aware that if a woman is truly serious about expelling a pregnancy from her body there are many ways to do it that don't require surgical abortion? IN some countries, 'uterine massage' is used in early pregnancy to 'bring on the menses' and in others, herbal concoctions.

What lengths would you see fit to go to to ensure that a woman carried through with the unwanted pregnancy?....lock her up...tie her up...?

So long as each of us has a right to manage our body as we see fit, the only opinion that REALLY matters is that of the individual who must bear the pregnancy and who must endure the birth...and then the consequences of bringing a human being into this world.

If you insist upon assigning full human rights to a fetus, then surely there are two sets of rights in competition with each other. My womb, my choice.

Many pro-lifers ( often the male ones) have a tendency to trivialize the effects of pregnancy and child birth. It's a burden upon a woman's body and mind even under the best of circumstances, even when the child is very much wanted.....never mind if she were being forced against her wishes to bring a fetus to term and then birth it.

Nobody is forcing her to do anything she didn't already agree to. Like it or not, as I've said now several times already, having sex constitutes an implicit acceptance of the odds, however small, of having a child. If she wants to jump off of a high dive board and land horizontally, I can't stop her. But not all women who want an abortion will resort to these archaic practices. And it isn't a life versus a life, its nine months of discomfort (however extreme) versus an entire life (80-100 years). One very clearly wins.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Prove to me it isn't. By not aborting, you're guaranteed not to be committing murder whether it is a child or it isn't. If you're unsure whether it counts as a child, it is insane to just assume its not and do what constitutes murder if you're wrong. The onus is on you, not me. Prove to me it isn't a child.

So you have no argument.

Okay, here's mine. A person, an agent with rights and to whom society has ethical responsibilities, has interests. That's not a complete definition, but I do think it's required. In order to have interests, you must have a brain. The brain does not even begin developing until several weeks into the pregnancy, which if the premises above are accepted, proves it is not a person at conception.

Now, a brain and interests are not all that is necessary for something to be a person, otherwise, society would consider cows and lizards people. So, beyond that, the argument becomes fuzzier. But a fetus is not inherently a person.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Cado

Logical fallacy: you can't prove a negative. The onus is not on her, it's on you because you're claiming there's something which magically qualifies a fetus for personhood even though it lacks many human traits until the time of birth.

This line of argument also bears an element of Pascal's wager which says if there is a God you lose by not believing whereas you lose nothing if you do, which is heavily flawed because it greatly alters how you live your life and may ruin aspects of your experience as a human being. You can lose a lot by having a child you don't want or aren't ready for, and you can't count on the system to care for them.

It isn't a logical fallacy. She has to prove that it is a non-person. As it is guaranteed it is eventually going to be a person in the future, assuming anything other than that it is indeed a person is illogical. If you wish to argue that it is not a person (something that is not safe to assume) you must prove why before committing what constitutes murder if you are wrong.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Cado

Logical fallacy: you can't prove a negative. The onus is not on her, it's on you because you're claiming there's something which magically qualifies a fetus for personhood even though it lacks many human traits until the time of birth.

This line of argument also bears an element of Pascal's wager which says if there is a God you lose by not believing whereas you lose nothing if you do, which is heavily flawed because it greatly alters how you live your life and may ruin aspects of your experience as a human being. You can lose a lot by having a child you don't want or aren't ready for, and you can't count on the system to care for them.

This too.

[Agota]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Its extremely unfortunate for the woman. I admit that freely. But once they've had sex, the woman (and man) accept the risk of pregnancy, even if it is minutely small (.0000000001%). By having consensual sex, both parties accept the risk, however small, of pregnancy, and by extension having a child. It isn't a question of the man saying "you're now going to be pregnant and deliver a child", its the father saying "you're not going to kill my son/daughter just to save yourself from nine months of discomfort.

The issue is that it only applies if both parties really accept the risk of pregnancy when engaging in consensual sex. I'd make sure that we're on the same page in that regards before having sex with a guy. I generally think that to discuss all these issues before having sex is a wise thing to do. I also do have a similar attitude that if I'm having sex, I'm accepting the risk of pregnancy. However, in case you don't discuss it prior to sex, it means that the other party doesn't necessarily agree with you on that and have the same course pre-planned should something unexpected would happen. It would be totally unreasonable to expect them to have the same point of view as you do if you haven't discussed the issue. It's important to realize that other people have a right to have beliefs different than yours.

Anyway, this discussion is completely theorethical . Realistically, you don't have any power to force a woman to give birth to a child if she doesn't want to. You can tell her not to kill your child as much as you want, but the reality is that it's her decision whether you want it or not, because she might either get an abortion or intentionally initiate a miscarriage in case proper abortion is not an option. There isn't anything you can do about it.

I believe the best bet for a man who doesn't want a woman to get an abortion is to make a deal with her that he'll provide for her for those nine months and then adopt the child and raise the child alone, assuming she doesn't want to take part in it.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

It isn't forcing them to have a child. Its telling them they can't undo the process they've willingly started. Tough luck.

Which is forcing them to have a child no matter how you sugar coat it. Willingly is also a huge assumption since you've already stated you don't really want exceptions for rape.

[aelle]

I want to apologize for the snark of my previous comment. Bad day. The sentiment remains, but I needn't have phrased it like that.

------
It's a pity that you won't read the first part of the thread, Derek, because many of the points that you raise have been addressed in a nuanced manner before. I'll try to make a quick summary (I could link to the actual posts, but I'm on a no snark before breakfast diet).

Exceptions for rape:
-this essentially means that pregnancy is a punishment for consenting to sex. On top of being slut shaming, how is it a compassionate way to think of the baby?

Adoption as the end-all solution:
- adoption is not extremely uncomplicated. It can be just as traumatizing, if not more, on the birth mother than abortion.
- the system is already overflowing with children in need of homes. Able-bodied, cute white babies are adopted relatively more easily. Not all aborted pregnancies fit that definition by any means.
- aborting isn't just about not having a child. It's also about not being pregnant. Pregnancy is physically and mentally hard, exhausting, dangerous (mortality raised by 700% for a pregnancy with no complications - no one should have to unwillingly put up with these odds) and incompatible with many life situations.

Zygote personhood:
- An embryo can split and result into monozygitic twins. If an embryo can result in two separate people, how can it be a person?

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

The difference between you and I, is that your judgement of the handicap persons unhappiness, will lead to their execution, while I'm not advocating killing anyone, because they might be unhappy years after they are born, or are currently unhappy. See the difference? No, you probably don't.

You aren't the one to decide who should or shouldn't be born. I swear, you have to be a troll, because there is no way you are serious with any of this.

And, your point is irrelevant as well, because a child that is severely handicap CAN be happy, just like a child born to parents who don't want it, can be adopted . So why does the first child deserve to die in your eyes? Abortion of the child who is handicap, is also not the only option. Well, as long as YOU aren't in the picture, because you don't feel that child deserves to live, so abortion is the only option.

As far as you being a newb. Well, lets just say I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I ASSUMED that she must have been talking to you, for you to react so insanely about it. I never would have thought, that anyone would go off on such a rant, unless they were responding to someone who was actually talking to you.

Only once the mod said something, did I realize how absurd your rant actually was, when it wasn't even directed at you in the first place. I'll fully admit that I didn't pay enough attention to the previous posts to realize you weren't the right person. I was going by YOUR post. I then edited my post to reflect that, and even used the word " apparently" to indicate that the edit I made, was due to something new that I had just discovered. So, try, try as you might, but, you are still the only newb.

And, you do realize, that you trying to pin the blame on me, only makes you look like the lower person, by outing yourself as not knowing that the post wasn't directed at you, even tho you are trying to make ME look like the idiot?

I really want to respond to your other posts, but the wonderful people on this forum, have done a beautiful job of that. I feel like, I don't have anymore to contribute.

Wrong, the difference between you and I is that I don't call people trolls just because they disagree with me and have an uncanny ability to make my own arguments go against me. I stated, already, that unless you can know for a certainty that they will be unhappy, you cannot abort them. So that undoes your first point.

With regards to your second point:
"You aren't the one to decide who should or shouldn't be born" - Thanks for agreeing with me yet again! Nobody has the right to decide who should or shouldn't be born, regardless of their genitalia.

And I was never mistaken. You and the mod both still seem to be, however, so I will explain. Aelle mistakenly thought that I revived the thread, when it was not me. However, the "noob" comment was directed at my comment, not the actual thread reviver. Perhaps in the future you will be able to make your own deductions, rather than just assuming that the mod is correct (they aren't omniscient). So yet again, you sir, are the noob.

P.S. I'm not trying to make you look like an idiot, it just seems to be happening on its own.

[ZephyrusX]

You don't have that right. At least, not in states that legalize abortion. Whether you like it or not, people define life differently, and if you honestly think it is murder, don't have sex with a woman who disagrees. In reality, no one in her right mind is going to carry a baby to term inside her body if she doesn't want to simply because you are the one who implanted the seed. They don't have to consider your point of view. If this is a touchy subject for you, all the more reason why you ought to discuss the issue with your sexual partners. Don't impose your standards of being upon other people. It not for the sake of morality, then do so simply for the sake of practicality. No one is going to listen to you seriously if they don't want to.

There is a reason why the other side is called 'Pro-Choice'.

Originally Posted by DerekB

I think that since genetically that child is 50% mine and 50% hers, I absolutely have the right to tell her she cannot kill it. Do you think its fair to the baby to tell it that because the woman doesn't want to deal with it, it has to die?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by aelle

Zygote personhood:
- An embryo can split and result into monozygitic twins. If an embryo can result in two separate people, how can it be a person?

I've used this example, when arguing about souls, in religious anti abortion debates, in regards to (at conception/ I knew you before you were in the womb). If I remember correctly, the two, can go back into one. Negating the two unique souls/people.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

You don't have that right. At least, not in states that legalize abortion. Whether you like it or not, people define life differently, and if you honestly think it is murder, don't have sex with a woman who disagrees. In reality, no one in her right mind is going to carry a baby to term inside her body if she doesn't want to simply because you are the one who implanted the seed. They don't have to consider your point of view. If this is a touchy subject for you, all the more reason why you ought to discuss the issue with your sexual partners. Don't impose your standards of being upon other people. It not for the sake of morality, then do so simply for the sake of practicality. No one is going to listen to you seriously if they don't want to.

There is a reason why the other side is called 'Pro-Choice'.

People have the right to impose their standards on others in some contexts. We (americans) believe that genocide is wrong. Therefore, we joined WWII and defeated the germans, ending the holocaust. By extending your logic, you're implying that we had no business ending the holocaust and we should've let it continue.

Its called pro-choice because its easier to market than "pro-murder". That doesn't change what it is, it only makes it more palatable for those who would rather not think about the underlying issue.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Nobody is forcing her to do anything she didn't already agree to. Like it or not, as I've said now several times already, having sex constitutes an implicit acceptance of the odds, however small, of having a child.

While this is a nice 'pie in the sky' idea, the fact is that the nature of the sex act makes this incredibly unrealistic and impractical...and quite simply, false.

Simply because you SAY that having sex implies an implicit agreement of the odds, does not make it actually so. Clearly, you believe it 'should' for all who engage in it, but if you look at reality, most are not thinking about the possibility of pregnancy, particularly if they're using a relatively sound form of birth control.

Like or not, sex is just one of those things that sometimes, temporarily takes us out of our heads...it is often beyond logic...beyond the practical...that's why we like it so much...and women should not be 'punished' for having sex by being forced to carry fetuses to term against their will.

[Piercetheveil]

I have no personal experience with it. I support choice.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

You don't have that right. At least, not in states that legalize abortion. Whether you like it or not, people define life differently, and if you honestly think it is murder, don't have sex with a woman who disagrees.

A really great point.

To any man who feels this strongly about the idea of a woman aborting a fetus he helped conceive; Please DO make sure that every time you engage in sex with a woman, you first engage in an in-depth conversation about how she would deal with an unwanted pregnancy should it occur.

If her answers aren't pleasing, then you probably should head home for a cold shower instead.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by DerekB

People have the right to impose their standards on others in some contexts. We (americans) believe that genocide is wrong. Therefore, we joined WWII and defeated the germans, ending the holocaust. By extending your logic, you're implying that we had no business ending the holocaust and we should've let it continue.

Its called pro-choice because its easier to market than "pro-murder". That doesn't change what it is, it only makes it more palatable for those who would rather not think about the underlying issue.

And it's called "pro-life", because it's easier to market, then "anti choice". That doesn't change what it is, it only makes it more palatable for those who would rather not think about the underlying issue.

Americans also believe eugenics is wrong, yet you want to kill anyone who will be born into a body that YOU feel, isn't worth being born.

[aelle]

About men having an equal say in the matter: we can discuss what would be fair in a utopia, but in the real world, marital rape and forcible impregnation (fiddling with BC...) are frequent tools of abuse and control of men on women. Removing women's only option to walk out of it at this point is giving them the shorter end of the stick.
(If a woman gets pregnant when her partner doesn't want to, he is free to walk out. )

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I sort of agree with this and this is why I think communication before sex is very important. If you fail to ask a woman what her stance is on abortion and she chooses to get have one after getting pregnant, that is your fault. IF you define a fetus as 'life' and are against abortion, don't have sex with a woman who does not agree with you. You have the choice to choose who you have sex with. You have always had this choice. No one can take that away from you. You only have to exercise your own personal responsibility in exercising that choice. Holding resentment towards a woman who wants an abortion is only an abdication of personal responsibility.

Hear hear.
I completely disagree with the notion that everyone who engages in sex absolutely and without conditions accepts the risk of pregnancy. It is completely disconnected from reality.