One Simple Question Makes Pro Choice Activists visibly uncomfortable

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: jimmyx
"52nd trimester" ??...that's 13 years...."national 21 months" ??....that's almost 2 years....to answer your question, it's up to the mother....let me ask you.....what sort of internal surgery would you like, where other people decide if you get it or not, without your permission????
it's the woman's body, she decides....not a mythical god, not a bible, and not another person.

Except it's not just her. There is also the baby to consider.

At what point do you think a baby becomes a being we ought to consider in this equation?

Don't forget there is a father in the picture also. After all if she does choose to keep it then he is forced to pay for 18 years of support. So shouldn't he have a say in the also? Shouldn't he have the chance to say no to the baby and then if she does go ahead and have it he is not responsable for support?

Seems fair to me.

a reply to: dismanrc

You are just confused

a reply to: dismanrc

If a man doesn't want to have children with a woman, he can choose to not have sex with her. There's implied risk in sexual encounters for both sides.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: KingKelson
At what point should it be illegal for a woman to get an abortion, if you (in general) think it should be illegal at all?

At what point?

At the point where republicans start to support birth control, expand sex education, increase funding for women's health clinics, support programs that financially assist single mothers, support paid maternity leave, and stop slut shaming.

Basically when the Republicans become pimps.

If a woman has the 'right' to do what she wants with her body. Don't expect other people to pay for it.

Can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: windword

"Regulated freedom" is now the customary thing....see the exceptions for "free speech" to see what I mean...freedom of speech isn't exactly free, it's regulated. But, you never answered my main question...

Where do you draw the line between "regulation" and "infringement of rights"?

A2D

Yes I did. I support Roe V Wade, which allows states to regulate abortion, first, based on the health and welfare of the women seeking abortions, and secondly, it allows the states to regulate abortion based on the health and welfare of viable fetuses.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Hecate666

In nature, as with the animals you've provided, contraception is not an option. Deer don't wear condoms and does do not use birth control. It's simply not available. If it was, I'm sure the very vast majority of animals(maybe excluding giant pandas) would have more condoms than your average teenage human these days...


A2D

Makes absolutely no difference to my argument. Viable offspring is still aborted. I am sure some animals would prefer contraception [if you'd ask them and they could answer]. A lot of humans use it but some are not for one reason or another.

Any healthy mother in a good place with insight would not abort, heck most people don't abort their offspring just for the lulz [and if they do, I very much doubt their ability to raise a stable child]. For all other scenarios there is only one person that can make that decision and that's the person who has to carry the child for 9 months, whilst putting their live/ health/ mental health/ future at risk - the mother.

Nobody can ever be forced through a pregnancy if they don't want to.

originally posted by: Atsbhct

If a man doesn't want to have children with a woman, he can choose to not have sex with her. There's implied risk in sexual encounters for both sides.

If a woman doesn't want to have a child she can choose to not have sex with a guy. There's implied risk in sexual encounters for the mother to assume the responsibility of a child, but it seems she is the only one with a choice in the matter either way.

a reply to: Xtrozero

There's implied risk in sexual encounters for the mother to assume the responsibility of a child, but it seems she is the only one with a choice in the matter either way.

No, she's the one with final say. Many woman consult the would be father, and his opinion may be the deciding factor, in many cases. Many would be fathers suggest/support their mates abortions.

originally posted by: windword

No, she's the one with final say. Many woman consult the would be father, and his opinion may be the deciding factor, in many cases. Many would be fathers suggest/support their mates abortions.

"May" doesn't mean much. If the father wanted to keep it he has no choice, if the father didn't want it or support it for 18 years he has no choice...

a reply to: Xtrozero

hey it sounds like the same deal that the christian churches has been trying to convince women to accept for the last couple of thousand years!! what are you complaining about? but, surely the women you had sex with loves you, and will be reasonable and attentive to your needs and desires!

originally posted by: dawnstar

hey it sounds like the same deal that the christian churches has been trying to convince women to accept for the last couple of thousand years!! what are you complaining about? but, surely the women you had sex with loves you, and will be reasonable and attentive to your needs and desires!

Why do you assume I'm religious? I think in my younger years most of the sex I had was for fun....

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't assume you are christian, but weather you are or not doesn't change the fact that what I say is true. women were told to obey there husbands, at time, enforced by laws as well as customs, and not only in one little area such as reproductions, but everything. the husband should be the one to make the final decision. many churches still teach that. if you don't like that final decision, well, you can plead, you can pray that the invisable god will change his heart, or well.. you can live with his decision...

all the while the church will tell you how it's all equal, since as the wife is commanded to obey, well, the husband is commanded to love.....
well... surely the person who loves you, and who you loved, will be willing to listen to your counsel and consider your views, right??

if women lived so long with these conditions in ALL THINGS, I am sure men can adapt!

a reply to: windword

Um I believe the point of the pro-life t-shirt Kelsey Grammer wore is to demonstrate how the liberal media and gun-control advocates have gotten so upset over the murder of innocent people in school massacres, mall shootings, etc. all over the US in recent years demanding that something needs to be done to stop gun violence (usually in the form of greater gun-control) and yet they're unfazed by the daily murder of innocent unborn children through abortion. Hence, the question posed, i.e. what if guns were used instead to abort (i.e. murder) the unborn children? Would they feel any different about abortion then? Imho both abortions and mass shootings are forms of violence and murder of the innocents.

a reply to: cameraobscura


what if missles and battleships were used to abort, would those supporting the war mongers support it to boost their stock positions in the defense industry?

the core motives behind war is more similar to the core motives of abortion...to protect their lives, their economy, their way of life... which, many who complain of the attack on their right to own guns claim is the reason that right needs to be protect, for self defense, to protect their life, their property, their way of life!!!

a reply to: Xtrozero

"May" doesn't mean much. If the father wanted to keep it he has no choice, if the father didn't want it or support it for 18 years he has no choice...

He had a choice when he chose to have sex, right? Maybe he should have been a little more scrupulous in his choice of women he beds.

a reply to: cameraobscura

Abortion isn't murder and an embryo isn't a child. Neither is a pre-viable fetus.

originally posted by: dawnstar
well... surely the person who loves you, and who you loved, will be willing to listen to your counsel and consider your views, right??

if women lived so long with these conditions in ALL THINGS, I am sure men can adapt!

I think love is not a part of any of this. Your nirvana view is not the norm though I agree that couples do make decisions together, but from my experience that is a small percentage.

originally posted by: windword

He had a choice when he chose to have sex, right? Maybe he should have been a little more scrupulous in his choice of women he beds.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that the woman makes all the choices here. If she wants to abort or to keep the man has no choice in the matter by law.

It seems at some point the woman has a choice of good or bad too, takes two to tango, and I do not get that vibe from you that you feel the same way.

a reply to: Xtrozero

did any of those women who you "had fun" with think love played a part in it?? or were they just as flippant about it as you were? just curious here, since well, I've been with my husband since I was in high school, the idea of "having fun" with someone you can't at least entertain the idea of living with is kind of dumb all the way around.

but, I've already mentioned the centuries where the women were basically kept in a subservient role (that is still taught by the churches today, in a watered down version) and I am just treating your gripe about having to accept the women as the ultimate decision maker in this one little area like the church basically treats women who gripe about their position of the man being the ultimate decision maker IN EVERY AREA OF HER LIFE!
which is but she loves you, surely she will be considerate of you decisions...
what's been good for the gander for all those centuries should be good enough for you!

a reply to: Xtrozero

True, but that doesn't change the fact that the woman makes all the choices here. If she wants to abort or to keep the man has no choice in the matter by law.

Oh, you're talking about legal caveats. I thought you were talking about fairness, silly me. Of course child birth isn't fair!

It only makes sense though, legally, that the woman would have the final say, since she is the one with the most at statke here. Do you really think the law should force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, so long as the father wishes it?

It seems at some point the woman has a choice of good or bad too, takes two to tango, and I do not get that vibe from you that you feel the same way.

I have no intention of "sharing" any of my vibes with you, just my opinion, which is;

At no point is the sexual act of intercourse implied consent to have that particular man's baby, any more than a man having sex with a woman consents to fatherhood with that woman, especially in today's society.