I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

gottaknow
reply to post by RealWoman

 

If both parties have unprotected sex, then both parties took that chance, this is true. However, it's not solely up to the male to decide to use birth control and equally the woman's fault for not demanding that he does or take birth control of her own accord. Oh, and some women will poke holes in a condom.

Average child support payments were 430.00/mo in 2010. While that's not enough to fully support most people, it sure takes the edge off. it's often subsidized with part time work or government aid. Or more support from another unwilling dad.

I still say that upon learning of the conception, the man should have equal right to say he does not want to take part in the responsibility of raising that child. This alone, would make more women think twice before taking the chance. And maybe lower this insanely large population that we have. Adoption is always a consideration in the choice, so, there's that.

You left out the option of the male co-parenting 50/50. Why? Do you not realize that co-parenting IS an option the court will consider and the male is likely to get if he just asks? Why are males not asking? Could it be they like to talk, but refuse to walk?

Lightseeker77
reply to post by RealWoman

 

I respectfully disagree. This is a topic that is not a black or white subject. If you want to discuss morality, why not simply NOT have sex, until you are married. Why as a woman would you put yourself in a position where at some point your option is to snuff a growing life, or end up with a deadbeat for as the father of your child. Do you not believe that the subject of having children is an important conversation to have with a partner.

On the opposite side of that coin, why then as a woman not be a bit more proactive about birth control? What I gather from your post is that the man is responsible for being irresponsible, but the woman is not smart enough to know about how to avoid a pregnancy. If the consequences are to affect your life forever, wouldn't it mean that you would take greater care in avoiding such situations?

You mean MARRIED women can't have abortions? LOL! How uninformed! Married women account for a substantial percentage of abortions, so you're saying married women should not have sex with their husbands. How exactly is that supposed to work?

libertytoall

RealWoman

libertytoall

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?

The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

The man is being charged with murder, not domestic violence. He took a life......fact.

He should be charged with whatever is appropriate for the crime against the woman. I assume we can agree on that much. I believe that Beyond that it should be a civil matter and just because there is a law, doesn't make the law correct.

The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your'e the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which you have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.

I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible thumper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

This doesn't even make sense. It's nothing but another women should be punished for having sex rant. The world has moved on from that emotional, illogical and hatefilled premise.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

It's not an illogical emotional hatefilled message. Sometimes truth is harsh. You have to own up to YOUR responsibilities for your own body. If you take the risk and it doesn't go as planned you should have thought about that risk before. Are we children that can't think for ourselves?? What your saying is women should have the right to be reckless and irresponsible with the immense repercussions of having sex and getting pregnant primarily because either you want to remain an irresponsible child or you are so shallow that any deviation from your self centered life(owning up to responsibility) is too much to handle so death to the children!

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Your truth applies no further than you. What gives you the right to apply to anyone else? Why don't you apply the same ranting platitudes to the male side of the equation?

reply to post by charles1952


I am an older woman and remember the days before abortions were legal. My own mother did backalley abortions three times. It was not easy for a woman to escape an abusive alcoholic local WW2 hero husband back then. Divorce was a scandal in southern baptist country. I never see any real answers on the obviously male dominated site and subject of women's bodies, just judgments about an experience you will never have. This is the age of science. Viagra, ciallis, but we cannot create a birth control pill for the sperm donators?

Quadrivium

RealWoman

gottaknow
Pro choice and I sympathize for the father in this situation. I have never understood why the decision is up to the mother and that if she chooses to keep it, he is bound to a lifetime of payments.

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, he has little or no choice in today's world.
I believe if a woman conceives and wants to keep it and the man is on the side of abortion/doesn't want to support the baby, there should be a civil understanding that he is without responsibility if she decides to keep it. Too often, women use this power to trap a man and then live off the payments that he works to earn.

The male DOES have a choice... not have sex or personally take responsibility for the use of birth control. Rarely does the male take responsibility to protect himself, but he certainly howls when he has to deal with the result.

True the male often ends up paying child support, but again, it's his decision to whine rather than take responsibility - and look for more options - like 50 / 50 parenting. Try to get a single male to agree to that!

As far as living off of meager child support payments? ROFLMAO. Unless you're a billionaire, it does not happen. It's more misogynistic mythology spouted by the male who willingly threw away his responsibility in the situation.

Several times now I have witnessed you spouting off about the males responsibility. I think you said something like "They made their choice when they dropped their drawers" .
You do understand this applies to the woman as well, don't you? "Biology 101".....right?
I contend that the woman made the choice as well when she "dropped her drawers" and opened her thighs.
Unless raped women have control in any given sex act. It's simple biology. It's the difference between testosterone and estrogen.
You say that the man gave up the right of property by dropping his drawers. Surely you see that the woman did so as well. You can't really be that shallow...........can you?

So what you've just said is that males have no responsibility in preventing an unwanted pregnancy and it's all the woman's fault. And how dare she not march to the male''s orders. LOL! Yeah, women are so over that. And that's what males can't handle. They can't control women anymore.

RealWoman

BardingTheBard
If it is important to her... then the time for the woman to make the "I expect help if I get pregnant" decision, and have the conversation with her partner, is BEFORE she drops her pants as well.

If she willingly engaged in sex and hasn't taken precautions for ensuring she is doing so with a partner who has agreed to continue being a partner in the case of a pregnancy... the she has the ONLY property she has a right to expectation of.

"It's my body". Yes it is... take responsibility for it. The same as I have to take were I to voluntarily allow myself to be injected with chemicals which are liable to cause a new life form to grow off of me.

If the man is expected to make the pregnancy decision before sex in every circumstance (something I do agree with) then the woman is expected to make the "what will I do if I get pregnant" decision before sex as well. If this means not having sex with someone because she can't rely on them... or going ahead and risking it... it's her choice... and it was her precautions or lack that will determine how it will go.

If there has been an agreement to support in case of pregnancy and then the man leaves... that is awful and should be dealt with. If there has been an agreement to prevent/abort and then she doesn't... that too should be dealt with.

It's the person's life... the person's body... the person's choice. Have sex with someone they can't rely on and expect the law with the guns/prison to force them to... or don't and wait until someone that can be relied upon comes along.

edit on 14-9-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)

Again, another "how dare a woman" have sex rant.... I simply applied to same platitudes yapped at women to the male side of the equation. Did you not get that?

You are perfectly clear.

Best to you.

reply to post by libertytoall

That's bull.. Birth control is NOT an insurance policy.. An insurance policy transfers the risk to another entity. Your risk of getting pregnant is not being transferred to someone else's responsibility when taking birth control. It's still YOUR responsibility.

INSURANCE:
1. A practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

2.A thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.

Definition 2 applies here.

It seems as if you want to redefine the biological nature of sexual reproduction and redefine it as having no biological reproductive action at all.

That's the whole thing about birth control!

You simply define sex as a pleasure vehicle for your own self indulgence. You refuse to admit to yourself, sex is defined as both a pleasurable activity AND a reproductive activity. You cannot separate the two. You can't continue to live self defining your own existence. Just because you believe sex is only a pleasure activity doesn't make that reality.. The risk of getting pregnant is ALWAYS there and only a reckless person would have sex without thinking about the repercussions. You're like an investor that wants to invest money but cries when they lose it. You took the risks, it's your own responsibility, now act like a damn adult and own up to your responsibilities..

I don't have to redefine sex. Sex is a pleasurable activity that does more for people than create offspring. No one is required to produce off spring. Yes, the risk of pregnancy is there, but that's why we have contraception and abortion, for people who do not want to produce offspring.

Sometimes acting like and adult and taking responsibility means making the tough decision of aborting. Sometimes, abortion is the most responsible and unselfish thing to do. Having a child is ALWAYS a selfish proposition. The only reason people plan for and choose to have children is because they selfishly want them.

Forcing someone to have a child, who is ill prepared and doesn't want children, simply because they had sex, is NOT a responsible or compassionate thing to do.

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

gottaknow
Pro choice and I sympathize for the father in this situation. I have never understood why the decision is up to the mother and that if she chooses to keep it, he is bound to a lifetime of payments.

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, he has little or no choice in today's world.
I believe if a woman conceives and wants to keep it and the man is on the side of abortion/doesn't want to support the baby, there should be a civil understanding that he is without responsibility if she decides to keep it. Too often, women use this power to trap a man and then live off the payments that he works to earn.

The male DOES have a choice... not have sex or personally take responsibility for the use of birth control. Rarely does the male take responsibility to protect himself, but he certainly howls when he has to deal with the result.

True the male often ends up paying child support, but again, it's his decision to whine rather than take responsibility - and look for more options - like 50 / 50 parenting. Try to get a single male to agree to that!

As far as living off of meager child support payments? ROFLMAO. Unless you're a billionaire, it does not happen. It's more misogynistic mythology spouted by the male who willingly threw away his responsibility in the situation.

Several times now I have witnessed you spouting off about the males responsibility. I think you said something like "They made their choice when they dropped their drawers" .
You do understand this applies to the woman as well, don't you? "Biology 101".....right?
I contend that the woman made the choice as well when she "dropped her drawers" and opened her thighs.
Unless raped women have control in any given sex act. It's simple biology. It's the difference between testosterone and estrogen.
You say that the man gave up the right of property by dropping his drawers. Surely you see that the woman did so as well. You can't really be that shallow...........can you?

So what you've just said is that males have no responsibility in preventing an unwanted pregnancy and it's all the woman's fault. And how dare she not march to the male''s orders. LOL! Yeah, women are so over that. And that's what males can't handle. They can't control women anymore.

No what I said was that women and men both have a part to play. It's like YOU said, "biology 101“.
You are the one constantly trying to lay all the blame on the man.
I am not sure what kind of "men" you have been with or been around. But a real man, in my opinion, does not "control women". My wife has a mind of her own and trust me SHE USES IT.
I have brought my three boys up knowing that women should be respected.
It just amazes me that you could twist my post in such a way to fit your own perspective.
Fact: Men have just as much responsibility as women for using birth control. Sex (unless forced) is a mutual act.
Fact: Men produce the sperm, women produce AND CARRY the egg. Biology 101.
Fact: Both parties know their role before engaging in sexual activities and are aware of the possible out come.

My point, in short, is this: The roles have been set from the time you were in the womb. No amount of feminism will change it. If a man and woman have consensual sex then at that moment they BOTH made a choice. They BOTH knew their biological roles. If a pregnancy occurs because of that choice it should not be "offed" because both parties already made their choice and knew the roles they played.

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

gottaknow
Pro choice and I sympathize for the father in this situation. I have never understood why the decision is up to the mother and that if she chooses to keep it, he is bound to a lifetime of payments.

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, he has little or no choice in today's world.
I believe if a woman conceives and wants to keep it and the man is on the side of abortion/doesn't want to support the baby, there should be a civil understanding that he is without responsibility if she decides to keep it. Too often, women use this power to trap a man and then live off the payments that he works to earn.

The male DOES have a choice... not have sex or personally take responsibility for the use of birth control. Rarely does the male take responsibility to protect himself, but he certainly howls when he has to deal with the result.

True the male often ends up paying child support, but again, it's his decision to whine rather than take responsibility - and look for more options - like 50 / 50 parenting. Try to get a single male to agree to that!

As far as living off of meager child support payments? ROFLMAO. Unless you're a billionaire, it does not happen. It's more misogynistic mythology spouted by the male who willingly threw away his responsibility in the situation.

Several times now I have witnessed you spouting off about the males responsibility. I think you said something like "They made their choice when they dropped their drawers" .
You do understand this applies to the woman as well, don't you? "Biology 101".....right?
I contend that the woman made the choice as well when she "dropped her drawers" and opened her thighs.
Unless raped women have control in any given sex act. It's simple biology. It's the difference between testosterone and estrogen.
You say that the man gave up the right of property by dropping his drawers. Surely you see that the woman did so as well. You can't really be that shallow...........can you?

So what you've just said is that males have no responsibility in preventing an unwanted pregnancy and it's all the woman's fault. And how dare she not march to the male''s orders. LOL! Yeah, women are so over that. And that's what males can't handle. They can't control women anymore.

No what I said was that women and men both have a part to play. It's like YOU said, "biology 101“.
You are the one constantly trying to lay all the blame on the man.
I am not sure what kind of "men" you have been with or been around. But a real man, in my opinion, does not "control women". My wife has a mind of her own and trust me SHE USES IT.
I have brought my three boys up knowing that women should be respected.
It just amazes me that you could twist my post in such a way to fit your own perspective.
Fact: Men have just as much responsibility as women for using birth control. Sex (unless forced) is a mutual act.
Fact: Men produce the sperm, women produce AND CARRY the egg. Biology 101.
Fact: Both parties know their role before engaging in sexual activities and are aware of the possible out come.

My point, in short, is this: The roles have been set from the time you were in the womb. No amount of feminism will change it. If a man and woman have consensual sex then at that moment they BOTH made a choice. They BOTH knew their biological roles. If a pregnancy occurs because of that choice it should not be "offed" because both parties already made their choice and knew the roles they played.

Morally speaking both parties share equal responsibility. Realistically speaking the woman has
Far greater consequences. If a mans testicles fell off when he gets a girl pregnant accidentally,
Men would be more likely to wear condoms. People today like to blame others for their problems
And don't like to admit that they screwed up.

reply to post by Quadrivium

My point, in short, is this: The roles have been set from the time you were in the womb. No amount of feminism will change it. If a man and woman have consensual sex then at that moment they BOTH made a choice. They BOTH knew their biological roles. If a pregnancy occurs because of that choice it should not be "offed" because both parties already made their choice and knew the roles they played.

Gender is decided in the womb, but societal roles are not. Women are no longer cornered into "roles" because they have a vagina and ovaries.

Biology does not dictate morality. Having sex no longer HAS to be a choice to reproduce, thanks to modern medical breakthroughs in birth control. That includes birth control methods that are chemical / hormonal abortionificiants and surgical abortions.

reply to post by RealWoman


I can´t help but reading your responses and little extra sentences like "man can´t control women any more", it seems to me you are unable to realize that this is not a men vs. women thing. It is not. Its not about men controlling women. God damn
You share so many parallels to the person that made that "you don´t own any rights to my reproduction organs" (wich is true btw) thread.

Let's discuss the male spin off of abortion as well. Does ejaculation, that isn't used for procreation, count as abortion. I mean, all those sperm cells, they could be so much more than just unused garbage coming out a man. They could be human beings. Do give sperm a chance to develop. [/farce]

Now back to reality, I believe that like a lot of complex things, where only one gender is truly involved (the father can always decide to leave or do whatever he wants. He doesn't have a creature growing inside of him. That is, if conscience and moral upbringing are taken out of the picture), that one person who is involved should be the one to decide if the child lives or dies. Abortion may be murder, but isn't it in some cases better to spare the comfy unborn child a life of potential misery?

The case in the OP, I agree with the court ruling. The man has no right to force her into abortion. There were other, more peaceful ways to do it. By talking to her, trying to convince her and if she wouldn't let herself be convinced, he can always pack and leave. By using those abortion pills, he only seems to have lost more than just his wife and unborn child.

These issues will never be resolved until everybody agrees when life begins. That's not going to
Happen any time soon. The Catholics say no birth control, others say partial birth abortion is
Ok. There will have to be a compromise somewhere in the middle like maybe the first trimester.

Do you feel that a boyfriend or husband slipping his lady an abortion pill is murder in a state that allows abortions in the eighth month of pregnacy? Killing the fetus at that late of a stage is definitely murder in my opinion, but not in the eyes of some states.

reply to post by RealWoman


I never said a woman can't have sex with her husband, but if you are married I would assume children would have been discussed.
I think your stance is quite irrational. And I find nothing funny about the topic. I believe in the right to choose. What I don't believe in is in abortion as birth control. Any REAL WOMAN, takes responsability for the actions they have taken. I am sure married women have abortions, but then we would have to get into the why's.. That is something I CHOOSE not to do with you.

Hoosierdaddy71

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

gottaknow
Pro choice and I sympathize for the father in this situation. I have never understood why the decision is up to the mother and that if she chooses to keep it, he is bound to a lifetime of payments.

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, he has little or no choice in today's world.
I believe if a woman conceives and wants to keep it and the man is on the side of abortion/doesn't want to support the baby, there should be a civil understanding that he is without responsibility if she decides to keep it. Too often, women use this power to trap a man and then live off the payments that he works to earn.

The male DOES have a choice... not have sex or personally take responsibility for the use of birth control. Rarely does the male take responsibility to protect himself, but he certainly howls when he has to deal with the result.

True the male often ends up paying child support, but again, it's his decision to whine rather than take responsibility - and look for more options - like 50 / 50 parenting. Try to get a single male to agree to that!

As far as living off of meager child support payments? ROFLMAO. Unless you're a billionaire, it does not happen. It's more misogynistic mythology spouted by the male who willingly threw away his responsibility in the situation.

Several times now I have witnessed you spouting off about the males responsibility. I think you said something like "They made their choice when they dropped their drawers" .
You do understand this applies to the woman as well, don't you? "Biology 101".....right?
I contend that the woman made the choice as well when she "dropped her drawers" and opened her thighs.
Unless raped women have control in any given sex act. It's simple biology. It's the difference between testosterone and estrogen.
You say that the man gave up the right of property by dropping his drawers. Surely you see that the woman did so as well. You can't really be that shallow...........can you?

So what you've just said is that males have no responsibility in preventing an unwanted pregnancy and it's all the woman's fault. And how dare she not march to the male''s orders. LOL! Yeah, women are so over that. And that's what males can't handle. They can't control women anymore.

No what I said was that women and men both have a part to play. It's like YOU said, "biology 101“.
You are the one constantly trying to lay all the blame on the man.
I am not sure what kind of "men" you have been with or been around. But a real man, in my opinion, does not "control women". My wife has a mind of her own and trust me SHE USES IT.
I have brought my three boys up knowing that women should be respected.
It just amazes me that you could twist my post in such a way to fit your own perspective.
Fact: Men have just as much responsibility as women for using birth control. Sex (unless forced) is a mutual act.
Fact: Men produce the sperm, women produce AND CARRY the egg. Biology 101.
Fact: Both parties know their role before engaging in sexual activities and are aware of the possible out come.

My point, in short, is this: The roles have been set from the time you were in the womb. No amount of feminism will change it. If a man and woman have consensual sex then at that moment they BOTH made a choice. They BOTH knew their biological roles. If a pregnancy occurs because of that choice it should not be "offed" because both parties already made their choice and knew the roles they played.

Morally speaking both parties share equal responsibility. Realistically speaking the woman has
Far greater consequences.

You agree that they share equal responsibility so the rest of your post makes absolutely no since.
Yes, there are more consequences for the woman but she like the man made that choice before hand, knowing full well what may happen.

If a mans testicles fell off when he gets a girl pregnant accidentally,
Men would be more likely to wear condoms.

ahhhh......perhaps if you notice he is not wearing a condom you should request he does so or don't have sex.
You are trying to lay the blame on the man yet you have already stated they have equal responsibility.

People today like to blame others for their problems
And don't like to admit that they screwed up.

This I agree with TOTALLY! Many times we hear that a woman must get an abortion because someone "knocked her up" , because she is not ready to have a baby or she is afraid of what pregnancy will do to her body....... They would not have these problems if THEY would not have "screwed up".
Yes, "they" the women, screwed up. The man in the situation made a choice and he should own 100% of that choice.
The woman in the situation made a choice and should own 100% of that choice.
The baby should not be murdered because it's parents are irresponsible.
Quad

I think another issue raised by the case in the OP, is if we are considering abortion legal, why is it the female who has sole, 100% say in the matter?

Sure, I understand it's her body, and she's the one who has to go through it, one way or the other. But 1- It's not only her body, and 2- It's far from only her life.


If that guy didn't want a child-- didn't feel he was ready to raise a child, intellectually, emotionally, or financially, should he be forced? Even if he wants to sign away all rights and have nothing to do with it, the mother will usually still expect her monthly payment-- which is sometimes an insanely large portion of the father's income. Should he have no say in such a matter, as well?


And let's not get into the "he could have chosen to wear a condom" debate. Maybe he did. Most methods of birth control are not 100% effective. And while it takes two to tango (or be irresponsible, as the case may be) that door swings both ways....

RealWoman

libertytoall

RealWoman

libertytoall

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?

The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

The man is being charged with murder, not domestic violence. He took a life......fact.

He should be charged with whatever is appropriate for the crime against the woman. I assume we can agree on that much. I believe that Beyond that it should be a civil matter and just because there is a law, doesn't make the law correct.

The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your'e the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which you have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.

I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible thumper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

This doesn't even make sense. It's nothing but another women should be punished for having sex rant. The world has moved on from that emotional, illogical and hatefilled premise.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

It's not an illogical emotional hatefilled message. Sometimes truth is harsh. You have to own up to YOUR responsibilities for your own body. If you take the risk and it doesn't go as planned you should have thought about that risk before. Are we children that can't think for ourselves?? What your saying is women should have the right to be reckless and irresponsible with the immense repercussions of having sex and getting pregnant primarily because either you want to remain an irresponsible child or you are so shallow that any deviation from your self centered life(owning up to responsibility) is too much to handle so death to the children!

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Your truth applies no further than you. What gives you the right to apply to anyone else? Why don't you apply the same ranting platitudes to the male side of the equation?

Males are responsible for the upbringing and financial / emotional support that goes along with being a parent. I would support laws that would require males to take care of the pregnant female while carrying to term in those events where an accidental pregnancy happens. It's not solely dependant on the female. I'm sorry if you got that impression from my past writings. The primary reason I focused most of my attention on females vs males is because males generally don't have any say from inception all the way to adulthood. Another sexist reality of our society..

iwilliam
I think another issue raised by the case in the OP, is if we are considering abortion legal, why is it the female who has sole, 100% say in the matter?

Sure, I understand it's her body, and she's the one who has to go through it, one way or the other. But 1- It's not only her body, and 2- It's far from only her life.


If that guy didn't want a child-- didn't feel he was ready to raise a child, intellectually, emotionally, or financially, should he be forced? Even if he wants to sign away all rights and have nothing to do with it, the mother will usually still expect her monthly payment-- which is sometimes an insanely large portion of the father's income. Should he have no say in such a matter, as well?


And let's not get into the "he could have chosen to wear a condom" debate. Maybe he did. Most methods of birth control are not 100% effective. And while it takes two to tango (or be irresponsible, as the case may be) that door swings both ways....

So you understand that it's her body and so she has sole rights on any

decisions she arrives at concerning it? Then you go on to say "its not only her body??"


..... But it is, its 'her body' plus a tiny mass of cells ... fit on a salt spoon? far from a 'life'

as we know it, remove it and it will become nothing ... it is only a 'potential' baby

not 'viable' to exist, for aprox 24 weeks even with all the medical knowledge that is

available


Finally you say "If a guy doesn't want the child should he be forced? Even if he wants to

sign away all his rights, the mother will usually still expect her monthly payment ( by

that statement I presume you mean child support?) which is sometimes an insanely

large proportion of the fathers income.

Well that may be true where you live but here in the UK it appears the 'tax payer'

picks up the tab!

reply to post by kaylaluv

Dear kaylaluv,

Thank you very much for sticking around and for feeling free to ask tough questions.

But, here's my question. What if a woman gets pregnant, then finds out she has cancer. With chemotherapy, she has an 80 percent chance of surviving. Without chemo, she has only a 5 percent chance, and will most likely die within 12-18 months. The chemo will most definitely kill the otherwise healthy fetus insider her. Why doesn't the Church say that she should she be forced to go without the chemo and carry the fetus to term, even if it means her almost certain death? Why does the Church think that the woman has more right to life than the fetus?

The Church isn't trying to decide who has the greater right to live, it is trying to make sure that no one takes a life with the intention of taking a life. In the case of chemo, that is the recognized treatment for saving the mother's life. The unintended consequence is the death of the child. They knew the treatment would result in the child's death, but that wasn't the goal they had. The goal was saving the life of the mother.

If it was turned around and they were trying to save the child they would have to say "We will not provide healing treatment to the mother. We know how to save her and have decided to let her die instead." That's a morally ugly position to take in the eyes of the Church (and mine for that matter.)

What if the procedure DOES have the primary intent of killing the unborn child, in order to save the mother? What if the mother has a condition that means her certain death if she tries to carry the baby to term, so the doctor performs an abortion? An abortion is a procedure that has no other intent, other than to kill an unborn fetus.

I don't know how artificial this situation is, not having a medical background. You seem to be asking me to imagine a situation where the mother is endangered solely by the presence of a baby, and the only possible answer is to remove the baby. And in the situation, the mother can't possibly carry to 22 weeks, when a premature delivery couldn't be arranged. Then, I admit, I would have to look elsewhere for advice and counsel. I don't know the answer. But this discussion helped me:

It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans direct abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the preborn baby's life.

The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her preborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.

In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

The principle of the twofold, or double effect, states that it is morally allowable to perform an action that will produce both good and bad effects as long as the following conditions are all met. The example shown is for the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, where the preborn child is developing in the Fallopian tube. If the child continues to grow there, the tube will eventually rupture and will probably cause the death of both the mother and the child.

(1) The object of the action to be performed must be good in itself or at least morally neutral. In this case, the object of the surgery is to remove a pathological organ which presents a threat to the life of the woman.


(2) The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself. In this case, the good effect (saving the mother's life) is not caused by the bad effect (the death of the preborn child).

(3) The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted. In the case of the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, the surgeon does not intend or want to kill the baby; his death is an unintended and unwanted side effect of the surgery.

(4) There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. In this case, the reason is to save the life of the mother, a good that is greater than or equal to the evil effect of the baby's death.

(5) Sometimes a fifth condition is added, implicit in (4), above, namely, that there is no other alternative available to solve the problem at hand. If there are alternatives other than the intervention that offer better possibilities to save both mother and preborn child, these of course must be used.

In fact, this last condition is the one that most clearly distinguishes the "indirect abortion" case (the case under the double effect principle) from the "therapeutic" abortion case. "Therapeutic" abortion is direct abortion, and therefore is always gravely evil. It is the abortion committed with the (supposed) intention of saving the mother's life, but where one or more of the above conditions are not met. Basically, the doctor in this case does have alternatives to save both mother and preborn child, but chooses abortion as the most expedient way to solve the problem at hand.

www.hli.org...

I'm sorry to give you so much to read, but it pretty well answers my questions, and I hope it answers yours.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by eletheia

Dear eletheia,

..... But it is, its 'her body' plus a tiny mass of cells ... fit on a salt spoon? far from a 'life'

If so, how do you account for laws charging people with murder for attacking and killing it? How do you account for women who mourn over the loss of a child when they miscarry? And how do you account for the many, many women who have serious psychological trauma resulting from an abortion and the loss of their child.

From the very first, in my OP, I've been trying to point out that pro-choicers insist that the foetus is not a child, and they insist that it is a child. That's why this can't be discussed logically. At least the pro-lifers say, it's a child and don't waver from that position.

With respect,
Charles1952