The term "Pro-Choice" in the abortion debate refers ONLY to abortion. It does NOT mean a life style, a political party name, what outfit to wear, what to eat for dinner. This is the ABORTION FORUM and abortion issue/debate...not the ""every issue in the world forum"". Think what you will, YOU canNOT change that....
Or, perhaps with some prolifers, like myself, realize that for thousands of years, humans have been capable of only 2 options concerning the unborn. Allow it to develop, or kill it. And since we have never heard from those who were aborted, a debate about their rights being violated never occurred. But we have entered a new era regarding our options with the unborn. Suddenly we can do many more things to the unborn, AND the consequences are going to be evident in live people. Get ready, this debate is about to get much deeper.
Oh I get it, you are saying that these women could have aborted if not....oh wait, abortion is legal. Many prochoicers believe that abortion/contraceptives, if unfettered, should reduce the amount of unwanted babies being born. They are wrong; they actually have the opposite effect. These available"options" can and do influence the the number of sexual encounters because AT THE TIME of sex, people think I got options to avoid the consequences of this act. But in reality, contraceptives arent 100%. Also when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, most women simply won't do it. Even though that option influenced their lifestyle decisions.
LOL, no, abortion and contraceptives do reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If they didn't people wouldn't use them. No, they're not ...that's where abortion comes in.. What won't "most" women not do? Show me your stats on how many is "most". Yup, lots of things influence human's life style choices...
You cannot kill that which is not born. They have no rights because they are not human beings. If you ever want to hold a "deep debate" you need to stop using unprofound and nonsense terms like "the unborn".
How does prohibiting abortion hurt the father? Or is that in the theoretical world you seem to be proposing will result. Christians hate sex because it makes people look away from the Glory of God. Altruists don't hate individuals. Are you agreeing with me? You must forgive me for finding your post unclear.
If you want a debate you must at least respond to my assertion and refute it. No one to date has. Not on this forum or any other. Did those babies in ICUs across the country right now have a right to not be born addicted? They are suffering right now; that's a fact. It's also a fact that their suffering is not from natural or environmental causes. A human caused their significant physical pain, for weeks. Normally humans are held to account for inflicting harm on other humans, especially the kind that involves weeks in the ICU. But I'm guessing from your"not a person" argument that you believe tough cookies for those children. And I'm not talking solely about their ability to seek legal redress. According to the "not a person" argument, anyone who blames the mother who inflicted this pain is actually morally wrong for thinking that way, as under this theory she did nothing wrong. So go ahead and refute my argument: I posit that humans have rights before they are born considering the FACT that they can be harmed, physically and mentally, before birth by the actions of other humans. What say you?
2 Comments. First, I find it interesting that you are against abortion but seem to be O.K. w/ Plan B. That must be an unusual combination. You know that Plan B, even after fertilization has occurred, can abort a pregnancy? So I'm curious as to WHERE you draw the line, and WHY you decided that is the appropriate place. My second comment has to do with what appears to be an additional option on the horizon, which you don't mention: MALE birth control pills. https://utswmed.org/medblog/pill-guys-male-birth-control-option-passes-safety-tests/ One just passed the first phase of clinical trials. Like the female pill, this pill alters a man's hormone levels. The claim is that it can lower your sperm count (as well as your testosterone level-- I don't know why that is necessary) w/o causing, "low T," testosterone deficiency. Would you be so un-chauvinistic as to advocate some SHARED responsibility for both partners, as far as financial obligations, for example, as well as for birth control: condoms + pills for men? Or, since women are the sex that carries the fetus to term, do you feel it's all on them (all their responsibility, i.e., their tough luck)?
Human ones. Again no answer. Can a human being be harmed by another human being while in the womb? What other situation can you think of in which a human can harm another human, and not be held to account both morally and legally?
That's rather broad....do you want a fetus to have the right to use another's body to sustain their life? NO one else has that right. Do you want fetuses to have the right to harm another without their consent? NO one else has that right. A fetus can, and does, harm the women it's in but it isn't A (noun) human being. YOU seem to want the fetus to be able to """ harm another human, and not be held to account both morally and legally""""
How does it not? It forces him into parenthood. If his partner is pregnant and they are not ready to be parents, restrictions on abortion hurt them both, but mostly the child. Christians are altruists and oppose abortion on strictly altruistic grounds - The woman ought to sacrifice her life and happiness for that which is not even human. I agree with you on what the legality of abortion should be. I do not agree with your premises.
That is an absolutely ridiculous premise. Does the child I have not yet even created have rights? Are you really saying nothingness has rights? Rights only apply to actual human beings. They do not apply to the potential and it is a big, big mistake to confuse the potential for an actual and suggesting the latter sacrifices their life for the previous. A fetus has neither agency nor judgement. It is not developed enough to be called a human and can thus not have any rights. It lives inside and of an actual human being and is de facto part of her body until the cord is cut. A fetus is not carried around outside a woman's body like a dog with the umbillical cord as a leash. It is pathetic to suggest that it is a human being of are life that is granted rights. So can animals, skin cells and cancer. I do not see what point you are trying to make.
Draft, conscription, public schooling, COVID-lockdowns and other kinds of insanities the human beings in government impose on other human beings.
First, if a Plan B pill is popped immediately after a rape event (and presumably possible conception), then that is pretty much going to be the earliest on possible. That would be if she pops a Plan B pill before she can be sure whether or not she is really pregnant. Yes, it is true that Plan B could potentially be used to abort a fetus later, but in that case we would most likely not be talking about a rape event. I'm not necessarily saying I overall approve of Plan B, and if the legality of abortion were rolled way back there'd probably have to be more restrictions placed on Plan B. But as long as abortion is still legal up to 12 weeks, the availability of Plan B is kind of a moot point. (Currently pro-choicers are battling to roll back abortions to only 15 weeks) So in the extremely hypothetical scenario that abortion were made mostly illegal, a woman would only be given a Plan B if nothing could be seen growing inside her. Which would be the case up to a week or two after conception.
But no form of birth control pill is 100% effective. Isn't that what pro-choicers keep saying? The issue of male ethical obligation to take birth controls is a separate issue, but when it comes to legal matters, the fact that the woman gave birth would not be proof that the man did not use birth control pills. Men are held responsible. If the woman chooses to give life and keep the baby, it's called child support. I would be willing to state for the record that men certainly do, at the very very least, have a moral obligation to use birth control if they are going to be coercing their woman to get an abortion if she gets pregnant. For that to happen, the man would still be in the wrong, but he'd be even more in the wrong for not having previously used birth control.
Well this, "extremely hypothetical scenario," is what your OP seems to be advocating; I'm just fleshing out where you draw the line on life. As for Plan B, which you initially listed along w/ oral contraceptives, IUD's, etc, as womens' options, and encouraging that gender to double- or triple-up on, to reduce their risk of pregnancy to as low as possible: I believe, to be effective, it is supposed to be used w/in 72 hrs (3 days) of the sexual intercourse at issue (there was no mention of this option only being acceptable in cases of rape; is that how you are now amending your meaning?). Obviously, unless you are also suggesting drive-through sonogram centers, there would be serious problems w/ requiring the verification of, "nothing (seen to be) growing inside her." Besides, at that earliest stage, I don't think the zygote is visible. So is that your criteria for determining when it is acceptable to terminate a potential pregnancy? Is this going to be another kazenatsu thread where your assertions are always in flux, & it's a guessing game for other posters as to what your overall position is?
The line would be determined by practical pragmatic considerations in this case, not idealism. Because there's no way to know if she was really raped or not. Huh? What are you talking about? She'll get a medical examination when she makes the rape report.
I did not intend at all to make my position ambiguous. Maybe I just decided not to express my position on all issues in some of these threads. But if I do express a position on a specific issue, I don't intend to make it ambiguous. I'm not sure what you don't understand or how to better explain. Maybe if you ask yes/no questions it might be easier to give you an answer. Or maybe you could ask just two or three more specific questions.
As I said, practical pragmatic considerations, not ideology. A time table that still allows a rape victim to have the contents of her uterus flushed out just in case, while making it unlikely other women who were not actually raped could practically use this as a loophole. Obviously women who are just having recreational sex are not just going to continually flush out their uterus after each intercourse, when they cannot be sure if they are pregnant or not.
All right, I'm not doing this for a 3rd thread of yours. Above, is what you initially posted about Plan B, on pg 1, post #3. NOTHING THERE about RAPE! So I commented on the oddity of seeing someone who was against abortion but seemed OK w/ Plan B, since (though it is only for use at a very early stage) it can result in terminating a pregnancy. Maybe you were unaware of this at the time, or maybe you just post things w/o thinking much about their consistency w/ arguments you've already made or may later want to make. But your responses are now acting as if you never posted what is above, but have always limited Plan B to cases of rape-- but you haven't! Now, your answers, on this page: And the extremely disconnected way you put together post #294: DEFinning said: ↑ (there was no mention of this option only being acceptable in cases of rape; is that how you are now amending your meaning?) DEFinning said: ↑ Obviously, unless you are also suggesting drive-through sonogram centers, there would be serious problems w/ requiring the verification of, "nothing (seen to be) growing inside her." "What (I'm) talking about," is what YOU originally suggested-- the use of Plan B as birth control, when a condom breaks. SO, ARE YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR MIND? Are you disavowing your words from POST #3 (above)? Because if you're just going to pretend you never said it, I'm not wasting my time with this.
Why? You seldom answer those " inconvenient" questions. You have never answered why you think women are under an obligation to give birth...12 pages later...
NO, I'm telling it to the one who needs it: FoxHastings said: ↑ The term "Pro-Choice" in the abortion debate refers ONLY to abortion. It does NOT mean a life style, a political party name, what outfit to wear, what to eat for dinner. This is the ABORTION FORUM and abortion issue/debate...not the ""every issue in the world forum"". Think what you will, YOU canNOT change that....
He was just pointing out inconsistencies in the type of logic used to argue your position. It's fine if you want to be "pro-choice" for one issue and one issue only, but it's a bit intellectually disingenuous to use arguments to support one type of issue but not another. Or to say that you believe in "choice" or a person having absolute rights over their body.
