Abortion is "the same as killing a child"???

I never have and never will question why a woman gets pregnant, that is HER decision and HER responsibility.

I never suggested any punishment for anyone. Just accept what YOU have chosen to do AND its consequences i.e. if you get pregnant, it is YOUR responsibility for the minor life of that child, IF you don't kill the child first.

And I also said I never exempted the father from his responsibility, if he abandons her, that should teach her something about HER ability to choose.

About her owing that child if she doesn't have it, I'll let God make that call when the time comes.

And how is it punishing someone for what they freely chose to do? Go to school and get some logic.

 

Why not just simply educate kids early to what consequences their choices have as well as make a Pregnancy IMPOSSIBLE if someone has unprotected sex by using Plan B and Morning After?

No pregnancy....no abortion possibility.

AboveAlpha

 

Then it is not equal rights you want for the fetus it is superior rights.

Then the action of the fertilized ovum attaching itself to the woman's uterine wall and forcing a connection cannot be implied consent from sexual intercourse, and of the woman objects to the fertilized ovum doing those things she has not given consent and can remove the object causing her injury.

So again there can be no objection to a woman revoking implied consent to the zef, and as such she has every right to remove it from her body.

 

No, Sam...explain your PREVIOUS comments on this thread where you claim a woman is still a person with rights when she becomes pregnant....

when you just said you want her to LOSE her rights to "another person" a fetus.

What do we call people who are forced to give up their rights to be the servant of others???

 

BTW, as I noted to Sam...look at the Orwell "Animal Farm" position the "pro-lifers" take on personal rights when it comes to women or fetuses....

i.e. to paraphrase- "All people are equal, but some people are MORE EQUAL than others."

 

You said "Why not just simply educate kids early to what consequences their choices have as well as make a Pregnancy IMPOSSIBLE if someone has unprotected sex by using Plan B and Morning After?
No pregnancy....no abortion possibility." I thought this has always been taught, but I know some religions consider the morning after as murder.

 

She only has the responsibility that she feels is warranted, you may not agree with her decision to have an abortion but you cannot force your desires and opinions onto her and that is what pro-lifers are trying to do .. force what they consider to be right by weight of law onto others who may not share their views.

It may very well have been the "right thing" for you, but why is the assumption made that just because you or others make the choice to do what is "right" in your estimation it should be the same for someone else who does not share your assumptions.

then you are a minority as far as pro-lifers are concerned, we even have one or two here who would support the death penalty for a woman convicted of procuring and illegal abortion.

Responsibility is not the same as punishment on that I agree .. what responsibility is-is a personal viewpoint on how each person decides what choices they make.

she only owes her 'child' what she decides, nothing more, nothing less.

1, Neither may it be her fault as well.

2. Should be 100% illegal to fire a woman for becoming pregnant, that is discrimination based on gender.

3. Again it may not be her fault, and given that the risk of pregnancy is quite low (around 25% for a single act of unprotected sexual intercourse) why would she think of the consequences, hell you take a bigger risk when you get into a car (30% risk of an accident), do you think about that when you drive off.

 

In reality it is not taught in a number of States -

Here is a comprehensive list of the individual states Sex Education laws.

http://www.teen-aid.org/State_Resourses/State_Sex_Education_Laws.htm

It is interesting to note that of the top ten states with the highest teenage pregnancies and births, seven have abstinence only sex education laws.

http://www.livescience.com/27417-teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state.html

 

My home state of Iowa did fairly well statistically, but let me ask you what you mean by "abstinence only" sex- education laws. Does this mean that those states do not offer for sale ANY birth control measures? Or does it mean that only abstinence is taught in the schools, and not birth control? Either way, I believe kids can be taught any way the government wants, but kids are still kids and pregnancies will still exist, regardless of what is being taught. You can't teach-away human nature.

 

"""You can't teach away human nature""""


EXACTLY!


You're learning! Humans WILL have sex, it's human nature. And they will not always think ahead to pregnancy because they are HUMAN.

That's why abortion has been around for just about forever and will continue to be...human nature will NOT and has not changed.

 

I do not know what USA you are living in the but Father absolutely is made responsible to support the child in our society, more so than the mother IMO.

I agree that people should take responsibility for their actions. If there is an accidental pregnancy the responsible thing to do in many cases (like young kids or just people who do not want kids) is to have an abortion.

That a child exists in the early stages of pregnancy is an assumption on your part.

My issue with this assumption is that the anti abortion movement can give explain why the single cell at conception is a child.

Perhaps you have some evidence that proves or explains why a zygote is a child. If so I look forward to hearing it. If not then you should not be making such claims.

 

If the father is the one who carries the child to term, and then delivers that child through childbirth, I say that PROVES the mother to be MORE responsible than the other. Any guy can impregnate a woman and walk away. How is that showing responsibility? Only if he acts according to the norms of our society does he then begin to accept some of the responsibility, but nothing like the mother does all the way from conception through childbirth. Then IF the man has accepted his share of the responsibility, he can begin to shoulder some of the load. All in all, with a life-time of his efforts, his responsibility can total the amount equal to that of the mother.

If a child occurs accidentally, you say an abortion is the responsible thing to do. I say hogwash, it is the chickening-out thing to do. It is avoiding the entire situation by murdering a beating heart.

That a child exists in the early stages of pregnancy is no assumption. If it has a beating heart, it IS a person. I am not suggesting that this happens at the exact moment of conception, that may very well be, but I cannot prove that. I still say that once a heartbeat can be detected, abortion is murder. After all, death is defined as the absence of a heartbeat. You are the one who mentioned zygote, I never claimed a zygote has a beating heart.

 

So you think women should be forced to give birth so YOU won't think they're "chicken"...LOLOLOL!!!!

You think women should be forced to give birth to children they do NOT want.. is that really good for that kid you're so concerned about ?

You want woman forced to give birth because YOU got caught and want everyone else to suffer your fate.


And all that gobbledeegoop about men giving birth is just baloney...men shouldn't have anything to do with abortion, they will never be pregnant.

 

I never said anyone should be forced to do anything. Isn't it logical that a woman who knowingly has sex with zero protection and gets pregnant actually had the responsibility to consider that possibility before she had the sex? And I am not absolving the man in that case either.

And no sane woman who refuses to give birth can offer any reasonable excuse other than a medical reason. Call it chicken, gutless, ignorance, egotistic, or whatever, she is guilty. Sure she CAN murder the child, but SHE is the one who has to live with that for the rest of her life, and then justify her actions to her Creator.

Men DO have something to say about abortion. Let's see two women involved in a relationship create a pregnancy by themselves, with the child having THEIR mixed DNA. Not going to happen. Every pregnancy has to have a father, thus giving the father a say-so about an abortion of that child.

 

I can only assume you're responding to my post since you haven't learned the quote feature.

No, men don't have any say in it unless the woman asks for their opinion. Men do not get pregnant. When HE has to carry it for 9 months and undergo all the pain and expense that a woman has to endure ONLY then does he have any right to say anythng.

 

The answer to both is Yes I would try to stop her in both cases.
Scenarios are very different, but the result is the same.

 

After reading more up on the subject of abortion I've been seeing the irrationality in the hardliners on the pro-life side - ex. those who believe an egg is suddenly a person one second after it's fertilized, despite having no brain or anything necessary to be considered sentient (by either human or animal standards).

I think a much better argument for when life begins is when the fetus develops a brain and has its own consciousness - at that point it'd meet the same criteria by which we distinguish human and animal life, from say plant life (ex. while plants are a form of life at the most basic biological definition - they aren't considered "alive" like a dog, a cow, or a person would be due to having no brain or awareness). The "life begins at conception" argument is more of a moralistic one - to me it doesn't have any more meaning now than PETA equating killing a cow with 'murder', it's not something you can "disprove" since it's not based on biology to begin with - just "ethics".

I think the pro-life side needs to drop the "conception" stance, and focus on coming up with a real, science-supported stance for when human life begins.

 

There was a time when I was pro-choice. then I went hard the other way. Now I am somewhere in the middle, where abortion in most cases should not be legal. Danger to the mother/fetus or if the fetus is already dead are exceptions I am pretty firm on. Those are cases, where 1 life is better then two(woman's decision if she chooses her, the fetus or both) and obviously a dead fetus is not gonna be born alive. The one where I've been back and forth on is the rape/incest exception. It's about choice with me in that she had choice in consenting sex, and did not in rape/incest.
I also see the pro-choice argument of well what did the fetus have to do with it. why punish something that had nothing to do with it. Makes me question if I should even support that as an exception. I tried explaining it one time where I said I fully support not allowing abortions, except danger to mother/fetus, or fetus dead. I do not support, but can accept an exception for rape/incest. I really can't even give a full effort argument for the exception.
Some say well what if a 10 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant? Should she be forced to have the baby? Maybe an age exception can be made too, because younger women/girls are more at risk for serious complications then a fully developed adult. I'd say that age can be set at the legal age of adult (16-1 That decision would be a joint between the girl and her parents on whether she keeps the baby or terminates. Just something else to think about. But it always goes back to the fetus had nothing to do with it.

 

That is at least internally logically consistent. When does life begin? When the vital sign whose expiration signals death, begins.

The op's rationale was just silly, as I had stated. "What you're saying is essentially that either there is no difference between a five year old and a twenty year old, or it's okay to kill one of them. ^_- There is no internal logical consistency to your silly points."

 

The man should always have the right to say something. It is not just the woman's life who gets affected. The man's is too. The families of the man and woman are affected as well.That is his offspring as much as it is hers.
Go head say who cares? Everyone cares that's who, except maybe you, who just wants to say who cares to everything

 

When HE has to carry it for 9 months and undergo all the pain and expense that a woman has to endure ONLY then does he have any right to say anythng.
I'll change that to "he has a right to say anything and the woman has a right to ignore it""....HE isn't the one who is pregnant. Their families can also voice an opinion and the woman has every right to ignore them, THEY are NOT pregnant.



And you might say , "waahhhh, that's unfair!"


But I can say with confidence that most of the men in this world would NOT want to change and become a woman.

 

Not only unfair, but unjust. Taking the father out of the equation simply because he can not get pregnant is a poor argument and one that I never have and never will support. in fact it is one that when given the opportunity I will fight at every corner. The man/father should always have a say an equal say. It is his offspring too. Or do you not care about the rights of men?
I can say with confidence that most women don't want to be men either

 

When you've carried one yourself and popped it out, then you'd be qualified to comment on how painful it is (but I'm assuming you haven't, had you?)

I've probably taken sh*ts that hurt more than popping out a damn baby

 

So you believe that if the man tells the woman she has to have an abortion you think that's OK....

I don't think it is.

- - - Updated - - -

How would know? Have YOU had a baby? If not then you don't know.

But it's pretty well accepted that women go through discomfort, pain, and medical expense due to pregnancy....but you can deny that if it makes you feel better...