The thing that bothers me about people on both sides of the abortion debate is that both are convinced their side is 100% right. Neither side acknowledges the fact that there really is no easy answer to the abortion question. Pro choicers say the abortion question is a nobrainer because (1) a fetus isn't lhuman ife because it isn't sentient, and (2) even if it were human life, it doesn't feel pain, and (3) women should get to choose what happens with their bodies. But (1) who is to say that only sentient life is human life, (2) I'm usually not skeptical of science, but the scientific consesus at one time was that lethal injection is painless, and (3) why should the woman's right trump the right of the child to live? Prolifers on the other hand say abortion is a no brainer because (1) god loves all human life, scientient or otherwise, and (2) women should take responsibility for being promiscuous. But (1) why does god only love human life at the exclusion of other forms of life, such as the cows that are slaughtered daily to feed you, and (2) women can't cause pregnancy by themselves, so it's disingenuous to say they need to take resposibility when that involves a much bigger commitment on their part. I am sure that prochicers and prolifers make other arguments all the time. This isn't intended to be a comprehensive list. I'm just trying to start a conversation about why there aren't any obvious answers to the abortion question. I think if we all accepted that fact, it would be a far less divisive issue.
Its very simple, if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death
Because it all boils down to what one believes. Everyone at an individual level has their own interpretation, but much of it is dictated by the circumstances one finds themselves in when having to answer that question. It is because of this it should be a private decision, but some people's "faith" isn't complete unless they have a witch to burn.
Can you name any other issue in which half of the people that will NEVER personally face that decision get to tell the other half what they can and can't do with their own body? Since you can't (because it doesn't exist), are you willing to relinquish YOUR body autonomy because somebody else is having a fit about what is best FOR YOUR LIFE?
~ Today we know much more about the development of human life. We can even do image scanning to visualize a growing fetus. This may have changed some minds. I personally like the "Heartbeat Law ". I believe it brings rational fairness to both sides. ~ This is actually not about " My body - my choice. " It does not focus on the woman's body — it's about the other human life inside her.
And then there is my stance I worked many years in Critical Care Maternity in a Catholic hospital. We saw more than our fair share of pregnant women diagnosed with cancer. It depends on the cancer of course but even in a Catholic Hospital we left it to the woman to decide. Some terminated so they could start treatment and maybe try again later, some bravely held off until it was safe for the baby before starting treatment and some elected to put the baby above their own lives and they were the most heart breaking as we supported them in the final days. One that will always stay with me was a woman with terminal cancer who was admitted to ICU as she was too fragile for a routine caesarean and medical staff wanted to give her and the baby the longest time they could. She had lost the power of speech. Post op we weaned her from the ventilator and I organised for a special wheelchair she could lie in and took her to see her baby. The entire family was able to gather around and take photos with her and her tiny wee one that had been delivered very premature. They even put the baby, complete with breathing tubing, into her arms. She died not a week later and I found out that she never got another chance to see her baby before she passed. No one forced her one way or another. It was her choice just as it was the choice for those women who looked at their living children and decided that they could leave their children and had to take the best chance at life even if that meant that the pregnancy was terminated. How CAN anyone else make those decisions but the woman involved?
Boys should have a vasectomy when puberty hits. When they want to have a baby, they go to court with the woman they want to impregnate, to get approval to have it reversed. Zero unwanted pregnancies, A woman can sleep with 100 men in a year. Max babies as a result? One A man doing the same thing with women can produce 100 babies in a year. Let’s tackle this issue at the source.
Better yet put sperm into a bank and then when they can prove they can afford to support children they can “apply for a withdrawal”
~ That's actually not a bad idea. In fact I tell people we humans should do the same thing we do with our kitty cats — "Spay and neuter to help control the people population " My front yard sign Inside the house
One of my undergraduate degrees is in math. People struggle with math. A LOT of people struggle with math. /smdh
You'll never tackle it with legislation. People have to control their own passions, and that requires a revival of morality.
Of course not. Men would laugh at the thought that government should control a man's body. Unthinkable.
I think you don't understand my position. Government can't solve the issue of abortion by legislating control of the bodies of men or women.
You didn't factor in "male privilege". The female is ALWAYS responsible and at fault. So, your equation should have been... 1 man impregnating 1 female per day = 365+ babies that need food, clothing and shelter. 365 (plus extras for multiple birth) = generational poverty and public assistance. Men move, get paid under the table in cash while the rest of us support his spawn. Women are lazy deadbeats that don't know how to keep their legs closed. Men are heroes and celebrated every day just for having a penis.
Right, but many feel they should be able to control a woman's body while finding the concept of controlling a male body, abhorrent.
You're probably right. I don't feel the government should try to legislate sexual behavior issues. I make a moral argument, not a legal argument. There are options other than abortion to deal with unwanted babies in ways other then killing them. Such as Infant Safe Haven laws.
I’ll take that deal. But as we all know vasectomy’s aren’t 100%. So in order to combat the little sperms that do get through, we must insist that the women have their tubes tied when puberty hits. They can get them untied when a man decides to have a baby with them. If they do of course. Deal? I have a feeling there’s going to be a lot of pissed off women who want babies that no man will be interested in legally impregnating lol. But I’m down lol ******n the black population rate will drop to almost nothing lol
Deal but we have full control over our sperm and no woman can have a pregnancy unless a man says so. Deal?
Sorry but vasectomies aren’t 100%?? How incompetent are your medical staff? https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/contraception-vasectomy As long as the guy ties a knot in it for the first three months there should be no further problems. And again let us look at Colorados success with LARCs get rid of the root of the problem - unwanted pregnancy - and you cure the problem itself
Sounds good to me - now all you have to do is convince your fellow male Americans to undergo sterilisation
