Ahhh, but you do. You claim that the embryo is unwanted, and thus the pregnant female has ownership to the point of deciding on its destruction. Either the fetus has rights, or it doesn't. Simply, the perspective in the debate about abortion which supports termination of a fetus. By whom makes such a decision does not matter. Should a doctor make the decision to terminate to save a mother, if she is not in a state to make such a decision, are you claiming that it wasn't a pro-choice action? Good question. In my opinion, the women should bring the baby to term and then sign off all rights and responsibilities to the father. Who is the women to deny the father his offspring?
Call it what you want. When the fetus is removed from the women's body, its a baby. Since you turn to definitions regarding pro-choice, lets do the same here: ba·by ˈbābē noun 1. a very young child, especially one newly or recently born. Regardless... that fetus is developing into a baby. Acting as though terminating a fetus is acceptable, but a baby would not be is twisting rationals to attempt to validate your pro-choice agenda.
HER reproduction? If its hers, and hers exclusively, is she Mother Mary of God? Immaculate conception? No. She allowed somebody else to have a vested interest in her reproductive system when she decided to sleep with the guy. If she didn't want to give the guy some say in the action to take with HIS children, she should have kept her legs closed.
She has ownership of her uterus and her body. Or does she? Either she has rights, or she doesn't. Who is the man to expect or demand that she risk her health and life and permanently damage her body in pregnancy and childbirth...because he provided the sperm?
Oh please, all you can come up with is the ridiculous SHE should've kept her legs closed ? So how has THAT worked for the last 10,000 years? Not too well but the ignorant haven't noticed. Having sex with a woman does NOT give the man the right to force her to have a baby or an abortion....so he can "say" all he wants but it really means nothing(as it should)
She voluntarily gave up her right to her uterus to the fetus when engaging in sex. Or did she not know that was a repercussion of sexual intercourse? If the mother is at risk, or there are complications which could result in an unhealthy condition for the mother, then yes I believe she has the option to determine to terminate the pregnancy. However; this idea that ALL pregnancy is unhealthy, and thus mothers should be able to use abortion as a means of birth control or as a method of alleviating their (and the fathers) responsibility.... that I don't agree with.
There you go, now you get it .. and while it is INSIDE the woman's body it is NOT a baby. How about you provide the link to where that definition comes from .. is it a standard dictionary or a medical dictionary? Not acting at all or twisting anything, a baby is born, a fetus is not, simple medical fact . .do you disagree with that medical fact?
The fact remains they are not HIS children, he cannot own another person any more than a woman can or any other person for that matter.
Many people don't consent to a heart attack by eating a cheeseburger everyday either. That doesn't mean that they get to dismiss the repercussions of their decisions. By having sex, she most certainly DID consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. Don't want to get pregnant, or worse; refuse to share the responsibility and decisions regarding a pregnancy with the father, then don't have sex. Its really simple. And prevents murder. Nope, I came up with a thing called personal responsibility. Something clearly you have no respect for. If the women doesn't want to share the decision to terminate with her partner should she become pregnant, then she shouldn't have sex with the man. Lets try another question FoxHastings. Lets assume that a women WANTS a baby, and tells the man that she is on birth control in order to have sex and intentionally get pregnant. Should she get pregnant and keep the baby, do you think the father should have responsibility to raise the child? You mean babies being born hasn't worked? Hmmm... evolution and non-extinct humans disagree. I feel sorry for any men that decide to sleep with you. - - - Updated - - - Force to give birth, or force not to murder his child? I suppose its HOW you view the question and the answer.
A fetus is human life. In normal and optimal conditions, that fetus will develop into a baby. Termination of EITHER, in my opinion, is wrong. Like I said, I am pro-choice. My position is not to PREVENT women from terminating pregnancy. The point of my entire post in is regards to paternal rights.
Absolute BS .. in case you didn't know the act of sexual intercourse does not create a pregnancy, that can only be achieved when a fertilized ovum implants into the uterine wall. Not a repercussion only a risk and a very low risk at that - less than 9% - and with the person at conception that pro-lifers seem to want the moment that fertilization takes place there is a unique, separate person and as such it MUST gain individual, separate consent to implant. Consent cannot be transferred between people unless the person who gave the original consent agrees. Consent to sex is a single consent given to a person (the man) for a single act (sexual intercourse) this cannot be used as proxy consent for another person (zef) for a separate action (implantation). Like all pro-lifers you want the protections associated with personhood but wilfully ignore the restrictions of that status, so in fact what pro-lifers really want is for the zef to be a super-person having rights that no other person has. Even implied consent does not work, implied consent is only valid for as long as the person accepts the actions being done to them, the moment they, through word or action, say no, implied consent is moot. All pregnancies have risks, the point is whether the woman consents to accepting those risks. If she continues the pregnancy to birth then she has consented to the risks and injuries pregnancy carries, if she seeks an abortion she is not consenting to those risks and injuries . .that is exactly the same right that you or any other person has. Medically ALL pregnancies are unhealthy, from the suppression of the local immune system to the damage caused through the birthing process, for anyone to say that pregnancy is not unhealthy to the woman just shows the lack of understanding of what pregnancy does to the female body.
Your personal attack about me and having sex is noted as you having NO argument or facts , and are getting desperate
Nice logic. You are all about semantics and illogical rationalizations. Fine. Are you claiming that the women didn't know about the risk of pregnancy when engaging in sexual intercourse? You are correct. In my mind, life starts at conception. Speak platitudes about consent all you want. When a women engages in sexual intercourse, KNOWING THE RISK, she then consents to the possibility of becoming pregnant and creating a life. If she doesn't want the risk, she shouldn't have sex. Using this type of illogical rationalization (something you are very good at), we can conclude that life in general is unhealthy as the outcome is always death.
If that medical assistance or procedure includes killing somebody else for their heart to make him better... then no. The operative here is the fact that to offset a decision, life has to be taken away. Nope, consent to eat cheeseburgers everyday is NOT consent to a heart attack. So.. if that happens, the person should be able to kill the next closest person with the same blood type to save their life and offset responsibility for their decisions. See how silly that sounds? Since humanity began, life was precious and sacred... even if the act of creating such life was simply sexual desire. Only recently have we decided that ending life to offset the personal repercussions of pregnancy to be acceptable. But you go on with your revisionist history. LOL... I have to stop here. The feminist hypocrisy is just too much. If the women and man engage in sexual intercourse without the desire to have a baby, and they get pregnant, the women has sole ability to terminate without paternal consent. If the women engages in sex intentionally to get pregnant without the man's consent, he is on the hook. If a man engages in sex intentionally to get the women pregnant, she has freedom to terminate at will without paternal consent. Good lord, why do you hate men? Ok fine, then the other option is... be responsible for your actions. I expect the same from men.
They don't get pregnant. She does. Men don't get pregnant. He should insist on using a condom with spermicidal jelly. He has no other choice, apart from abstinence. Without anyone's consent. Her body, her choice. I don't think He does. Absolutely!
Nooo, I think you just made that up. So are STDs. Is a woman allowed to get treatment for those, or must she suffer those repercussions, too? The woman is always at risk in a pregnancy. I didn't say that pregnancy is unhealthy, but all pregnancies ARE a risk to the woman, and require months of recovery time. Even then she will never be physically the same. That is not the reason women get abortions, but it's the reason no one can force her to give birth. If you believe in personal responsibility, then leave the woman to be responsible for her own personal medical decisions. It isn't your responsibility, nor is it the state's.
Sure she can have treatment. Just like she can be treated for pregnancy. She may not however, kill somebody else to offset her STD. MOD EDIT - Rule 3
Well, other posters have spanked you properly(even if you can't comprehend it) so I'll stick to the extremely ignorant statement : "Since humanity began, life was precious and sacred... even if the act of creating such life was simply sexual desire. Only recently have we decided that ending life to offset the personal repercussions of pregnancy to be acceptable. But you go on with your revisionist history." NO, life has never been precious nor sacred if another person didn't value it. And, no, it isn't "only recently" that humans have wanted to end pregnancy.....your total lack of historical knowledge gives you no ammunition to state that or argue that point. Try doing a little research...you MAY learn something... And your vile but revealing , "a disgusting and ugly selfish move by the whore of a mother" tells all about you and the FACT that for Anti-Choicers it is ALL about punishing those Bad Women for having sex.........without YOU
Nice to see you focusing on me in this entire post, rather than the topic. I suppose you are out of illogical perspectives. Societies all over the world have written evidence of laws that forbid abortion, with fines, penalties, and even death. Even today, the largest groups of the Christian religion forbid the act. Like most things liberal, supporters would have us believe that their perspective is in the majority and reinforced with history. That simply isn't the case. In fact this topic has been debated, legislated, and highly emotional for thousands of years. Regardless, I am of the belief that all life is sacred. Termination to save the mother or even convenience because of the incapacity of the mother to support and raise the child I actually support (mostly because liberals would have us believe that if we don't support abortion, then we are responsible for the offspring once again alleviating personal responsibility). Have a great day.
YOU got personal first in your infantile attempt at insults which showed your desperation in attempting an argument with no facts.
Here's a start from Wiki: The written evidence of abortion reflects the interests of class and caste. Fines are listed in the Code of Hammurabi, ca. 1760 BCE, for the crime of causing a miscarriage through assault, with the amount varying according to the social rank of the woman.[3][4] The Vedic and smrti laws of India reflect a concern with preserving the male seed of the three upper castes; and the religious courts imposed various penances for the woman or excommunication for a priest who provided an abortion.[5] The only evidence of the death penalty being mandated for abortion in the ancient laws is found in Assyrian Law, in the Code of Assura, c. 1075 BCE;[6] and this is only imposed on a woman who procures an abortion against her husband's wishes. The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE.[7] Many of the methods employed in early and primitive cultures were non-surgical. Physical activities like strenuous labor, climbing, paddling, weightlifting, or diving were a common technique. Others included the use of irritant leaves, fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen, and lying on a heated coconut shell.[8] In primitive cultures, techniques developed through observation, adaptation of obstetrical methods, and transculturation.[9] Physical means of inducing abortion, including battery, exercise, and tightening the girdle were still often used as late as the Early Modern Period among English women.[10] Archaeological discoveries indicate early surgical attempts at the extraction of a fetus; however, such methods are not believed to have been common, given the infrequency with which they are mentioned in ancient medical texts.[11] An 8th-century Sanskrit text instructs women wishing to induce an abortion to sit over a pot of steam or stewed onions.[12] The technique of massage abortion, involving the application of pressure to the pregnant abdomen, has been practiced in Southeast Asia for centuries. One of the bas reliefs decorating the temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, dated c. 1150, depicts a demon performing such an abortion upon a woman who has been sent to the underworld.[7] Japanese documents show records of induced abortion from as early as the 12th century. It became much more prevalent during the Edo period, especially among the peasant class, who were hit hardest by the recurrent famines and high taxation of the age.[13] Statues of the Boddhisattva Jizo, erected in memory of an abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, or young childhood death, began appearing at least as early as 1710 at a temple in Yokohama (see religion and abortion).[14] Māori, who lived in New Zealand before and at the time of colonisation, terminated pregnancies via miscarriage-inducing drugs, ceremonial methods, and girding of the abdomen with a restrictive belt.[15] Another source claims that the Māori people did not practice abortion, for fear of Makutu, but did attempt abortion through the artificial induction of premature labor.[16] Greco-Roman world[edit] Cyrenian coin with an image of silphium, an abortifacient. Much of what is known about the methods and practice of abortion in Greek and Roman history comes from early classical texts. Abortion, as a gynecological procedure, was primarily the province of women who were either midwives or well-informed laypeople. In his Theaetetus, Plato mentions a midwife's ability to induce abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.[17][18] It is thought unlikely that abortion was punished in Ancient Greece.[19] However, a fragment attributed to the poet Lysias "suggests that abortion was a crime in Athens against the husband, if his wife was pregnant when he died, since his unborn child could have claimed the estate."[20] The ancient Greeks relied upon the herb silphium as an abortifacient and contraceptive. The plant, as the chief export of Cyrene, was driven to extinction, but it is suggested that it might have possessed the same abortive properties as some of its closest extant relatives in the Apiaceae family. Silphium was so central to the Cyrenian economy that most of its coins were embossed with an image of the plant.[21] Pliny the Elder cited the refined oil of common rue as a potent abortifacient. Serenus Sammonicus wrote of a concoction which consisted of rue, egg, and dill. Soranus, Dioscorides, Oribasius also detailed this application of the plant. Modern scientific studies have confirmed that rue indeed contains three abortive compounds.[22] Birthwort, an herb used to ease childbirth, was also used to induce abortion. Galen included it in a potion formula in de Antidotis, while Dioscorides said it could be administered by mouth, or in the form of a vaginal pessary also containing pepper and myrrh.[23] The Greek playwright Aristophanes noted the abortifacient property of pennyroyal in 421 BC, through a humorous reference in his comedy, Peace.[24] Hippocrates, the Greek physician, would advise prostitutes who became pregnant to jump up and down, touching her buttocks with her heels at each leap, so as to induce miscarriage.[25] Other writings attributed to him describe instruments fashioned to dilate the cervix and curette inside of the uterus.[26] Soranus, a 2nd-century Greek physician, prescribed diuretics, emmenagogues, enemas, fasting, and bloodletting as safe abortion methods, although he advised against the use of sharp instruments to induce miscarriage, due to the risk of organ perforation. He also advised women wishing to abort their pregnancies to engage in energetic walking, carrying heavy objects, riding animals, and jumping so that the woman's heels were to touch her buttocks with each jump, which he described as the "Lacedaemonian Leap."[25][27] He also offered a number of recipes for herbal bathes, rubs, and pessaries.[25] In De Materia Medica Libri Quinque, the Greek pharmacologist Dioscorides listed the ingredients of a draught called "abortion wine"– hellebore, squirting cucumber, and scammony– but failed to provide the precise manner in which it was to be prepared.[28] Hellebore, in particular, is known to be abortifacient.[29] Tertullian, a 2nd- and 3rd-century Christian theologian, described surgical implements which were used in a procedure similar to the modern dilation and evacuation. One tool had a "nicely-adjusted flexible frame" used for dilation, an "annular blade" used to curette, and a "blunted or covered hook" used for extraction. The other was a "copper needle or spike." He attributed ownership of such items to Hippocrates, Asclepiades, Erasistratus, Herophilus, and Soranus.[30] Aulus Cornelius Celsus, a 1st-century Roman encyclopedist, offered an extremely detailed account of a procedure to extract an already dead fetus in his only surviving work, De Medicina.[31] In Book 9 of Refutation of all Heresies, Hippolytus of Rome, another Christian theologian of the 3rd century, wrote of women tightly binding themselves around the middle so as to "expel what was being conceived."[
Here's some more from Wiki(hope the big words and long sentences don't scare you) Attitudes towards abortion[edit] The Stoics believed the fetus to be plantlike in nature, and not an animal until the moment of birth, when it finally breathed air. They therefore found abortion morally acceptable.[20][39] Aristotle wrote that, "[T]he line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."[40] Before that point was reached, Aristotle did not regard abortion as the killing of something human.[41][42][43] Aristotle considered the embryo to gain a human soul at 40 days if male and 90 days if female; before that, it had vegetable and animal souls. The Oath, ascribed to Hippocrates, forbade the use of pessaries to induce abortion. Modern scholarship suggests that pessaries were banned because they were reported to cause vaginal ulcers.[44] This specific prohibition has been interpreted by some medical scholars as prohibiting abortion in a broader sense than by pessary.[28] One such interpretation was by Scribonius Largus, a Roman medical writer: "Hippocrates, who founded our profession, laid the foundation for our discipline by an oath in which it was proscribed not to give a pregnant woman a kind of medicine that expels the embryo or fetus."[45] Other medical scholars disagree, believing that Hippocrates sought to discourage physicians from trying dangerous methods to abort a fetus.[46] Soranus, recommended abortion in cases involving health complications as well as emotional immaturity, and provided detailed suggestions in his work Gynecology. Although abortion was accepted in Rome, attitudes changed with the spread of Christianity and around 211 CE emperors Septimius Severus and Caracalla banned abortion as infringing on parental rights; temporary exile was the punishment.[20] Punishment for abortion in the Roman Republic was generally inflicted as a violation of the father's right to dispose of his offspring.[19]:3 Because of the influence of Stoicism, which did not view the fetus as a person, the Romans did not punish abortion as homicide.[47] The third century legal compilation Pauli sententiae (attributed to Julius Paulus Prudentissimus) wrote: [T]hose who administer a beverage for the purpose of producing abortion, or of causing affection, although they may not do so with malicious intent, still, because the act offers a bad example, shall, if of humble rank, be sent to the mines; or, if higher in degree, shall be relegated to an island, with the loss of a portion of their property. If a man or a woman should lose his or her life through such an act, the guilty party shall undergo the extreme penalty."[citation needed] The Roman jurist Ulpian wrote in the Digest: "An unborn child is considered being born, as far as it concerns his profits." Despite this, abortion continued to be practiced "with little or no sense of shame."[48] In Christianity[edit] See also: Christianity and abortion and History of early Christian thought on abortion Tertullian, a 2nd- and 3rd-century Christian theologian argued that abortion should only be performed in cases in which abnormal positioning of the fetus in the womb would endanger the life of the pregnant women. Saint Augustine, in Enchiridion, makes passing mention of surgical procedures being performed to remove fetuses which have expired in utero.[49] In contrast to their pagan environment, Christians generally shunned abortion, drawing upon early Christian writings such as the Didache (c. 150 A.D.), which says: "…do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant."[50] Saint Augustine believed that abortion of a fetus animatus, a fetus with human limbs and shape, was murder. However, his beliefs on earlier-stage abortion were similar to Aristotle's,[51] though he could neither deny nor affirm whether such unformed fetuses would be resurrected as full people at the time of the second coming.[52] "Now who is there that is not rather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds that have never fructified?"[49] "And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired into and discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is in man's power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins to live in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being. To deny that the young who are cut out limb by limb from the womb, lest if they were left there dead the mother should die too, have never been alive, seems too audacious."[53] The Leges Henrici Primi, written c. 1115, treated pre-quickening abortion as a misdemeanour, and post quickening abortion as carrying a lesser penalty than homicide.[54] Midwives who performed abortions, were accused of committing witchcraft in Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches), published in 1487 as a witch-hunting manual in Germany.[55] Modern era[edit] Criminalization[edit] "Admonition against abortion." Late 19th-century Japanese Ukiyo-e woodblock print. 19th century medicine saw tremendous advances in the fields of surgery, anaesthesia, and sanitation. Social attitudes towards abortion shifted during this period under the influence of Victorian morality, and abortion, especially in the English-speaking world, was made illegal. The English law on abortion was first codified in legislation under sections 1 and 2 of Malicious Shooting or Stabbing Act 1803. The Bill was proposed by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough to clarify the law relating to abortion and was the first law to explicitly outlaw it. The Act provided that it was an offence for any person to perform or cause an abortion. The punishment for performing or attempting to perform a post quickening abortion was the death penalty (section 1) and otherwise was transportation for fourteen years (section 2). The law was amended in 1828 and 1837 - the latter removed the distinction between women who were quick with child (late pregnancy) and those who were not. It also eliminated the death penalty as a possible punishment. The latter half of the 19th century saw abortion become increasingly punished. One writer justified this by claiming that the number of abortions among married women had increased markedly since 1840.[56] The Offences against the Person Act 1861 created a new preparatory offence of procuring poison or instruments with intent to procure abortion. Anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the United States from the 1820s. In 1821, a Connecticut law targeted apothecaries who sold poisons to women for purposes of abortion; and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor eight years later.[57] Criminalization accelerated from the late 1860s, through the efforts of concerned legislators, doctors, and the American Medical Association.[58] In 1873, the Comstock Law prohibited any methods of production or publication of information pertaining to the procurement of abortion, the prevention conception and the prevention of venereal disease, even to students of medicine.[59] In contrast, in France social perceptions of abortion started to change. In the first half of the 19th century, abortion was viewed as the last resort for pregnant but unwed women. But as writers began to write about abortion in terms of family planning for married women, the practice of abortion was reconceptualized as a logical solution to unwanted pregnancies resulting from ineffectual contraceptives.[60] The formulation of abortion as a form of family planning for married women was made "thinkable" because both medical and non-medical practitioners agreed on the relative safety of the procedure.[60]
