Abortion Laws: Pro Life or Pro Choice(v2)?

Dude, in a perfect world, the man would bear equal responsibility for raising a child. But unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. I have rarely seen a family where it doesn't fall on the mother to do most of the work. Even in the more 'liberated' ones. Just the way it is.

And yeah, legally, a man can be held financially responsible for his children. Meaning, he'll have to open up his checkbook atleast once a month and put some money towards bills. But unless you're Harrison Ford's ex, chances are you'll be getting less than half of what it costs to raise a child. Not to mention. the day in and day out responsibility of actually *raising* said child falls to you.

That said? Give the woman some options!! Raising a child is HUGE, and if they're not up to the task, give 'em a choice. It's only fair.

 

Yanks said it better than I ever could.

*round of applause*

 

Raising a child is HUGE, and if they're not up to the task, give 'em a choice. It's only fair.

I am all for giving them choices.

However, killing the child is not one of them.

 

You're not killing a child in the first trimester.

 

Sure you are.

 

Only if you hold the view that life starts at conception.

 

Which is the hinge pin of this whole argument ...

 

Yes, but neither side can prove their point, "I believe this," or, "This happens at conception," but neither side offers proof, just a belief. Unless you're claiming that your beliefs are morally superior to everyone else's. This was not directed to Stackpole. Well...not entirely.

 

Well, since my beliefs are infallible ...

 

Ah, quiet you. *points*

 

I'm not about to deny a woman the opportunity to choose abortion during the first trimester just because some folks believe that life begins at conception--and those aren't the folks who have to be pregnant.

I am all for giving them choices.

No you aren't. Not if her birth control fails.

 

Wait - are you saying that, if a pregnant woman says life begins at conception, you're willing to change your stance?

If not, then there's no reason to bring up the fact that some men oppose abortion because of that belief. Men are not automatically excluded from this debate just because they cannot get pregnant. Disagree with their opinions on where life begins if you will, but don't tell them they have no right to say what they believe on this.

 

Wait - are you saying that, if a pregnant woman says life begins at conception, you're willing to change your stance?

Nope, but she's free to believe that and carry her pregnancy to term. She just can't tell me or another woman what to do about a pregnancy we might have.

My point in making that statement about men is to counter all the outrageous statements made by men about how being pregnant isn't so horrible.

If I thought being pregnant was wonderful, I would have gotten pregnant ten years ago when I still could.

 

My point in making that statement about men is to counter all the outrageous statements made by men about how being pregnant isn't so horrible.


Just for the record, I never said anything like this.

 

>>>> However, killing the child
is not one of them. <<<<

We go back to the beginning again... we are not killing a child here. Not until it goes goo goo gaa gaa is it a child.

It's about choice.

Yanks is 100% here. I second that emotion.

 

Not until it goes goo goo gaa gaa is it a child.

Hold on, let me find you a mute baby, and you can tell me whether or not you think it's a child.

Or maybe I can find you an ultrasound of a fetus at about 7 or 8 months into a pregnancy, and you can tell me whether you think that's a child.

If you can admit that it is a living human child at some point before birth, then at least we can have a reasonable debate on the point at which it becomes a child, and how the mother's rights apply in certain situations.

 

Well, my position is:

Mother's choice and no one else's during the first trimester.

I've got mixed feelings about the second...I've heard of some cases of the fetus surviving outside the womb.

Definite no to the third. If you're too stupid to know you're pregnant before six months, then have the baby and give it up for adoption (if you're that dumb, don't try to raise it yourself). But killing a fetus that can survive outside the womb is what I would label "murder".

 

Abortion is just a myth propogated by the canning industry and the Christian Right.

 

Not George Lucas is just a troll trying to get people mad at him. /Sarcasm

 

This is more of a mental exercise than a convincing point, but odd question.

Rape, as I understand it, is a crime of control. The rapist wants to take control away from the woman and feel powerful himself. How would that be different from the government banning abortions? Basically control would be taken away from the woman to satisfy the wishes and ideals of those in charge who believe that they are right?

I don't expect this to really convince anyone, nor is it meant to. It is just something I want to hear answers to.

EDIT: Trying to find the right words...

 

Basically control would be taken away from the woman to satisfy the wishes and desire of those in charge who believe that they are right?

The number 1 difference is that we get no pleasure out of it.

And control would be taken away from the woman only in the sense that she no longer has the option to kill her child.

 

The number 1 difference is that we get no pleasure out of it.

Somehow I don't believe that.

I think some people get great pleasure in degrading the woman to the level that a zygote is more important than she is. I think they also take great pleasure in depriving her of the right to decide whether or not she remains pregnant, thus trapping her with eighteen years of slavery just because she, like the man, would like to...*gasp*...enjoy having sex rather than doing it only when she wants to reproduce.

You want to take away Andrea Yates' "right" to kill her child? Go for it. I wish that woman had had abortions--maybe a few tragedies would have been prevented.

My point? She had no "right" in the first place, because the children were no longer part of her body, were viable outside her womb, were separate beings. A zygote is not, hence no one has the "right" to commit murder, but we do have the "right" to terminate unwanted pregnancies within the first trimester.

*takes back control of her body from the chauvinists of either sex who would try to wrest it from her*

 

hence no one has the "right" to commit murder, but we do have the "right" to terminate unwanted pregnancies within the first trimester.

Unfortunately, terminating unwanted pregnancies is murder as viability is not part of the definition of humanity.

As I said before, your best argument comes when acknowledging the humanity of the fetus but saying that the woman deserves the right to end the pregnancy at any time. If it happens to be post-viability, than the end to preganancy would be a forced birth.

This bit about saying the fetus gains is suddenely human at viability is nonsense, especially because viability is an evershifting point.

 

Rape, as I understand it, is a crime of control. The rapist wants to take control away from the woman and feel powerful himself. How would that be different from the government banning abortions? Basically control would be taken away from the woman to satisfy the wishes and ideals of those in charge who believe that they are right?

The difference is that it is not control for the sake of control, but rather, control for the sake of another person's rights.

We already have forms of "control" to keep people from committing theft and murder, and numerous other actions that violate other people's rights.

 

This bit about saying the fetus gains is suddenely human at viability is nonsense, especially because viability is an evershifting point.

No, it isn't nonsense, given that women spontaneously abort every day without knowing it and there are many forms of birth control that keep the zygote from implanting itself into the uterine wall.

The zygote is not sacred, especially when we humans have no problem stepping on a bug just because it annoys us--that bug is also "alive".

As I said, you are elevating the zygote above the adult woman, and it is insulting, and a return to the nineteenth century when women had no rights.

We already have forms of "control" to keep people from committing theft and murder, and numerous other actions that violate other people's rights.

A zygote, which is not viable outside the womb even with the aid of machinery, is not a person. It is a zygote.