Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? (v3)

Facetious? Not at all. All other things being equal, woman A who has been raped should have no more rights than woman B who has not.

 

Interesting, and disturbingly inhuman at the same time.

Can you tell us why a woman who has been forced to have sexual intercourse with a man should be afforded no more rights? Is it because women solely exist to have children, bugger the "how", "when" and "whom"?

ES

 

The reason a raped woman should have no more right than a non-raped woman is the same reason citizen x should have no more rights than citizen y... Every person's rights should be the same. Every person should play by the same rules. The laws should apply equally to every person.

 

He's got a point there. The law can't be saying one thing for one and something else for another.

 

I wise man once told me that there is a respectable difference between equality and fairness. Sometimes, depending on circumstances, the right thing to do for someone is not the equal thing.

 

I see the difference as this: one can avoid the risk of pregnancy, making abortion completely unnecessary, by choosing abstinence (or, less reliably, by using birth control, preferably multiple methods.) Rape takes away that certainty, and thus it cannot be said that the woman willingly engaged in an action that could lead to pregnancy.

On all other counts, though - no, rape victims shouldn't have more rights than others. Emergency contraception does come to mind, though, as a possible solution that's middle-of-the-road.

 

That sounds all just and fair, but Id pay to see you try and run that by a rape victim. Every person should play by the same rules, true -well right off the bat obviously the guy that forced himself onto said woman wasnt playing by the rules - so any subsequent actions by the victim to ensure her medical safety, because god knows her mental stability is never going to be the same, should be under the jurisdiction of said victim.

 

Victims may be emotionally distressed, but the emotionally distressed should not have rights that those who aren't..

 

Talking of equality and everyone playing by the rules; the rapist controlled the woman?s body, why can't the government too by forcing her to go through with the pregnancy?

 

Talking of equality and everyone playing by the rules; the rapist controlled the woman?s body, why can't the government too by forcing her to go through with the pregnancy?

What the rapist did is generally understood to be undesirable and illegal. Following your logic, any rape victim should expect the government to send someone over to have a go at her, too.

 

It's not my logic Diz.

I was trying to illustrate that the pro-life stance combined with an 'equality across the board' opinion can lead to someone like me saying that controlling a woman?s choice is equal to a rapist controlling a woman.

It is not my logic; it is just what others logic seems to lead to.

The way I see it, from a pro life point of view, a woman getting an aborting is a bad thing, but it is worse if she is forced to have one. That thing that makes it worse to be forced is still there if she is forced not to have one, and I feel it is someone similar to forcing her to have sex.

 

I don't quite understand how

a) the government can assume the risk of pregnancy over a woman's objection

b) the government thinks it can make a better choice than an individual

I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt on either.

Allowing legal abortion in the US is perfectly consistent with our law, since the taking of human life is not always considered murder.

Peace,

V-03

 

Yeah, I hear ya. I don't like the government to get involved either.

I do believe abortion is a tragedy, but its not a tragedy that beating and imprisoning doctors is going to solve.

I'm still of the opinion that we need a safe cheap reversible method of sterilization that you can innoculate your children with when they are born so they won't have kids until they buy the cheap and safe reversal treatment.

I'm pro life, pro choice and very pro prevention. I would be happy if everyone decided to be (or accidentally became) permanently sterilized.

 

I'm Pro-Choice for a few reasons.

1. A woman should have the right to choose. It is not mine or anyone else's business what that woman does to her own body.

2. I do not think abortions are a good thing. However, in certain circumstances, they are necessary. Also, it is not my place to tell a woman not to get an abortion just because I think it is wrong. It doesn't affect me. It's not my business.

3. Even if abortions are made illegal, they will still happen. If it is illegal, a woman who needs an abortion will have to have it done in an unsafe environment that puts her at risk as well. If she could have it done professionally, she would be safer. Think about it, if abortions are illegal, they will still occur, just in more unsafe conditions.

(These are not in any particular order.)

 

I think to many people get too wrapped in the semantics and rhetoric surrounding abortion. . It should first determined if you are killing something, and then identify the nature of that something. What if your kid came up behind you and asked you if he could kill whatever he was holding in his hand? Most reasonable people would ask what it was before replying in order to establish the nature of the life to be taken. You would hardly question your childs desire to kill a cockroach,but what if he was holding his little brother? Just something to think about.

Love

 

I think the bigger question is: what is the point of making abortion legal but limiting it so people can't use it? One of my least favorite laws is that people under 18 ahve to ask their parents to get an abortion. That's abosolutely ridiculous. Why should a parnet be able to tell their child whether they can have an abortion? More than that, abortions cost so much alot of poor people can't get them, which is a problem, since alot of poor people are the ones who need abortions. Basically, these laws result from pro-life people, but ultimately there's no point in making a comprimise between pro-life and pro-choice people, it needs to be one way or the other.

 

Oh for gods sake... Say your a parent. One day, your kid goes off for two hours, and then you find out she JUST UNDERWENT A MAJOR ****ING SURGERY. This isn't even about Aboriton, this is COMMON SENSE. You are advocating letting kids go off and getting a MAJOR SURGERY without their parents EVEN KNOWING. THAT is absoultly ridiculous. As is the fact that the kid is under 18, and seeing as she's still under 18 and under my control and under my responsibility, who are YOU to tell ME what I can or cannot tell my kid NOT to do. Please.

 

Oh for gods sake... Say your a parent. One day, your kid goes off for two hours, and then you find out she JUST UNDERWENT A MAJOR ****ING SURGERY. This isn't even about Aboriton, this is COMMON SENSE. You are advocating letting kids go off and getting a MAJOR SURGERY without their parents EVEN KNOWING. THAT is absoultly ridiculous. As is the fact that the kid is under 18, and seeing as she's still under 18 and under my control and under my responsibility, who are YOU to tell ME what I can or cannot tell my kid NOT to do. Please.

I'm sorry, but the minor's rights trump yours. I don't generally feel parents should have any rights over the medical decisions of their children once they're old enough to discuss it with a doctor themselves, and I certainly feel this is one of those specific issues where it's absolutely horrifying and insane to tell someone seeking medical treatment that they can't get it unless their parents say it's OK.

Besides, anyone whose kid wouldn't feel comfortable voluntarily informing them of their abortion is pretty much guaranteed to be an unfit parent. If your kid gets knocked up and doesn't feel they can talk to you about it and doesn't feel that you'd respect their decisions, you screwed up somewhere, badly, and I have no problem with helping your kid without your knowledge or consent.

If you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to make your own decisions about abortion. End of story.

 

The only way abortion would be a major surgery would be if the girl is very far along in their pregnancy. So either the parent is a bleeping poor one who can't tell when their daughter is 6+ months pregnant, or it is not a major operation (or I am wrong, can V-03 help me out here ).

My opinion on this aspect is that the parent has a right to know, but not a right to stand in the way of an abortion. And if the child (or a consoler) feels it is necessary, then the parents will be told in a very controlled situation, not just send the kid home alone to break the news.

 

Oh for gods sake... Say your a parent. One day, your kid goes off for two hours, and then you find out she JUST UNDERWENT A MAJOR ****ING SURGERY. This isn't even about Aboriton, this is COMMON SENSE. You are advocating letting kids go off and getting a MAJOR SURGERY without their parents EVEN KNOWING. THAT is absoultly ridiculous. As is the fact that the kid is under 18, and seeing as she's still under 18 and under my control and under my responsibility, who are YOU to tell ME what I can or cannot tell my kid NOT to do. Please.

It's her body, and her unborn baby! Where are you to tell her that she can not get an abortion and force to raise her own child? I agree with dizfactor. If you can have sex, you can have sex, you cna get an abortion. Your parents can't tell you to go get a tatoo, now can they (if you don't want to)? And by the way, an abortion isn't major surgery. You do not have the authority to tell your kid to go off and start a new life, no that's not your responsibility.

 

Wait wait wait... the irony hear is so thick i could cut it with a knife... Your kid can't, oh say, have her pictures in the school newspaper without signed permission, or use a school computer, but they can have medical surgery where if the doctors screw up she could DIE??? And you think its wrong for the parents to know???

 

Wait wait wait... the irony hear is so thick i could cut it with a knife... Your kid can't, oh say, have her pictures in the school newspaper without signed permission, or use a school computer, but they can have medical surgery where if the doctors screw up she could DIE??? And you think its wrong for the parents to know???


Your making the issue sound alot simpler and less nuanced then it really is. Convential wisdom tells me to take the Packers tonight because how the hell can Favre lose four in a row, but I dont think conventional wisdom applies to that game and I dont think it applies to this issue.

 

How am I making the issue sound any simpler than it already is... its plain and simple... Why should a kid who needs parents permission for practically anything else not need it for a medical procegure?

 

It's a more significant medical procedure. This decision impacts the rest of the child's life. The parent does not have a right to decide a whole life for a child. If a teenage girl doesn't want to raise a child at age 16 she has the right to not wanting that WHOLE LIFE without any input form her parents. Period.

 

Why should a kid who needs parents permission for practically anything else not need it for a medical procegure?

Because it's not like any other procedure, and it opens the possibility that some people would be forced a carry a pregnancy to term against their will.

Conservatives in particular often love to say that minors who do adult-like crimes should do the equivalent time and be charged as adults.

It works both ways.