I support abortion because I don't think rapists should be allowed to be fathers

[ANNEE]

You know who else get their body's legislated against their choice? Attempted murderers. They are incarcerated.

More extremism?

[UltraBudgie]

More extremism?

You'll have to be more specific. Prosecuting murder is extremist now?

I'm sure the child doesn't distinguish between being killed by an assailant attacking the mother and causing a miscarriage, or the mother hiring someone to use a vacuum apparatus to suck their brains out. They're murdered just the same, and I think the law should treat it that way.

[ANNEE]

You'll have to be more specific. Prosecuting murder is extremist now?

In the context of this discussion?

[ANNEE]

You'll have to be more specific. Prosecuting murder is extremist now?

I'm sure the child doesn't distinguish between being killed by an assailant attacking the mother and causing a miscarriage, or the mother hiring someone to use a vacuum apparatus to suck their brains out. They're murdered just the same, and I think the law should treat it that way.

I support LIVING CHILDREN.

You know -- the ones who got their Free Lunches yanked.

[tellmethesecrets]

My question:  why is it anyone else's business.

No woman should be required to answer to anyone outside herself -- her right to abortion.

Why is anyone allowed to vote on this?  That's pure invasion of autonomy.  

It's sick that this is legislated on.

But why just the woman's choice? Why exclude the father? 

What about the siblings, grandparents aunties/uncles etc that this would all have some sort of impact on.


It's not practical to go around saying no woman should be required to answer outside herself. 

What if my husband pisses me off so much that I decided to murder him - would I get away with it based on the argument that no woman should be required to answer anyone outside herself and that was what I felt was the best option for me at the time? Yes it would impact his parents, siblings etc but I'm the one who his existence impacts the most so I get the say in whether I terminate his life or not...right?

[quintessentone]

And DI T&C states that each poster is responsible for their own posts.

A controversial statement should cause some thought, rather than a lashing out.

Think: what do rape and anti-abortion laws have in common?
No choice for the woman.

The system is rigged against women's choice.

In a binary system where choice is excluded, then either no abortion or mandatory abortion. In which case, why reward rapists?

I was right, this guy could make a million dollars by this rage bait.

Why are you getting involved?

I have a visualization of you moshing into this crowd which won't catch you.

[DBCowboy]

I support LIVING CHILDREN.

You know -- the ones who got their Free Lunches yanked.

I support living children as well.

Those living post-partum and those living pre-partum.

[UltraBudgie]

I don't accept extremism as a valid argument.

I'm not arguing with you. Why would I? You come across as an extremist who does not believe that killing children has a moral aspect that is relative to society; all you seem concerned about is a woman's right to fornicate without consequence or responsibility.

I said the image of a dehumanizing slaveowner is "what your argument reminds me of". No more, no less. Make of it what you will, perhaps you can understand my point of view, if you have any flexibility to your dogma. I hope you do, but that's not up to me.

This is why we have laws, to force the intractably immoral to not harm individuals or society. There can be no debate with the intractable.

I have already said upthread that I believe an embryo is not fully a child (with all the rights that entails) until a certain point in the pregnancy, when the fetus has 'quickened'. Before that point, I believe medical ethics should allow intervention in certain cases, such as rape. And certainly if the life of the mother is threatened at any point in the pregnancy, flexibility should be allowed for the doctor and family to make whatever difficult and unfortunate decisions may be necessary.

My opinions have evolved due to consideration and life experience. Have yours?

It is by no means a simple subject, and I actually consider my stance quite progressive. Even a tad too liberal, perhaps.

[ANNEE]

But why just the woman's choice? Why exclude the father? 

I've answered this before.

For eons women have taken the brunt of blame.  Their fault - not the sperm donor.  Women were thrown out in the streets for pregnancy out of wedlock.  Was the man ever?  Don't have a male heir?  Woman's fault (only not).  Women pretty much a baby factor -- until recent years.

Woman gets mixed up with wrong guy -- her fault she didn't pick the right man.

I've known men who have chosen a woman who did consider their feelings in regard to.   Good for them.  They picked the right woman.

For those men who are not considered in this decision.  Choose better next time.  You chose wrong.

[DBCowboy]

I've answered this before.

For eons women have taken the brunt of blame.  Their fault - not the sperm donor.  Women were thrown out in the streets for pregnancy out of wedlock.  Was the man ever?  Don't have a male heir?  Woman's fault (only not).  Women pretty much a baby factor -- until recent years.

Woman gets mixed up with wrong guy -- her fault she didn't pick the right man.

I've known men who chosen a woman who did consider their feelings in regard to.   Good for them.  They picked the right woman.

For those men who are not considered in this decision.  Choose better next time.  You chose wrong.

Since men should not be a part of the abortion discussion, then your logic would imply that they shouldn't be forced to pay child support.

Unless you believe in double standards.

Either the men are involved, abortion/child support or they aren't.

WHICH ONE IS IT?