AFTER ALL IT’S HER CHOICE TOO

That is because women are the only gender on the planet who have ovaries and are therefore are capable of becoming preggers. I mean, if men want to go out and campaign to be allowed to have abortions, that would be great. It would also be rather stupid.

awww. Would you like someone to hold your hair back for you, delicate thing?

What no one ever seems to adress in this debate is defining the bizarre notion of “womens rights” as if being female confers a rights based status that no one else deserves.
If I were to assert that women who have children should stay at home at home and look after then I’d be slated as a sexist/misogynist/dinasour. At the same time if I dare to have an opinion on abortion and whether or not women (including presumably my own partner) should have the “right” to murder my offspring then I’m opressing women. In other words womens rights are relative, selective and invoked capriciously rather than consitently. Why should women get what they want in all scenarios ? Men don’t. Nature either intended you to be mothers (and the evidence for that is fairly overwhelming) – in which case have as many abortions as you want but accept responsibility for them, financially and socially, and for the children you do give birth to, or it didn’t, in which case stop demanding automatic custody and financial assistance from your past shags and the taxpayer. It is not about controlling women – do you really imagine anyone gives a toss about your sex life ? – it’s about protecting the unborn child who has no one else to protect its interest, not even it’s own mother in many cases. The equating of a womens right to have free sex and the right to murder the living consequences really makes me want to vomit. And no I’m not religious.

You clearly have been reading far too much anti-choice propaganda about termination procedures, as demonstrated by your parroting of the ‘partial birth abortion’ line. You are, I presume, talking about ID&X, the procedure outlawed over in the States in 2006?

The term ‘partial birth’ has been attached to ID&X as a successful emotive strategy to imply that there is in fact a ‘birth’ of a viable infant involved in the procedure. This is not actually the case; it’s a second term procedure that is carried out after early-term methods are not longer viable, but usually before the foetus is viable, and differs from the other commonly used second term procedure (Dilation and Extraction) in that the latter involves destruction of the foetus in the womb. This is much more dangerous to the mother, and yet is still legal in the States because it hasn’t been given an emotive name.

To repeat: it’s not illegal to have a second trimester termination in the States, but it is illegal to have the safer method, and only because people like you did and continue to spread misinformation about what the procedure involves.

(I wrote about this ban when it was introduced here. There are further links there if you’re interested in finding out more.)

I dont think that the unborn child should be aborted because a person made a choice, and then dont want to face the consequence of that choice.

I do believe that abortion is wrong also because theres no question in my mind or the scientific community about whether the unborn child is alive; the scientific standards that determine whether something is living: processes occur in the body, respond to stimulii, take in materials, grow and develop; all occur with a fetus. People say stupid things like “well we celebrate birthdays”….but thats a weak argument, as plenty of cultures celebrate conception days.
The real debate at hand is whether it is alright to terminate a parasitic being (parasitic in that in his fully dependent upon another being to live). In which case, if it were, some could argue that you could abort a baby after it has been born. It sounds like a am taking this too far, but I have read of people who believe that should be allowed, for that exact argument.

This also brings me to my next point; everyone only considers the now. not the long term, not the big picture. One must consider the future outcomes of allowing abortions. First, there was abortions. And because that became more ok and common to do it, then there were partial birth abortions (luckily these are no longer allowed). Im not sure if youre familiar with the process, but first they turn the baby around, and birth it up to its shoulders. Then they stick a vacuum needle into the back of the babys skull and suck its brain out. And hey, why not; if one can argue that its alright to abort an unborn baby, it can be argued again that its perfectly ok to abort the baby when its partially unborn.
But people arent allowed to do that anymore, so are we going to push for those? If you are pro-choice, then why not for people right to the choice of sucking their partially unborn childs brain out of their head?
What about a man’s choice? He has no say in whether or not the woman gets an abortion. He participated in the creation of that baby inside her. But he has no say. He has no “choice”. If your pro-choice, why not fight for the mans right to the choice as well? Sure, you can say that its the woman’s burden to carry the baby; but like I said, it is half his doing.
If you arent fighting for these choices as well, then I cant believe that its truly about being ‘pro-choice’. If you dont believe in the right to those choices, then its pretty much like I said; people wanting to do what they want without facing consequences; more so than it is a noble cause of fighting for freedom of choice in America.

Allowing one thing opens the door for tons of other possibilities. You can say “well, we create laws so these things dont go too far”….but down the line after years and years, after young generations become accustom to something, that next step doesnt seem “too far” or “crossing the line” for them. So I ask you, where do you personally feel that line is? If you think that a law should be in place to prevent partial birth abortions, or prevent abortions at a certain point in the pregnancy, your asking people to be responsible enough to decide early on if they want to have an abortion or not. Thats understandable and fair. Im only asking people to be responsible as well. The only difference is I am asking them to be responsible even earlier than that. Be responsible when making that first choice. Recognize the possibilities, and decide if you can accept the pregnancy if it happens. If you cant, do everything you cant in terms of prevention. If you still can accept the tiny chance of something happening, dont do it. And if you do get pregnant, despite all that you do, recognize that that was a possibility, and accept the pregnancy; and keep the child or put it up for adoption. I know it sounds like alot to ask of a person. Maybe it is; but it takes a mature person to accept the pregnancy; and ideally, a mature person to decide to have sex.

Like I said; if you feel there should be restrictions on abortion, like partial-birth and late pregnancy abortions, your asking people to take responsibility of the situation. Responsible decision-making so that those types of abortions arent an option; that such choices of such terminations arent faced. Thats all Im asking for; personal responsibility…just a little bit more of it.

It’s not about the baaaaaaybeeez. It’s about the fact that you want to punish women for *gasp* having sex.

People having sex are perfectly aware that sex can lead to pregnancy. So if you cant accept the responsibility even the slightest bit of a possible pregnancy, than you know what, dont have sex.

If you use any kind of preventive measures, such as condoms, and still cant accept that .01% of a possible pregnancy, than you know what? Dont have sex.
Some people just cant accept that chance that an airplane may crash, no matter how small the chance is; they dont step on airplanes. If you cant accept the possibilities, dont follow through with the actions.

Im also Pro-Choice on the matters of going to jail after doing 8 lines of coke, downing a fifth of scotch, and driving through a crowded sidewalk. If Im not happy with the consequences of my actions, Id like the CHOICE of not facing them.

And there, you have the heart of the ‘Pro-Choice’ movement. With each generation, you see it more and more. People want to do whatever they want, and not have to face any consequences. So, what do they do? To get out of the consequences of their actions, they fight and fight and say their “choice” has been taken away. All the while, they do have a choice. No one said they couldnt have sex. They are allowed to. But if a well-known consequence occurs due to the choice, face it.

It does now. Thanks.

(The Pro-Choice Majority website link did not work.)

I take issue with your (and, indeed, the near-universal) parroting of the line ‘if a woman hasn’t been raped then it’s not okay’. Why is it any more okay to end a pregnancy if a woman has been raped? I’m sorry, but either you believe that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception or you don’t – if you do, then a woman’s ‘being selfish’ even if she HAS been raped. Murder’s still murder even if you do it with virgin, unsullied hands. But your assertion that it’s okay if she’s been raped tells us what the real issue is here.

The real issue is women daring to have sex *at all*. What you really mind isn’t people killing the poor widdle embryos, it’s women daring to exercise sexual self-determination and getting away with it. It’s the old pro-life line: make them suffer the consequences of sin. Of course, if a woman’s been raped then it wasn’t her fault she had sex, so it must be okay!

I find that piece of rhetoric wildly hypocrytical. If you believe it’s okay for a woman to terminate a pregnancy when she’s been raped – i.e when she has a ‘good excuse’ for being knocked up or is ‘deserving’ – you must believe it’s okay for some pregnancies to be terminated. In the pro-choice movement, we believe that nobody else should get to decide whether or not a woman ‘deserves’ an abortion. We believe it should be her decision alone, not someone else’s blind moral call.

Haha! I’d sooner have been born than not? I’d sooner be rich than poor too! But you know what, if I was poor at least I’d have the ability to know I wasn’t rich.