Democracy is majority rule and the simple fact is that the majority in society cant physically become pregnant so would never be in a position of needing a termination. Why should the majority have the right to dictate to the minority what should happen to their bodies?
Who defends the right of the fetus who will has every potential to becoming a child, teenager, man/woman, father/mother?
I personally believe the choice has been made when the female opens her legs...what you are wanting is a second choice that let's you have sex with no repercussions,
But regardless, I am pro choice, but I will never, ever support it.
Much like I am pro legalising drugs, but I will never take them, nor agree with taking them.
Less than half....women are unable to become pregnant beyond a certain age.
Regardless, the state never tells a man what he can and cannot do with his reproductive organs. If a woman can be jailed for abortion, a man should be jailed for 80,000,000 times the sentence if he's caught masturbating. That's a lot of potential lives he's killing there with that hand shuffle.
But the end result is that the state gets to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. It effectively tells them they are not to be trusted making decisions for themselves based on their own circumstances. It's incredibly condescending TBH, and a concept I most definitely have an issue with.
Its the society determining that the right of the unborn is equal to that of a living - its as simple as that... if you killed a baby 1 minute old you would get life in prison. Its up to society to decide when a life is a life.
Are you serious? When does it in your mind become a baby?
I'm not doctor so I'm unaware of the changes that occur to the fetus during pregnancy. I don't know when it first becomes viable. Whaf difference does it make in this context? We're discussing legal abortion.
Regardless, the state never tells a man what he can and cannot do with his reproductive organs. If a woman can be jailed for abortion, a man should be jailed for 80,000,000 times the sentence if he's caught masturbating. That's a lot of potential lives he's killing there with that hand shuffle.
I make the argument for potential life. A sperm has a very low chance of becoming a baby, a fetus has a very high chance.
Pro-choice, what exactly does it mean? Whose choice?
The mother, you know, the person who has to go through 9 months of pregnancy followed by labour followed by recovery from all that, and then has to support another life - emotionally, physically and financially.
That's whose choice. To deny a woman such a basic right is barbaric, and besides, by banning abortion all you do is change the decision for many into one of an unsafe abortion.
I only advocate it in extreme circumstances not when people get pregnant through not using contraception.
I understand that, i was just pointing out that the terms pro choice and pro life are set in stone.
Pro life means no abortions regardless of whether the child will be severely disabled and die shortly after birth, or if the mother is an 11 year old rape victim.
Even if you advocate it only in extreme circumstances that makes you pro choice.
Well that's your opinion - how did the woman conceive? magically? ... the fetus doesn't have the option to decide, that's where the society steps in where abortion is illegal.
The mother, you know, the person who has to go through 9 months of pregnancy followed by labour followed by recovery from all that, and then has to support another life - emotionally, physically and financially.
That's whose choice. To deny a woman such a basic right is barbaric.
Perhaps she shouldn't open her legs if she is not willing to accept the consequences? Destroying a life form for the sake of casual sex...exercise abstinence and nobody has to die.
I only advocate it in extreme circumstances not when people get pregnant through not using contraception.
I just don't understand this stance. This is what my friend says too and it doesn't make much sense to me. It's either a baby or not to you. Why punish the baby for the actions of the father if you think of it as a child from conception?
Well that's your opinion - how did the woman conceive? magically? ... the fetus doesn't have the option to decide, that's where the society steps in where abortion is illegal.
I agree.
If a woman is not willing to bear a baby, she should not be having casual sex. Simple.
Don't want to be fat? Don't eat shit, etc.
I have only ever had sex in a situation where I am willing to raise a child if contraception fails. Less casual sex, more thoughtfulness.
Well that's your opinion - how did the woman conceive? magically? ... the fetus doesn't have the option to decide, that's where the society steps in where abortion is illegal.
Its difficult to judge as a fully grown person.
If my mother killed me tomorrow i wouldnt like it. If she had terminated me i wouldnt have minded because i wouldnt have been aware of it.
Its hard to get your head around as we are aware of our existance and have good memories of our lives and know if we are happy to continue living. The vast majority of people want to. Many people project these feelings onto foetuses who dont have the mental capacity to be aware of anything.
Perhaps she shouldn't open her legs if she is not willing to accept the consequences? Destroying a life form for the sake of casual sex...exercise abstinence and nobody has to die.
You are aware that contraception is not 100% reliable, yes? That people do, actually, make mistakes from time to time?
Additionally, how does it make any sense whatsoever to condemn someone for being irresponsible enough to get pregnant but then give them the just-ever-so-slightly-large responsibility of caring for another human life?
I would say pro-choice when conception is not a choice in the case or rape.
But presumably one would be against abortion because it kills an innocent child - why would such a stance change if it came about through rape? The result of an abortion in that instance is still an innocent child being snuffed out.
The mother, you know, the person who has to go through 9 months of pregnancy followed by labour followed by recovery from all that, and then has to support another life - emotionally, physically and financially.
That's whose choice. To deny a woman such a basic right is barbaric, and besides, by banning abortion all you do is change the decision for many into one of an unsafe abortion.
What about the unborn child then, does it not have a choice?
You are aware that contraception is not 100% reliable, yes? That people do, actually, make mistakes from time to time?
Additionally, how does it make any sense whatsoever to condemn someone for being irresponsible enough to get pregnant but then give them the just-ever-so-slightly-large responsibility of caring for another human life?
There is a form of contraception that is 100%. It's called abstinence.
Comments
But regardless, I am pro choice, but I will never, ever support it.
Much like I am pro legalising drugs, but I will never take them, nor agree with taking them.
or (in the case of Ronald) many of those against would never be in a position to need one because of their gender.
The woman who wants the fetus in her womb.
I only advocate it in extreme circumstances not when people get pregnant through not using contraception.
I'm not doctor so I'm unaware of the changes that occur to the fetus during pregnancy. I don't know when it first becomes viable. Whaf difference does it make in this context? We're discussing legal abortion.
So your issue is with conception rather than outcome?
I make the argument for potential life. A sperm has a very low chance of becoming a baby, a fetus has a very high chance.
The mother, you know, the person who has to go through 9 months of pregnancy followed by labour followed by recovery from all that, and then has to support another life - emotionally, physically and financially.
That's whose choice. To deny a woman such a basic right is barbaric, and besides, by banning abortion all you do is change the decision for many into one of an unsafe abortion.
I understand that, i was just pointing out that the terms pro choice and pro life are set in stone.
Pro life means no abortions regardless of whether the child will be severely disabled and die shortly after birth, or if the mother is an 11 year old rape victim.
Even if you advocate it only in extreme circumstances that makes you pro choice.
Takes two to tango...
Perhaps she shouldn't open her legs if she is not willing to accept the consequences? Destroying a life form for the sake of casual sex...exercise abstinence and nobody has to die.
I just don't understand this stance. This is what my friend says too and it doesn't make much sense to me. It's either a baby or not to you. Why punish the baby for the actions of the father if you think of it as a child from conception?
I agree.
If a woman is not willing to bear a baby, she should not be having casual sex. Simple.
Don't want to be fat? Don't eat shit, etc.
I have only ever had sex in a situation where I am willing to raise a child if contraception fails. Less casual sex, more thoughtfulness.
I would say pro-choice when conception is not a choice in the case or rape.
What about contraception which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.......should that also not be allowed?
Its difficult to judge as a fully grown person.
If my mother killed me tomorrow i wouldnt like it. If she had terminated me i wouldnt have minded because i wouldnt have been aware of it.
Its hard to get your head around as we are aware of our existance and have good memories of our lives and know if we are happy to continue living. The vast majority of people want to. Many people project these feelings onto foetuses who dont have the mental capacity to be aware of anything.
No, because an unfertilised egg has no chance of becoming a human. A fetus has a very high chance.
You are aware that contraception is not 100% reliable, yes? That people do, actually, make mistakes from time to time?
Additionally, how does it make any sense whatsoever to condemn someone for being irresponsible enough to get pregnant but then give them the just-ever-so-slightly-large responsibility of caring for another human life?
But presumably one would be against abortion because it kills an innocent child - why would such a stance change if it came about through rape? The result of an abortion in that instance is still an innocent child being snuffed out.
What about the unborn child then, does it not have a choice?
There is a form of contraception that is 100%. It's called abstinence.
Don't want a baby? Don't have sex. Simple.