What's new

CDZ Abortion Perspective

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
13,765
Reaction score
3,175
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
so, If my wife argues against abortion, but also argues against abortion laws which are invasive, and an attack on individual rights, what false category would you put her into??

Why does she see it as a right to deny another human the right to life?

No matter how you craft language to assuage your sense of guilt regarding the reality of the procedure, one person's life life is being terminated at the behest of another.

You are here and alive here on earth. It is probably safe to say that you prefer this over the alternative. Is there any time during your gestation where an abortion would have not prevented you from making the choice to continue to live?
So, you want to legislate your morality. I get it.
All legislation involves moral reasoning.

The fact that you are incapable of such does not imply it does not exist. the very reason for a legal system is to determine what is considered moral conduct and what is not.
 

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
13,765
Reaction score
3,175
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
so, If my wife argues against abortion, but also argues against abortion laws which are invasive, and an attack on individual rights, what false category would you put her into??

Why does she see it as a right to deny another human the right to life?

No matter how you craft language to assuage your sense of guilt regarding the reality of the procedure, one person's life life is being terminated at the behest of another.

You are here and alive here on earth. It is probably safe to say that you prefer this over the alternative. Is there any time during your gestation where an abortion would have not prevented you from making the choice to continue to live?
That fetus doesn't have a 'right to life'. Sorry it doesn't. The odds of the newly implanted fetus successfully being born are not very good. Around 25% of all implanted embryos spontaniously abort.

That embryo is a potential life. When it becomes its own living person is very, very debatable. But historically- and I mean throughout history- that has generally either been when a child is born, or when a woman 'quickens'- movement can be felt.

But I realize that will never acceptable to those who want the state to decide what a woman can do with her body. I think that all became very clear when in the last year your side has stopped pretending you will accept exceptions for rape and incest, and stopped pretending you would not want to criminalize a 12 year old raped by her father if she takes the morning after pill.
have you ever considered responding to what a person actually said instead of that which you only imagine to be?

The simple-mindedness of your position that there are just two "sides" in the debate is part of the problem, especially inasmuch as you posit one side as completely dehumanizing a human life up to the point of delivery and the other side dehumanizing human life afterwards.

I am not part of a "side" that would disregard a 12 year old rape victim even if your fertile imagination wishes to paint me as such due to your need to place my level of awareness in the same place as yours..I am simply an individual who responds as an individual rather than as a warrior for a group.

You might try it some time.
While we are making abortions illegal in some states, maybe we should also prohibit the sale of Alcoholic beverages.
That is an utterly illogical response.
 
OP
Damaged Eagle

Damaged Eagle

Pilate's Dream
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
12,436
Reaction score
16,937
Points
2,445
Location
In a dream



The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****


:)

NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.
If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

First of all- we all have the 'right' to demand whatever we would like to demand- that doesn't mean anyone has the right to get what they demand.
Secondly- Planned Parenthood doesn't tell anyone what they must do with their bodies- PP provides options to women, mostly birth control and health screenings, and in some cases abortion.
Finally- PP gets no government funding for abortions- but does get government support for providing health services and contraceptives to women.

I have yet to figure out why the anti-abortion people would not want women to have access to low cost contraceptives, unless of course the anti-abortionist agenda is not really about protecting 'unborn life' but about taking control away from women.

After all- Conservatives actively fought against women having access to contraceptives for decades- even making information about contraceptives was deemed 'obscene'


So you'll be fine with the government funding being taken away and the agency told to run strictly on charitable donations?

*****SMILE*****

:)
Fine? No. I think government funding to support women 's health and contraception is a great investment.

As I said

First of all- we all have the 'right' to demand whatever we would like to demand- that doesn't mean anyone has the right to get what they demand.
Secondly- Planned Parenthood doesn't tell anyone what they must do with their bodies- PP provides options to women, mostly birth control and health screenings, and in some cases abortion.
Finally- PP gets no government funding for abortions- but does get government support for providing health services and contraceptives to women.

I have yet to figure out why the anti-abortion people would not want women to have access to low cost contraceptives, unless of course the anti-abortionist agenda is not really about protecting 'unborn life' but about taking control away from women.

After all- Conservatives actively fought against women having access to contraceptives for decades- even making information about contraceptives was deemed 'obscene'


Where did I state that you couldn't have access to all those things?

*****SMILE*****


:)
 
OP
Damaged Eagle

Damaged Eagle

Pilate's Dream
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
12,436
Reaction score
16,937
Points
2,445
Location
In a dream
And just paying child support money only covers half of the problem, wonder what the numbers are of men who pay but stay away.
Why all the deflection? Why not address the fact that the federal government has prohibited the States from determining their own laws regarding abortion? Why should a small group of people be able to impose their political views on majorities who do not share those views? Why should Kansas be forced to adopt the same views as New York?
You mean like why did the Federal government force Virginia to allow mixed race marriages? Yeah why should a small group of people be able to impose their political vies on majorities who do not share those views?

Really what you mean is that why shouldn't a group of people be able to impose their own personal beliefs on every woman in a state.


Why should you be allowed to impose your personal beliefs on every person in the state?
I am not forcing anyone to have an abortion. I want every woman to be able to decide what to do with her body- not the state.

You want to force your opinion on abortion on every woman.

You want to impose your personal beliefs on every person in your state.
You want the state to control every women's body
Not me.


You're wrong.

I'm not trying to stop you from having an abortion.

You're free to do whatever you want and have as many abortions as you want.

However do it without government funding.

You want it provided for by some non-profit agency?

Start a charity and do it with charitable donations.

*****SMILE*****


:)
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
17,845
Reaction score
2,503
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
Calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion" is exactly the same thing as calling antiwar people "pro-surrender". You don't get to do that without being called down for it.
Well, anti-war is "pro-surrender".
Really?

In World War 1- while America was virulently anti-war until 1917- you think that the U.S. was 'pro-surrender"?

What happened to the Trumpians who think pretended to believe the U.S. shouldn't go to war when it isn't in our interest? Are they 'pro-surrender' also?
The public was even more anti-war leading up to Pearl Harbor.

The world, including the US were pro-surrender.

Adolph Hitler flagrantly violated the Treaty of Versailles with his military build-up of an air force, the number of soldiers, a massive program of building tanks, warships, submarines and all other war materials. Europe and the US did nothing. That was pro-surrender. The Allies could have stopped Hitler at that point, no one did. France and Britain were forced to declare war on Germany when Hitler annexed part of Poland and then invaded the remainder. However, they actually did nothing. Pro-surrender".

Anywhere along the line, the allies had the justification but chose pro-surrender. IF the allies had been pro-war and crushed Adolph Hitler then, Would 30, 40, or more million lives been saved?
 

jwoodie

Gold Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
13,644
Reaction score
2,209
Points
280
One of the main purposes of government funding is to "normalize" abortions, i.e., remove any moral or ethical issues associated with this "medical procedure." That way, we can devote our attention to more important issues like pulling the plug on brain-dead patients. Apparently, they deserve more consideration than living human fetuses.
 

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
4,392
Reaction score
489
Points
170



The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****


:)

NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.

I'd have more respect for the conservative perspective (al life is precious, abortion is murder) if they didn't spend all day talking about how much they like POST BIRTH ABORTION;

killing gays
killing liberals
killing atheists
killing muslims
killing moderates
killing RINOS

If a woman is contemplating an abortion....

and you convince her that ABORTION IS MURDER

so she decides to have the child

and it grows up to be a homosexual, atheist, liberal....

why do you want to kill it?
 

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
13,765
Reaction score
3,175
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun



The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****


:)

NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.

I'd have more respect for the conservative perspective (al life is precious, abortion is murder) if they didn't spend all day talking about how much they like POST BIRTH ABORTION;

killing gays
killing liberals
killing atheists
killing muslims
killing moderates
killing RINOS

If a woman is contemplating an abortion....

and you convince her that ABORTION IS MURDER

so she decides to have the child

and it grows up to be a homosexual, atheist, liberal....

why do you want to kill it?
Who in this thread has advocated anything CLOSE to that?

Why do you argue the imaginary rather rhan real? It is illogical, unintelligent and disingenuous.
 

Vandalshandle

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
20,639
Reaction score
3,651
Points
290
Location
Southern AZ
so, If my wife argues against abortion, but also argues against abortion laws which are invasive, and an attack on individual rights, what false category would you put her into??

Why does she see it as a right to deny another human the right to life?

No matter how you craft language to assuage your sense of guilt regarding the reality of the procedure, one person's life life is being terminated at the behest of another.

You are here and alive here on earth. It is probably safe to say that you prefer this over the alternative. Is there any time during your gestation where an abortion would have not prevented you from making the choice to continue to live?
So, you want to legislate your morality. I get it.
All legislation involves moral reasoning.

The fact that you are incapable of such does not imply it does not exist. the very reason for a legal system is to determine what is considered moral conduct and what is not.
Not at all. Laws do not establish morality. For example, it is not immoral for me to not pay taxes to support an immoral war. However, it is illegal.
 

Vandalshandle

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
20,639
Reaction score
3,651
Points
290
Location
Southern AZ
so, If my wife argues against abortion, but also argues against abortion laws which are invasive, and an attack on individual rights, what false category would you put her into??

Why does she see it as a right to deny another human the right to life?

No matter how you craft language to assuage your sense of guilt regarding the reality of the procedure, one person's life life is being terminated at the behest of another.

You are here and alive here on earth. It is probably safe to say that you prefer this over the alternative. Is there any time during your gestation where an abortion would have not prevented you from making the choice to continue to live?
That fetus doesn't have a 'right to life'. Sorry it doesn't. The odds of the newly implanted fetus successfully being born are not very good. Around 25% of all implanted embryos spontaniously abort.

That embryo is a potential life. When it becomes its own living person is very, very debatable. But historically- and I mean throughout history- that has generally either been when a child is born, or when a woman 'quickens'- movement can be felt.

But I realize that will never acceptable to those who want the state to decide what a woman can do with her body. I think that all became very clear when in the last year your side has stopped pretending you will accept exceptions for rape and incest, and stopped pretending you would not want to criminalize a 12 year old raped by her father if she takes the morning after pill.
have you ever considered responding to what a person actually said instead of that which you only imagine to be?

The simple-mindedness of your position that there are just two "sides" in the debate is part of the problem, especially inasmuch as you posit one side as completely dehumanizing a human life up to the point of delivery and the other side dehumanizing human life afterwards.

I am not part of a "side" that would disregard a 12 year old rape victim even if your fertile imagination wishes to paint me as such due to your need to place my level of awareness in the same place as yours..I am simply an individual who responds as an individual rather than as a warrior for a group.

You might try it some time.
While we are making abortions illegal in some states, maybe we should also prohibit the sale of Alcoholic beverages.
That is an utterly illogical response.
And your argument makes sense? overturn Roe VS Wade, and the issue is decided by the states, at least 15 of which will keep abortion legal. So the end result of doing what you want done is that a few doctors go to prison, the woman getting the abortion is not criminalized, and she now has the choice to do it legally in that state, or illegally in the other state. THAT makes sense?
 

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
4,392
Reaction score
489
Points
170



The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****


:)

NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.

I'd have more respect for the conservative perspective (al life is precious, abortion is murder) if they didn't spend all day talking about how much they like POST BIRTH ABORTION;

killing gays
killing liberals
killing atheists
killing muslims
killing moderates
killing RINOS

If a woman is contemplating an abortion....

and you convince her that ABORTION IS MURDER

so she decides to have the child

and it grows up to be a homosexual, atheist, liberal....

why do you want to kill it?
Who in this thread has advocated anything CLOSE to that?

Why do you argue the imaginary rather rhan real? It is illogical, unintelligent and disingenuous.

in this thread?

don't know

But since I read sentiments like that on a daily basis in this message board I'm standing by it.
 

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
6,719
Reaction score
949
Points
275
Location
USA
"Pro" is short for "proponent."

If you vote "pro" in favor of keeping abortions legal, you are "PRO" on abortion.

You can try to spin it and wiggle out of it, but the dictionary has it right.

A proponent by any other name is still a proponent.
No, that just means you are pro-legalization.
An abortion is a form of child molestation. No aborted child ever escapes "unmolested" from the womb.

(Note that, not all molestations are sexual)

If someone were to propose lifting laws against other forms of molestation (sexual for exampe). . . I doubt very much that you would try to draw the same distinction then that you are drawing now.

If you are pro molestation enough to want it "legalized?" You are pro molestation. Period.

Be it through an abortion or by any other means.
 

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
6,719
Reaction score
949
Points
275
Location
USA
Although vehemently against abortion on demand, these are the reasons why it is here to stay:

1. The abortion industry is a billion dollar industry in the US. As a lobby, they are hard to outspend. The love of money truly is the root of all evil.

Two problems with this argument. First as a lobby- plenty of 'industries' outspend 'the abortion industry'. Secondly, this implies that women are choosing abortions because of some kind of lobbying effort by abortion providers. You might have a point if this was an industry with actual commercial advertising promoting the product- but women choose abortion for their own reasons- at the most- lobbying allows for their to be safe and legal abortion service within a community- as opposed to unsafe and illegal.


2. Most women who have abortions do so because of financial concerns even though every time someone tries to argue that it should be legal uses examples of incest or some such nonsense.

Most women do tend to have abortions for financial concerns. Addressing those financial concerns would lower the demand for abortion.

And addressing your other point- I do tend to point out that the anti-abortion side now openly wants to prevent the victims of rape and incest from any form of birth control, even the morning after pill- because- even though this represents a very small portion of the women who chose abortions- their stories are very real- and the anti-abortion activists do want to tell them that they have to give birth to their rapist child- i.e. what you call 'nonsense'


And speaking of nonsense- the anti-abortion side currently wants to mostly talk about abortion late third trimester abortions- even though those type of abortions are extremely rare- and in most of those cases the women having the abortions really don't want to, but are facing some sort of health tragedy.

3. The powers that be are focused on population control, which is why the US government funds or supports birth control and abortion all around the globe. Such concerns as global warming and the depletion of natural resources is why they view the snuffing out of human life as a good thing.

The U.S. government does fund birth control around the world- because one of the leading causes of poverty for women around the world is having too many children. The U.S. does not fund any abortion services outside the United States. Not sure why you equate birth control with snuffing out human life. And do you think that contraception is a bad thing? I don't. One of the best ways to improve the health of women in any country is to allow them to control their own fertility so that they can limit the number of children to the number that their family can afford.

4. Genocide is human nature. Just do a little history search and you will see genocide conducted all over the globe at pretty much any time in history. We see to have a thirst for killing and usually it is over power and money issues, as is abortion.
No one now is forcing any women in the U.S. to have abortions. Women choosing abortions is not 'genocide'- it is women making the choices that governments and men have claimed for years that they should be making for women, and that women shouldn't be trusted to make those decisions themselves.
You can frame the question anyway you choose from any perspective that you choose, but at the end of the day the question really is only, is the unborn infant human?

There are a myriad of different answers to this, some say not till so many weeks, some say not till they are viable in the womb, and then others say not till they exit the womb.

What say you?
I say I don't really know.
Getting past the extremist rhetoric on both sides, I don't believe that a newly implanted embryo is an infant.
But I also believe that a viable fetus probably is.

I also think that the woman who has to go through pregnancy and childbirth is the best person to decide the issue- not me or you- for her.

What about you?
What about. . .

When YOU were a newly implanted embryo?
Why are you afraid to answer the question?

I will gladly answer your question- after you answer the question I asked.
I do not fear this question at all.

Let's start with what should be some common ground between us.

I think we can both agree that no person has the Constitutional right to violate the Constitutional rights of another.

If we can not agree on that part. . . There is no point in a further response from me.

You are claiming that a woman has a Constitutional right to violate the rights of her prenatal child and you do so by using denials about the child and denials / dismissal of any idea about the child's rights.

The child continues to exist, despite your denials and the wording of the Constitution that declares that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the equal protections of our laws will continue to exist as well.
 
Last edited:

Thunk

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
802
Points
330
Location
Minnesota
One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point
And THERE is the debate we should have on a national level!

Is it a womans right to do what she wants with her own body? YES!

Is abortion the murder of a human being? YES!

Now we should put those 2 things on a balance-scale & see which one weighs heavier.
 

Thunk

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
802
Points
330
Location
Minnesota
Is a fetus a living human being?

I was once a fetus...you were once a fetus...Everybody alive today was once a fetus.

Doesn't that make it a STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT? (no different than infant, toddler, adult, or elderly)?

Why is it OK to murder at THAT particular stage of development and not others?
 

Monk-Eye

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
885
Reaction score
36
Points
63
" Hue Mammon "

* Criteria Of Physical Capacity *
Is a fetus a living human being?
I was once a fetus...you were once a fetus...Everybody alive today was once a fetus.
Doesn't that make it a STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT? (no different than infant, toddler, adult, or elderly)?
Why is it OK to murder at THAT particular stage of development and not others?
And while mammon vainly boasts a classification of itself as homo sapiens sapiens , is sentience a prerequisite for sapience ?

Thalamocortical radiations - Wikipedia
Thalamic interneurons process sensory information and signal different regions of the thalamic nuclei. These nuclei extend to relay cells, which in turn innervate distinct areas of the cortex via thalamocortical fibers.
 

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
6,719
Reaction score
949
Points
275
Location
USA
Is a fetus a living human being?

I was once a fetus...you were once a fetus...Everybody alive today was once a fetus.

Doesn't that make it a STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT? (no different than infant, toddler, adult, or elderly)?

Why is it OK to murder at THAT particular stage of development and not others?
The ultimate irony and display of hypocrisy is when a proabort claims to be a defender of children or an opponent to any other examples of AGE discrimination.
 

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
4,392
Reaction score
489
Points
170
One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point
And THERE is the debate we should have on a national level!

Is it a womans right to do what she wants with her own body? YES!

Is abortion the murder of a human being? YES!

Now we should put those 2 things on a balance-scale & see which one weighs heavier.
Is a fetus a living human being?

I was once a fetus...you were once a fetus...Everybody alive today was once a fetus.

Doesn't that make it a STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT? (no different than infant, toddler, adult, or elderly)?

Why is it OK to murder at THAT particular stage of development and not others?

"Why is it OK to murder at THAT particular stage of development and not others?"
Is a fetus a living human being?

I was once a fetus...you were once a fetus...Everybody alive today was once a fetus.

Doesn't that make it a STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT? (no different than infant, toddler, adult, or elderly)?

Why is it OK to murder at THAT particular stage of development and not others?
The ultimate irony and display of hypocrisy is when a proabort claims to be a defender of children or an opponent to any other examples of AGE discrimination.

"The ultimate irony and display of hypocrisy is when a proabort claims to be a defender of children or an opponent to any other examples of AGE discrimination."

I respect a womens right to choose

and I have no problem providing tax assistance (welfare) to help her and the child until she can make it on her own.

conservatives demand that she have the child but then don't care if the mother and child die homeless on the street.
 

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
13,765
Reaction score
3,175
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
The laws that allows abortion is sexist. The preborn baby is as much a part of the man as it is the woman. The woman is no more than a carrier of the preborn baby that the present law allows her to kill regardless of the man's wishes. If you place a fertilized egg in a woman and she carries it to full term and allows the baby to continue to live it will have no genetic comparison to the carrier therefore she is just a carrier.
an estimate of about 21 million children are born out of wedlock in the world

The latest US number
  • There are currently 13.6 million custodial single parents living in the U.S.
  • About half of them (50.2%) have some type of legal or informal child support agreement in place
  • 87.9% of those child support agreements are formal agreements, established in court or through a Title IV-D agency
12.1% are informal child support agreements established between the two parents

Only 12 percent of men are stepping up to the plate without being forced too

$33.7 billion dollars in child support was owed during the year 2015

Granted some men step up to the plate but a lot of then don't
So you feel all men should be punished because there are some men that do not care of their responsibilities?
Punished? If that's the way you want to look at it then sure.

Realistically, normal women will never let men assume control over our bodies. Never.

If you don't want to be responsible for an abortion, keep control of your sperm. It's that simple.
The laws that allows abortion is sexist. The preborn baby is as much a part of the man as it is the woman. The woman is no more than a carrier of the preborn baby that the present law allows her to kill regardless of the man's wishes. If you place a fertilized egg in a woman and she carries it to full term and allows the baby to continue to live it will have no genetic comparison to the carrier therefore she is just a carrier.

The man takes none of the risks of pregnancy. His life is never in danger.

But I have an idea. If it is as much a part of the man as the woman, let him take on the pregnancy and allow him to have it implanted. It might be uncomfortable and a bit risky, but what pregnancy isn't?
What danger this is not 1920? The man can not carry a baby only pay for it if the woman chooses to allow the baby to live. The woman can not get pregnant without the sperm of a man which is something missed by many when they took biology in school.
Here's an idea. If a man doesn't want his offspring aborted, he shouldn't place his sperm in the body of a woman who doesn't want a child. Condoms are cheap.

Men need to control their sperm if they are concerned about abortion. Once they've placed it inside the woman's body, they no longer have control of the situation.
So, you are saying that women should not have to face ANY responsibility for getting pregnant, but hold ALL discretion in terms of the life or death of the new life inside them. That is a very condescendingly misandrist position to take.
 
Last edited:

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top