Should Abortions Be Limited To Cases Of Forcible Rape?

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Uhh its not the other way around. They aren't going to forcibly take something out of you. Like your stating so its completely different.

If you can't live with the consequences then you shouldn't be doing the act in the first place. If you get pregnant its NO ONES fault but yours. You were educated on what causes pregnancy if your not ready for a child use birth control.

Is that so hard? I guess so.

Really?
It's always the woman's fault huh?

Turn that around for the male side. Don't put that thing inside a girl unless you're willing to face the consequences of getting it removed and changed into a girl yourself for accidentally making her pregnant.

Hmm?
Oh, no, we can't have men taking any sort of responsibility at all now can we?

Pregnancy is life altering, and if women are forced to a point where there's no option for termination, then, any male involved should also bear that lifetime responsibility, including the biological burden of losing their boy bits for having an accident.

Shoe doesn't fit so well if it's on the other foot now does it?

reply to post by Druscilla


If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant its her fault for not telling the man to put on a condom I do the first place.

And it goes both ways. Its called child support.

reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican


technically it is just a parasite living off a host, and who the f**k are you to tell any woman what they can or cant do, never heard of contraception not working, or are you one of the no sex before marriage brigade, if so take your out dated ideas somewhere they may have benefit

reply to post by FFS4000


You can put on more than one condom

reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican


Like child support actually works. Dream on.

Women need have the option to terminate any unwanted pregnancy. Period. No ifs. No buts. No fine print. No legalese.

If no one can legally snip off your boy parts like a tumor for accidental pregnancy, then no one has the right to force women into unwanted pregnancy.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by khimbar

 

Eh, its a legitimate question, "abortions should be allowed anytime" is weird phrasing if the intent of the statement is just that abortions should not be limited to victims of forcible rape.

edit on 23-8-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)

No, you've asked if abortions should only be allowed in one instance. And he's answered they should be allowed at 'anytime'.

You've deliberately inferred something else. It isn't weird phrasing at all.

reply to post by Druscilla


Hahaha this is turning amusing.

If you don't want to get pregnant. DON'T HAVE SEX!

Of course its unwanted but is it unavoidable? Um 150% YES.

But I guess you don't see such an obvious answer.

And men already get their Willy mutilated without say. Its called circumcision.
And why would they surgically remove anything? Anti abortion is about not about removing anything in the first place. So why would you bring that up in the first place it isn't even relevant in any way shape or form Haha.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Hahaha this is turning amusing.

If you don't want to get pregnant. DON'T HAVE SEX!

Of course its unwanted but is it unavoidable? Um 150% YES.

But I guess you don't see such an obvious answer.

And men already get their Willy mutilated without say. Its called circumcision.
And why would they surgically remove anything? Anti abortion is about not about removing anything in the first place. So why would you bring that up in the first place it isn't even relevant in any way shape or form Haha.

New law: One child per testicle!
If women can be forced with what they can and can't do with their bodies, then, for every pregnancy, a man has to lose a testicle.

On child per testicle!
After the first child, losing one testicle forces the man to be more docile, to provide for the resulting child, and be more responsible.
After the second child, well, it's still theoretically possible for a man to still have sex with no testicles.

One child per testicle!
If women have no choice, men shouldn't either.

One child per testicle!

If you don't want to lose them, DON'T HAVE SEX!
uh-huh.

Abortion would be the perfect place to start the limiting of medical treatment. A foot in the door, if you will.
Limiting it would set precedent for the future of limiting medical care for whatever reason.

With such an emotionally charged issue, the people would never notice that control over them had been increased.
A perfect smokescreen.

Just a thought...

Personally I hope that abortions are only done as an absolute last resort, and even in the cases of rape, they are not always necessary. Many people are alive as a result of rape. But its not a situation I have been in or am likely to be in, so how can I possibly understand?

When it comes to abortions, its tricky. Its ultimately a decision for the parent(s) and families involved. It really is nobody else's business at all, as long as its all done legally. If they want to abort their baby for whatever legitimate reasons, and they are willing to live with the consequences, then they as adults are entitled to do so. It should never be a decision taken lightly though, and that is fortunately addressed by the law, at least it is here in the UK.

I do struggle with the idea of it myself, but I have not been in their shoes, so how can I possibly understand? I will not judge someone who has an abortion. I can disagree yes but ultimately unless its my baby, then its nothing to do with me. People need to stay out of other people's lives and concentrate on their own.

reply to post by Druscilla


Hahaha all I have to say is WOW.

Ur getting very upset aren't you? As with me this is like christmas day.

I can rephrase this again

Me no want baby, me not have woopie, me not get baby.

What your saying is removing someones ability to reproduce.
That is completely off my point and is not valid in ANY way.

So please keep posting things for my own amusement I would like to see what you so brilliantly come up with next.

And to your edit. I can have sex in your scenario because I know of birth control and how to use it... so two testicles for this guy!

reply to post by khimbar

Originally posted by khimbar

No, you've asked if abortions should only be allowed in one instance. And he's answered they should be allowed at 'anytime'.

You've deliberately inferred something else. It isn't weird phrasing at all.

edit on 23-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)

Negative, this thread is not about a specific instance, but a group of people. Should abortions be limited to victims of forcible rape? Not, should abortions be limited to victims of forcible rape if the victim did not report the rape within 10 days. "Anytime" is a weird word choice.

reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican


The point is entirely valid.
If women have no right to do with themselves what they want, then, men shouldn't either.

It's only fair and equal responsibility considering it takes a man and woman to get pregnant TOGETHER
If women are free, then so also are men.

You find it entertaining, but this is a serious issue, and you'd certainly find it a serious issue if there were actual legislation for One Child per Testicle.

How would you feel THEN about government telling a body what they can and can't do with their own body?

It's a totally legitimate and valid proposition.
Limit a woman's choice, then, so also a man's choice.

Having a child domesticates a woman forcing changes on her body and is a lifetime commitment, where losing a testicle would make a man more domesticated, forcing changes on his body while also being a lifetime 'commitment'.

Would you prefer freedom of choice then, or would you rather the Government be standing over you every time you're in the bedroom?

If your bollocks are on the line, you might temper your judgement when the sword swings both ways.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal

Originally posted by khimbar

No, you've asked if abortions should only be allowed in one instance. And he's answered they should be allowed at 'anytime'.

You've deliberately inferred something else. It isn't weird phrasing at all.

edit on 23-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)

Negative, this thread is not about a specific instance, but a group of people. Should abortions be limited to victims of forcible rape? Not, should abortions be limited to victims of forcible rape if the victim did not report the rape within 10 days. "Anytime" is a weird word choice.

edit on 23-8-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)

No, it isn't.

Your question is quite clear in the thread title.

You've asked should abortions only be allowed in one set of circumstances. At one time. One set of events only.

He said no they should be allowed at any time. Any time meaning in any set of circumstances.

You've somehow twisted this reading he's meant abortion is allowed at any time in the pregnancy.

One can only guess why.

Originally posted by Druscilla

 

Like child support actually works. Dream on.

How would you even know the BS men have to go through for years and years? Even if they wanted to raise the child anyways, they wouldn't be given a CHOICE when it comes to raising the fruit of their loins. Meanwhile every second single mother out there collecting child support spends it on who knows what, while the kid grows not being taught a thing except how to make his way into juvie. Default mom can do everything short of killing someone before the father gets a chance to get custody of the kid.

So child support works like a charm if we're talking about screwing fathers over royally. Every time you turn around you hear some broad talking about "getting" some guy for child support while talking about deadbeat dads and such. Fathers don't have a choice, because women force them to be deadbeats sucking as much life and money out of them all the while.

Probably, the majority of women involved in cases like this will be collecting child support and refusing visitation (whether court ordered or not, nobody does anything about it) to the father while complaining to whoever will listen about how the dad is worthless and doesn't ever try to see the kid. Kudos to the men and women that work out how to care for the kid the right way by coming to a mutual consensus, but this almost never happens because women take advantage of the situation like an angry succubus.

Originally posted by Druscilla

 

Women need have the option to terminate any unwanted pregnancy. Period. No ifs. No buts. No fine print. No legalese.

Agreed, but some responsibility needs to be taken by BOTH men and women to not go around carelessly having sex 5 times a week and getting pregnant. It causes enough problems already and mainstream television/popular culture doesn't make it any easier promoting sex with everything from school supplies to retirement homes. Not to mention the world isn't getting any smaller, hard enough to feed the people on it now with out people having kids all over the place and not wanting, teaching them anything and raising the child like they should.

Everybody needs to start thinking about the consequences of having a kid before they start having sex. That way this whole abortion thing wouldn't even be an issue, along with a lot of other things that wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Originally posted by Druscilla

 

If no one can legally snip off your boy parts like a tumor for accidental pregnancy, then no one has the right to force women into unwanted pregnancy.

I don't know what that has to do with anything, "legally" mutilating someone is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's like if I said for every guy forced to never see his kids the woman should have her sex organs cut out.

Listening to some woman talk about making laws to cut of mens "boy parts" makes me wonder why you ever got the right to vote.

reply to post by Druscilla


You took a long time to write back on that one I thought u gave in.
And yes it is pretty entertaining. Hilarious in fact.

And I wouldt care if that law would to arise if you did read my edit.
I know what causes pregnancy and I also know how to prevent it. Therefore I would t be castrated because I know that birth control does work. Use it all the time and guess what no daddy for me. If I didn't want my balls cut off like you say then maybe I should think of the reason why it would happen to me.

Wrap your Willy or gain sterility! That's the slogan! Haha.

If your law passed then your looking at the only reproducing man in america. So you best be nice now

reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican


I would say judging by your replies a very single man..

The sound of a man who has been denied repeatedly by women.

The fact of the matter is..it is a woman's body and there isn't anything you can say that would justify someone telling her what she can or cannot do with it..