Should Abortions Be Limited To Cases Of Forcible Rape?

Men should not be making laws that apply only to women. Let the women decided.

Maybe all male politicians should be neutered, it might improve the world.

Originally posted by roadgravel
Men should not be making laws that apply only to women. Let the women decided.

Maybe all male politicians should be neutered, it might improve the world.

I think we have a winner!


All in all, no male should be making laws that apply exclusively to females except where there's laws, statutes, or paradigms pervasive that prevent the recognition and equal observance of treatment for women and laws need be placed for such recognition and observance to occur.

EX: If women are suppressed or persecuted for nursing in public, especially so in areas where men are free to go bare chested without persecution, then a law may need be placed to ensure no discrimination will occur against a woman exposing her breast.

EX: Any instance or occurrence where women may be treated unequal, or unfairly due any societal or cultural paradigm where a law needs placement to do away with any such discrimination.

I support abortion its the peoples choice not the governments.

What if the mother has a mental health problem like major depression and has already got children.

She not going to cope with a extra one. Also what if that pregnancy is risky for the mother.

What are your options.

Its not genocide its not murder, its what is best for the women carrying the baby, not you or anyone else can say otherwise.
In Australia
There is a time limit on how far through your pregnancy you can abort where I live.
thats 13.5 weeks.

In other states/colonies its different weeks, the only place that aborts after that many weeks is Victoria, there is only one clinic that will do the procedure up until 24 weeks.

visit dr maree stopes website, sometime the fact is look at what they are doing around the world for the 3rd world countries.

The snippet from the article mainly referred to insurance coverage of abortions. I don't see much of that being discussed here.

I support a woman's right to choose. I don't agree with abortion, but it is not my place to judge or decide for another woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. So I agree with many others here that the government should NEVER get to regulate that kind of decision.

However I don't agree with insurance companies being forced to cover the costs of all abortions. I do believe that abortions should be covered in the event of rape (by ANY definition), incest, and when deemed medically necessary (an ectopic pregnancy, conditions that make it dangerous for the mother to carry to term, etc.). Other than that I believe that if a woman wants an abortion she should pay "out of pocket".

There are too many types of birth control available (many at no cost through insurance or through family planning clinics across the nation) for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn't want to. There are preventatives, and in case of unplanned activity there is "the morning after" treatment.

So, should women be able to get legal, safe abortions if they so choose? YES!!!

Should insurance be forced to pay for abortions in every situation? NO!!!

i believe life begins at conception and i absolutely hate the thought that babies are killed but having said that who should be higher than another, making a decision for a woman weather or not to abort a child for whatever reason. personally i'd like to be the one to abolish abortion completely but i know in my heart it's the woman's decision 100% i never understood government making it an actual law i mean all we should do in the matter is educate and at most maybe if anything make the woman talk to some kind of concealer for a few days to a week and that's at the very most and that's where our involvement should end. we can never know what's in a woman's mind and her reasons for making a decision because even though i'm a man it can't possibly be an easy decision.

no one and i mean absolutely no one should be involved other than the woman in this decision. something like this will be forever on the woman's conscience and eventually she will have to answer to God so why make these women put their lives in danger by seeking "back alley abortion clinics" or worse. these women suffer enough.

i must be more uninformed than i realized because i never heard until the recent todd akin debacle that there's actually people who believe you can't get pregnant after being raped.. the fact that when that was first said and wasn't completely quashed makes me believe there's more morons on this planet than i realized and makes me completely discussed in humanity.

to any women who happen to stumble upon this struggling for an answer.. as far as a husbands perspective goes i will say this.. 23 years ago my wife had a "tubal pregnancy" and while i knew, especially at that time in technology, it had to be terminated and to this very day there isn't a second that goes by that i don't think of my child and what he or she could have been, even writing this now i'm swelling up all these years after the fact so please talk to the father of your child before making your decision he's the only one that should have any input in the matter and even at that it's still your decision, completely. i'm just asking you to consider anything he has to say.

this is my stance on the subject.If sex is forced onto the woman then she should be able to take the morning after pill or abortion terminate the pregnency.Because she had no say so in the act.Now some people will throw in the religous aspect of this debate and I say this.If god wanted you to have a baby then i am pretty sure he wouldn't use rape to do it.If he did use it then he is not deserving of our worship.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


It is just this simple: you cannot legislate morality. Therefore, the question is simple: is abortion right or wrong? There is no gray area in this, because at the core you have the question of "is it murder"?

If it is murder, then you cannot allow it. Period. No questions, no gray area, no reason to even have the discussion.

If it is not murder, then it is just a matter of people who don't like it wanting to control other people who don't share their opinion. To put any limits on it would be to stifle liberty. So, you have to allow it and have only health and safety regulations involved. No need to even discuss that any further.

Any other discussion is just people trying to balance out the ratio of murder vs tyranny that is involved.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I like your post but there is one gray area and most people will i think agree .It is when does life begin?If you are going to be black and white, murder or not no gray area that question should be answered

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by roadgravel
Men should not be making laws that apply only to women. Let the women decided.

Maybe all male politicians should be neutered, it might improve the world.

I think we have a winner!

All in all, no male should be making laws that apply exclusively to females except where there's laws, statutes, or paradigms pervasive that prevent the recognition and equal observance of treatment for women and laws need be placed for such recognition and observance to occur.

EX: If women are suppressed or persecuted for nursing in public, especially so in areas where men are free to go bare chested without persecution, then a law may need be placed to ensure no discrimination will occur against a woman exposing her breast.

EX: Any instance or occurrence where women may be treated unequal, or unfairly due any societal or cultural paradigm where a law needs placement to do away with any such discrimination.

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

Uhh haven't you noticed men don't have breasts in the first place? They are not genitalia so why do you keep coming up with these ideas?

Go ahead and walk around with no top on and you will see both men and women alike despise you.

Originally posted by othello
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I like your post but there is one gray area and most people will i think agree .It is when does life begin?If you are going to be black and white, murder or not no gray area that question should be answered

I left that answer out entirely. And I did it on purpose.

I don't have an answer for you on that. That is a question that we must answer. But until we do, I haven't heard a single argument for or against abortion that is based in logic or reason. It is all based on "feelings" and "belief". That is a poor method for determining law.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by roadgravel
Men should not be making laws that apply only to women. Let the women decided.

Maybe all male politicians should be neutered, it might improve the world.

I think we have a winner!

All in all, no male should be making laws that apply exclusively to females except where there's laws, statutes, or paradigms pervasive that prevent the recognition and equal observance of treatment for women and laws need be placed for such recognition and observance to occur.

You and I elect our law makers. If you feel that there should be more women, then that is a change you should work on. I would support you in that endeavor.

EX: If women are suppressed or persecuted for nursing in public, especially so in areas where men are free to go bare chested without persecution, then a law may need be placed to ensure no discrimination will occur against a woman exposing her breast.

My wife and I have hot debates over this. My sister will breast feed her son while at my moms house, if only women are present. My wife states, "I don't want to see that". I tell her that it is natural...all the arguments that would typically be used. Her response is, "I don't care. Doesn't she have any self respect? So because there is milk coming out of it, it is ok? I should be ok with having to see that?"

I cannot really argue with her. She believes that when it comes to the "naughty parts", regardless of reason a woman should always be reserved and private. As a man, I can say I am far more attracted to a woman like that (probably why i ended up with my wife).

Regardless, let me ask you this: if your above example were to be seen through, would you consider it "sexual assault" if a man decided to run up and grope your breasts? If you would....then you might be a hypocrite.

Something to keep in mind: equal rights for women/men does not mean that we are the same. No matter how much you or any other person may wish it to be true, we will always have differences in genders. Instead of trying to cover it up and calling it feminism, I would argue that the ultimate in feminism is being the best WOMAN that you can be. Now, what that is should be defined by each woman for herself.

I know that I try to be the best MAN i can be. And in so doing I recognize my limitations, and rely on my wife to help fill those gaps (which I do the same for her). In this way, we have each made the other a better person. Not individual, because there is nothing individual about such synergy.

Should Abortions Be Limited To Cases Of Forcible Rape?

It's only me seeing the hypocrisy in this question?
Because I don't get the logic behind it.
What would be the reason to abort a child conceived from rape? - Because it's unwanted, unplanned, forced pregnancy - alright, I'm ok with this. But if a woman get's pregnant by accident, who care if it was unwanted or unplanned? Let's FORCE her to have that child. Is that the logic?

Or is that the child conceived through a rape doesn't have the same rights as a child conceived during an one night stand? Do we punish the child now for his father's sins?

And that's the logic of people who want to tell others what they should and should not do.

Let the woman choose for herself; it's her decision if she's ready to take responsibility for another life or not. And better show some respect and gratitude to all the women who did have the courage and the strength to bring us into this world, instead of trying to force them to act according to our limited view.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal

Originally posted by Nettlas
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

Who are you to decide what somebody does to her body? Abortion should be allowed anytime. You can not controll others life dude, Why do you even care? Godamnit, I´m really pissed when people want to regulate abortion.

Hmmm...anytime? So even at 9 months?

Howabout 2years ?
("retroactive abortion"?) "killing a living thing is killing a living thing".However children are not "tumors".

Murder is murder.

Isit still "her choice" if her kids a "pita"?or she fell on economic hard times??????????

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican

Uhh haven't you noticed men don't have breasts in the first place? They are not genitalia so why do you keep coming up with these ideas?

Go ahead and walk around with no top on and you will see both men and women alike despise you.

FYI: There are a number of places, and festival events where partial and even fully nudity is socially acceptable and appropriate.

I've gone happily topless, on many several occasions, and I was not the only one present for that matter, nor was I molested or harassed in any way.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Regardless, let me ask you this: if your above example were to be seen through, would you consider it "sexual assault" if a man decided to run up and grope your breasts? If you would....then you might be a hypocrite.

A violation of any person's personal space involving uninvited, unasked for, non-familiar familiarized contact is an assault.
I would consider boob grabbing an assault on personal space, and only a "sexual" assault were contact with any body part, whether it be a hand, a foot, or any other part is intended to be sexual.

Were a homosexual man to grab your heterosexual hand and place it on his genitals, or simply began sucking your fingers, would you not consider this also a sexual assault?
Whereas if this same man were to simply shake your hand in greeting, the operative context would be entirely different.

Nudity, whether partial or full, or any state of dress or undress is not an invitation for any contact.
Of course, some would prefer all women wearing Burkas.

There are appropriate and socially acceptable places where partial or full nudity isn't a problem. I've never had a problem in Europe for instance, whereas in the U.S. the majority social consciousness is much closer to it's Puritan Pilgrim roots where any sort of casual nudity is considered dirty, sexual, provocative, and an open invitation for physical contact.

Thankfully, this isn't a 100% doctrine and there are indeed places, as well as festival events where these hangups are suspended where a woman, or man can be comfortably carefree in casual, relaxed partial or full nudity without concern or worry regarding any physical trespass.

Don't mistake this for a blanket condoning of nudity everywhere. There are appropriate places like swimming pools, parks, beaches, campgrounds, and other such places where skin shouldn't be considered inappropriate so long at it's not on display in a sexual or intentionally sexually arousing context.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican

Uhh haven't you noticed men don't have breasts in the first place? They are not genitalia so why do you keep coming up with these ideas?

Go ahead and walk around with no top on and you will see both men and women alike despise you.

FYI: There are a number of places, and festival events where partial and even fully nudity is socially acceptable and appropriate.

I've gone happily topless, on many several occasions, and I was not the only one present for that matter, nor was I molested or harassed in any way.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Regardless, let me ask you this: if your above example were to be seen through, would you consider it "sexual assault" if a man decided to run up and grope your breasts? If you would....then you might be a hypocrite.

A violation of any person's personal space involving uninvited, unasked for, non-familiar familiarized contact is an assault.
I would consider boob grabbing an assault on personal space, and only a "sexual" assault were contact with any body part, whether it be a hand, a foot, or any other part is intended to be sexual.

Were a homosexual man to grab your heterosexual hand and place it on his genitals, or simply began sucking your fingers, would you not consider this also a sexual assault?
Whereas if this same man were to simply shake your hand in greeting, the operative context would be entirely different.

Nudity, whether partial or full, or any state of dress or undress is not an invitation for any contact.
Of course, some would prefer all women wearing Burkas.

There are appropriate and socially acceptable places where partial or full nudity isn't a problem. I've never had a problem in Europe for instance, whereas in the U.S. the majority social consciousness is much closer to it's Puritan Pilgrim roots where any sort of casual nudity is considered dirty, sexual, provocative, and an open invitation for physical contact.

Thankfully, this isn't a 100% doctrine and there are indeed places, as well as festival events where these hangups are suspended where a woman, or man can be comfortably carefree in casual, relaxed partial or full nudity without concern or worry regarding any physical trespass.

Don't mistake this for a blanket condoning of nudity everywhere. There are appropriate places like swimming pools, parks beaches, and other such places where skin shouldn't be considered inappropriate so long at it's not on display in a sexual or intentionally sexually arousing context.

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

Actually, sexual assault is sexual assault regardless of gender.

What you call "hang ups" are called, in other parts of the country, "decency laws". Now, my own personal opinion (i don't want to see naked people, i am a sexual person and it is impossible to concentrate or function around nothing but naked people) doesn't matter here Until the law is changed.

I also see it as fully appropriate to have places that women can conduct their business. Breast feeding being a great example. But if it is a body part that isn't appropriate for standing in the front yard having exposed around neighborhood children, it isn't a body part that should be exposed anywhere openly where children may be present, and where other people present are not fully aware that this is a behavior that will be displayed.

A beach is not such a place. No matter how much you wish otherwise, the average man will see it sexually. And, just like in matters of sexual harassment, it is all in the eyes of the "victim".

ETA: lets also not pretend that a topless woman is the same as a topless man. It is not the same. My example wasn't talking about condoning any sexual assault, but rather trying to ascertain if you see your breasts in a sexual manner in any way. Because if you do (for example, if you have used them provacatively with a mate), then you surely must see that the rest of the world will see them being exposed as a sexual act. Not permission to grope you, but rather a sexual act. And, like masturbation, public sexual acts are generally looked down on in polite society.

Keep the government out of this is my answer. And abortion is never an answer to rape. The answer to rape, is to go after the rapists. Leave the child out of this, they are not at fault, why are the innocent being killed for someone elses crime? How come this topic of rape and abortion keep coming up? Why isnt it rape and harsher penalties on the rapists. The unborn child is not at fault, and for some reason if a person was raped and didnt get pregnant, then the rapists for some reason arent sought after nearly as much. Why is it only when the woman has a baby that rape is all of a sudden a topic? Seems to me the men and women arent doing there job. Which is going after the criminals, not the babies.

Tax dollars coming from people to support acts of crime 'aka abortion' is outright evil. And having the government decide whats right and wrong is the first problem. And second problem is this lack justice system where rapists arent sought after enough, but instead go raid a grocery store cause they sell raw milk. This is what we get, for setting up government after mans laws, confusion and mess.

reply to post by Druscilla


Yea in places that state nudity is welcome.

If that's the case go for it.

Im talking in public places where its the law not to be nude.

NO

my wife and I faced a horrific decision. our 1st expected child died in the womb after 5 months, but her body did not go into any sort of childbirth phase

there was never even a second in my mind I ever expected her to carry a dead fetus in her body for 4 months

thank goodness we could go to Yale New Haven and be taken care of with skill, respect and kindness

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Yea in places that state nudity is welcome.

If that's the case go for it.

Im talking in public places where its the law not to be nude.

Yea...that is what i was trying to say.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

ETA: lets also not pretend that a topless woman is the same as a topless man. It is not the same. My example wasn't talking about condoning any sexual assault, but rather trying to ascertain if you see your breasts in a sexual manner in any way. Because if you do (for example, if you have used them provacatively with a mate), then you surely must see that the rest of the world will see them being exposed as a sexual act. Not permission to grope you, but rather a sexual act. And, like masturbation, public sexual acts are generally looked down on in polite society.

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

I concur, public sexual acts are inappropriate.
Such is why I emphasize 'appropriate', and 'acceptable' regarding this side-topic.
However, following your example regarding breasts as sexual objects. I'm quite positive your hands and mouth have been used in the course of sexual acts, yet, it's seemingly fine to go out in public without gloves or a surgical mask to cover up these parts?

People kiss in public and aren't immediately thrown in jail for their actions too?

In most climes of Europe, casual nudity in appropriate places isn't an issue either socially or legally, and the social consciousness is accepting of such for all ages, young and old alike.
Children play naked in the surf, while old men and women, as well as middle aged and youth of both sexes are fee to sunbathe in the nude, or not, according each person's personal preference.

Further, regarding your ATS member name, and your personal offense or distraction regarding states of undress, if it is indeed a self description, then it might be worth consideration that though legally socially acceptable, some people might take offense and distraction to seeing a large, fat, hairy man topless.

Please consider these arguments out of point of principle. I don't expect to wake up tomorrow or even a decade from now in a USA that's body tolerant.
Such, however, isn't an issue in of comment in Europe, and more a product of American social programming.
I understand that, though, I disagree.