Should Abortions Be Limited To Cases Of Forcible Rape?

reply to post by Druscilla


I hope you apologize to him for your accusations.

Because a man without his shirt is in no way shape or form showing ANY genitalia.
Unlike women male breasts don't have any role of sexual reproduction. Womens breasts produce milk for the aid of reproduction.

Sorry if it offends you but he is not technically showing anything relevant to reproduction organs.

Thus nullifying your claims.

with tough issues like these I usually find the right answer is "yes with moderation"
make abortion legal in case of rape but don't make abortion something as easy as a regular doctors visit
some cases (rape victims) are clearly justified for an abortion
other cases (one night stands) are not, specially if tax money is used for the procedure
sorry but tax money should not be used to fix the issues of people having irresponsible sex

Also remember that abortion is a procedure done on the woman by the doctor. It is not something women do themselves, so any argument similar to "women should be free to do x because its their body" falls flat. Unless you are speaking of the "abortion" done with clothe hangers or the stair method, in which case should definitely be illegal.
If doctors are banned from performing the abortion procedure it in no way is encroaching in any ones personal liberties.

reply to post by quietlearner


Very good point I was thinking about this earlier.

Its technically not the decision of the women, its the decision of the doctor allowing it to happen.

Yes you can do what you want with your own body. But your asking permission from somebody else ti do it.

Ultimately its the doctors decision not theirs.

reply to post by Druscilla


Well, if we are to be honest, I think it inappropriate in most situations for a man to have his shirt off as well. But that aside, my name was created while I was still truly "fat"....200 lbs ago. Now I am more like bigsaggyfurrytexan. Definitely not any prettier to look at, mind you. But more accurate.

reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican

But birth control is not 100% effective, so you can still get pregnant while on birth control. And as a woman goes on birth control to avoid getting pregnant..... and she gets pregnant...... its not that she chose to allow that to happen, per se. The morning after pill seems like a good idea in many cases, and frankly.... then there's abortion. But to say a woman that isn't on birth control is accepting the risk.... is rape the risk she takes? Is that reasonable? Any woman can be raped.

reply to post by jaxnmarko


Well if you want to be sure you know you can put in more than one condom.

Please remember people like me. And my friend who is sitting here with me, we're having a few brews.

Both of us are TOXIC. We both come from the US Great Lakes region which is highly polluted. We are both former engineers, also (yes, you get exposed to alot of chems, even in the office.)

I myself am up over 80 rads (last tested at) - I likely glow in the dark. My friend has a whole host of chems exposed to - she is from MI and it is pretty bad in spots there.

There is NO possible way either of us can have kids - they wouldn't *be* kids anyway. More like extremely deformed and sickly vegetables.

No doctors will sterilize us. We are 'too young' I'm early 40s and she's late 30s.

What are we supposed to do? WE didn't ingest pollution willingly. I can tolerate hormonal BC but my friend cannot. She is single and abstinent. Happy?

But - what if she met someone and did the best she could, with condoms? What if there was a failure? Would YOU want to see a sickly, grossly defective child - born only to suffer and die? WHY?

Also about my friend - she spends time on this "Child Free By Choice" site - which I sometimes look at too. There are many articles and discussions there about badly deformed and sick children - of which the mothers were advised to abort the child as it had no chance of normal life and worse would be very very sick and suffer greatly. But they didn't listen. Not something like Downs' Syndrome either - horribly sick children who will exist to suffer as vegetables and then die.

Some of these topics have many comments from those who personally know such people, and such horribly sick and dying children - I can't read too much of it myself, it is highly disturbing.

Is this right? How can this be right - that the child should be born to suffer so?

Please think about this, and remember that there are so very very many people like me and my friend here - and men too, who were exposed to serious pollutants. There must be 10s of thousands of us. Maybe hundreds of thousands. The US is a very polluted place.

And what can we do? When doctors REFUSE to sterilize you - even after you explain and are willing to pay cash?

And all precautions are always taken. What about us? What about the desperately sick children that could result? What about them?

In my opinion it is NOT right to cause someone to suffer unduly.

(I believe the same in cases of gross injury, illness, the elderly, also. They should have the right to "go" if that is their wish.)

Originally posted by khimbar
'Should Abortions Be Limited To Cases Of Forcible Rape?'

No.

Anything else I can help you with?

I concur. Couldn't have said it any better myself!

Originally posted by quietlearner
with tough issues like these I usually find the right answer is "yes with moderation"
make abortion legal in case of rape but don't make abortion something as easy as a regular doctors visit
some cases (rape victims) are clearly justified for an abortion
other cases (one night stands) are not, specially if tax money is used for the procedure
sorry but tax money should not be used to fix the issues of people having irresponsible sex

Also remember that abortion is a procedure done on the woman by the doctor. It is not something women do themselves, so any argument similar to "women should be free to do x because its their body" falls flat. Unless you are speaking of the "abortion" done with clothe hangers or the stair method, in which case should definitely be illegal.
If doctors are banned from performing the abortion procedure it in no way is encroaching in any ones personal liberties.

Considering what I just wrote - and if you believe it is the doctors' decision - would you then believe that a doctor SHOULD abort a child that is clearly defective? Even if the mother said NO?

See this is the logic point about "choice" - once we legislate reproduction - it can just as soon go the other way - to FORCED abortion.

This is why we need CHOICE. Once the government decides - it could just as soon go the other way.

I mentioned other sick people and the elderly as well - what if one of your relatives explicitly expressed that they wanted NO "heroic measures" to keep them alive and would rather just 'go peacefully' - should they become very ill. What if all sorts of Pro Life measures took affect and this was no longer allowed? Would you want to see your relative suffer? Knowing their wishes?

What about even a pet, or livestock animal? Would you want to be told by a vet that it's dying, it can't be saved - but - it cannot be 'put out of its misery' either because that's not 'pro life'? Would you want to see your pet suffer and die slowly?

We have to have CHOICE. We have to.

If folks are against abortion - they shouldn't have one. They need to realized that in many cases it's the best way to go. And leave that up to the individuals and doctors involved. Every situation is different. And most importantly - once the choice is taken away from you - it can just as soon go the other way to forced abortion.

reply to post by Zinky



Not to be a stickler, but there is no logic in your point. Or, rather, the logic is a fallacy. More precisely, the "slippery slope" fallacy, whereby you create fear out of a hypothetical situation that, seemingly, derives from that which you argue against. There is no evidence that it would happen....it is just a fear based argument technique.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Zinky

 

Not to be a stickler, but there is no logic in your point. Or, rather, the logic is a fallacy. More precisely, the "slippery slope" fallacy, whereby you create fear out of a hypothetical situation that, seemingly, derives from that which you argue against. There is no evidence that it would happen....it is just a fear based argument technique.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

Try it this way: If the government is given power over your reproductive choices they have the power, not you. And they could subsequently decide to use that power in any number of ways.

Perhaps this is more clear.

So what happens when a little casuel encounter of the kind that bill clinton didnt have, ends up with me knocking up some loser chick? And then she accuses me of rape after she gets pregnant so she can get an abortion? Do you really think these immature people, which describes at leeast 3/4 of the planets population, are incapable of such evil?

Why cant we just go by viability anyway?

Originally posted by Zinky

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Zinky

 

Not to be a stickler, but there is no logic in your point. Or, rather, the logic is a fallacy. More precisely, the "slippery slope" fallacy, whereby you create fear out of a hypothetical situation that, seemingly, derives from that which you argue against. There is no evidence that it would happen....it is just a fear based argument technique.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

Try it this way: If the government is given power over your reproductive choices they have the power, not you. And they could subsequently decide to use that power in any number of ways.

Perhaps this is more clear.

It is still the "slippery slope" argument. It is presuming that one action will lead to another, even when it is not obviously directly causative (like if i were to push you, you would fall down...that is direct causation).

Regardless, it would seem that the government already exerts control over your reproductive faculties. There are prostitution stings the nation over. It is funny how a womans right to choose what she does to her body is so relative to what it is she wants to do. Even funnier is how, typically, it is womens rights groups that fight FOR abortion, yet AGAINST prostitution. As if a women choosing to abort her baby is any more sane and reasonable than a women wanting to sell her services.

Even funnier is that if you have an arrangement to be paid for sex while being filmed, it is call "porn" and not "prostitution". Say what? So the fact that I eliminate any notion of privacy is actually giving me the right to sell my body? But when I do it in private, it is illegal?

Yeah....this is the nation that I live in. The same one that comes up with these laws.

No, they should not be limited to cases of "forcible rape". And forcible rape is a stupid term. Rape is rape. Consentual rape isn't rape, it's sex.

The abortion issue is clouded by several things. Religion, people's opinions on when life begins, etc.

I am a Christian woman, but don't like organized religion. I am against abortion FOR MYSELF. That doesn't mean I should have the right to speak for every uterus in this nation. My God may not be your God, and vice versa.

No one seems to be able to have a discussion about abortion without religion getting in the way.

The fact of the matter is, if abortion is outlawed, many women will die from back alley procedures.

Many folks that are pro-life, only seem to be worried about embryos. Once it's born, and it's a living breathing person, these same people say "sucks to be you!!!", and bitch and moan about "lazy asses" on welfare. "I don't want MY money funding abortions! But I don't want MY money going to lazy bastards on welfare! Why are we feeding those damn starving Africans?!?"

Buncha hypocrites, really.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
NO..that would be exactly like telling a woman that her body is not hers.

Does it matter? Women have spent the last 30 years making sure they could regulate a man's body via alimony and child support. If a man's body is not his own, and if a little boy can he held responsible for the actions of a rapist, hy should anyone care?

Granted I recognize that is the intended effect when conservatives supported the feminist female supremacist hate movement on those issue's(Traditionalist Noose), but it doesn't change the fact that society by and large doesn't care if a grown woman rapes a little boy and the little boy is required to pay for the actions of a rapist' or if a nurse rapes a quadriplegic man, if he dies as a result of the nurses actions( had to pay child support, he ended up in a state hospital and died from an infection there).

That is what happens when you dehumanize half the population. I may or may not agree with what traditionalist are doing, but I do find it satisfactory on several different levels.

No, abortions should be limited to whatever the impregnated female feels would be the right choice for her and the fetus. If the condom broke and she gets knocked up or the birth control fails to prevent pregnancy, a woman should be able to decide if she has the means to give a child a good life, and be able to support it and herself. It's her body, why should a group of politicians decide what she does with it?

Honestly, the way I see it is this, women should have the choice of whether they have the child or not. If they disagree with abortions, dont have one. If it's against your religious beliefs to abort an unborn fetus, don't do it. If you decide this is not the right time, or an accident happened, or you where raped and you decide to not have the child, abort it.

Simple as that in my mind. No room full of pencil pushers should decide what another human being can do with their own body.