It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How is it "terminating a pregancy" when it's the womans choice and MURDER when it's not her choice??
Originally posted by iwilliam
Originally posted by chasingbrahman
Originally posted by seabag
Why is it not murder when a woman CHOOSES to have an abortion but it is when I man choses for her? Murder is murder!
Perhaps you've just touched upon the nuance which divides the two sides to this argument: the reason for choice in the first place is that it's the woman's body and therefore, her choice. Not her boyfriend's choice, and not the government's choice.
I'd say this is a reasonably assessment of the crux of the argument for many people. And there is some logic behind it, IMHO.
However, much as I hate to play devil's advocate on unpopular positions, I feel the need to here:
What about the man's choice in the matter?
What if he doesn't want to be a father (/yet)? What if he doesn't want to, or is unable to financially support that child for the next 18 years? Or what if he just doesn't want a legal tie / obligation to that particular woman for the next 18 years?
And I can hear the obvious and logical counter-argument to this already. "Well, bub, it takes two to make a baby and he could have worn a condom!"
Yes, quite true. It does take two to make a baby-- and she could have insisted on that condom. And who knows... maybe they were wearing one, or using some other form of birth control-- that stuff is not 100% effective. There really should be a way to make this whole thing more "fair." Perhaps a man should be able to say "I want an abortion" and if the woman says "no" she has to sign away any and all responsibility the man has for that child....
Would that be fair? If not, why? If not, what would be more fair to all parties, especially if they have such obviously differing interests and desires?edit on 18-5-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NavyDoc
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your logic.
It sounds like you're saying that the burden of abortion costs are too expensive for the tax payer, therefore, the woman who didn't take care of "business" and got herself pregnant, should be denied an abortion and forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy term. Then, she and her child will go on public assistance for the next 10 to 18 years.
Makes sense.
tsk..I guess you're a military fellow...judging from the avatar.
A fetus is a part of the women's body...it's her body. If you choose to do something to her body without her consent...than by all means...you are guilty...of something.
We don’t have the “choice” to kill our spouse or neighbor so we shouldn’t have the “choice” to kill a child. This is very simple actually once you get past the selfishness.
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NavyDoc
I agree, the law, The Unborn Child Protection Act, presents a double standard. I don't think the man should be charged with murder.
As for child support, I do believe that, in most states, a man can give up parental rights.
As for poor women having too many children that they can't afford, what's the answer? I know a Catholic women, that has 5 children, by the same man, not her husband, and another on the way. She is on public assistance, and birth control is against her religion.
edit on 20-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)
Shrug. And her religion is everybody else's problem how?
If your neighbor enters your house and starts taking your food and money, without your permission, you have the right to use lethal force to protect your home.
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NavyDoc
Shrug. And her religion is everybody else's problem how?
Duh!
Because her children are being provided for by tax payers.
Yup!
Now you're getting it!
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by seabag
Especially if she had a security system in place and locks on her doors.
If you don't think that a fetus takes a toll on a woman's physical body and overall health and has no effect her "property", you have a lot to learn.
EDIT: A child is a lot scarier than a gun!edit on 20-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)
If you don't think that a fetus takes a toll on a woman's physical body and overall health and has no effect her "property", you have a lot to learn.
If she's pregnant then she was engaged in sexual intercourse (that's how babies are made).
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NavyDoc
Shrug. And her religion is everybody else's problem how?
Duh!
Because her children are being provided for by tax payers.
Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
A fetus is a part of the women's body...it's her body. If you choose to do something to her body without her consent...than by all means...you are guilty...of something.
This is not a "pro-choice" issue.