The Latest Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

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.

reply to post by seabag

How is it "terminating a pregancy" when it's the womans choice and MURDER when it's not her choice??

tsk..I guess you're a military fellow...judging from the avatar.

Anyway...operating word here is "choice". If I choose to end my life...it's a suicide...and while it may not be the popular choice...nobody will answer for me committing suicide. But If you "help" me do it...without me knowing about it or asking you to do it...than it's murder.

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.

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)

I wish I had one simple solution to the conundrum this leaves a man to deal with. I can't imagine protecting, or thinking I was adequately protecting myself, only to find out that the protection didn't work and my partner now wanted to have a baby and would sue me for financial support. I can't freaking imagine it. I do not believe it is realistic to prescribe abstinance to every person who does not want to become a parent. It would be akin to extinguishing many other human instincts, like protecting my home or fighting for resources. By the same token, I can't imagine realizing my partner is pregnant without wanting to be, and realizing I'd very much like for her to have a baby. Again, I can't freaking imagine it. I didn't say I thought that men had this easy - they certainly don't! The only way I can see to avert such an awful situation would be to know each person well enough to discuss any unforeseen outcomes of our union. And even then, I'm sure that reality could have a different effect than imagining reality long enough to think I've any idea of how I'd react to potential parenthood.

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.

Where did I say she should be denied an abortion? I haven't said anything pro or con abortion in this thread. Just pointing out that there is a lot of double standards in the law and in the demands people make.

It's not a human being--unless someone else does it, then its murder.
My body, my choice and the father has no say--until I want child support, then it is his responsability.
The government must stay out of my reproductive choices--until I demand welfare in which case I make my reproductive choices the government's responsability.


Everybody seems to want it both ways and at their convenience.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

tsk..I guess you're a military fellow...judging from the avatar.

Your point?

Pffft….

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.

Breasts are part of a woman’s body. A child is NOT part of a woman’s body. I have no problem if a woman wants to 'Angelina' herself but abortion is taking the life of another defenseless human.

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.

reply to post by seabag

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

reply to post by windword

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.

So you’re saying a fetus entered a woman’s house and began to rob her?

Women who get abortions are using lethal force against the fetus in defense of their life or property??

reply to post by seabag


Yup!

Now you're getting it!

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.

The problem is that her children (and her) are being provided for by taxpayers.
I do it all by myself, and pay taxes.

reply to post by windword

Yup!

Now you're getting it!

Killing fetuses in self defense, huh?

You guys are a scared bunch. Now I see why you don't want Americans to have guns.

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!

Regarding the life and health of the mother, and reasons for women having an abortion performed: I did a google search, and the numbers run high and low, depending on what website you look at. The number runs higher for pro-choice sites and lower for pro-life sites, of course.

WikiAnswers says that 2.8% of abortions performed are because of the life and health of the mother.

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)

There you go playing the victim role.

It's not like the woman put on a chastity belt and locked her doors. If she's pregnant then she was engaged in sexual intercourse (that's how babies are made).

reply to post by windword

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.

Is it just vanity that you are referring to, as in stretchmarks and 'baby weight'?

Or are you saying that most women that have children are sickly and die early compared to 'old maids'?

I know that you aren't referring to a study that women that breastfeed children have a lower incidence of breast cancer.

reply to post by seabag

If she's pregnant then she was engaged in sexual intercourse (that's how babies are made).

Now I know why I have four children.

Wow, whodathunkit?

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.

Exactly. If her religion causes her to have kids that everybody else must pay for, then she either needs to re-evaluate her religion or keep her legs closed. Her choice. It is not my problem what her religion dictates.

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.

A fetus is NOT part of a woman's body
the fetus has different blood and DNA
Once the zygote forms, the cell is no longer the 'woman's body'
but a separate life
how can a part of your body have different DNA