Very difficult question. If after 23/24/25 weeks (when a fetus can survive on its own), a woman no longer wants the pregnancy, I think the child should be delivered immediately and the state takes responsibility at no cost to the mother.yeh but if you now mandate a cut off point arent you now saying the woman no longer has her right of choice . are you now saying well you have a choice but only up to this point and then u have no choice . If the argument is the woman has a right of choice why isnt it given a broad spectrum why does the state all of a sudden have a right and interest in the child.
with advances in modern medicne a child can survive after 23 weeks so its very touch and go
What about the rights of the child?It's frankly staggering that you talk about human rights and feminism whilst opposing a woman's right to chose what happens with her own body and advocating forcing childbirth.
Got into trouble more then a few times for voicing my opinion on religion here. I find it utterly abhorrent and wrong as well.I’d the interested to know the OP’s age and views on religion.. Being anti-abortion is utter hokum.
I find that peculiar, I’m also vehemently against religion. However, it’s usually the religious nutjobs who are «pro life».Got into trouble more then a few times for voicing my opinion on religion here. I find it utterly abhorrent and wrong as well.
Statements like this need to be very carefully qualified. The survival rate is 10-35% and the chances of serious complications are very high.
There are none for an unborn child. It is essentially an symbiote dependant on mother for everything including survival. It's rights cannot exist separate from those of the mother.What about the rights of the child?
Yes, even if you do believe the initial fetus is a human life which must be respected to the same extent as any living human, you should surely still realise that banning abortion isn't going to help, and conversely in the long-term will only put more unborn children at risk due to desperation.Illegal abortion is an ineffective deterrent. Women who live somewhere where it is illegal and have made up their mind about getting an abortion will seek illegitimate alternatives via unsafe procedures from private practitioners, often overseas on the cheap, which poses a major risk to the safety and the health of the woman. There has to be a safe and healthy option for all women, whether you agree with it or not. If you are pro life, surely you have to be considerate to the health and wellbeing of the woman involved just as much, if not more so, than the unborn glob of cells.
It's a procedure that should be given a great deal of consideration and used as a last resort. But bottom line, there is something incredibly crass about men dictating what all women shouldn't be allowed to do with their own bodies. Their womb, their rules.
You're not religious?Got into trouble more then a few times for voicing my opinion on religion here. I find it utterly abhorrent and wrong as well.
Let me try a few. Real-life scenarios.If they are human beings though, then no justification for abortion is morally good enough.
I haven't made any argument that is any way tied to religion. So why make that assumption? Guilt by association? I find that very frustrating.You're not religious?
You've lost me then. It's only argument I can understand (not that I agree with it).
Because your reasons don't make sense once religion goes out the window.I haven't made any argument that is any way tied to religion. So why make that assumption? Guilt by association? I find that very frustrating.
Very difficult question. If after 23/24/25 weeks (when a fetus can survive on its own), a woman no longer wants the pregnancy, I think the child should be delivered immediately and the state takes responsibility at no cost to the mother.
But like I said, very rarely does a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy that late so a law like that is almost useless.
Because I've just joined the thread and you mentioned rape and incest.@unchanged_lineup Why bring up things that I have already addressed? If the mother's life is threatened in any way then of course abortions should be permitted. Just like any other act of self-defense.
But if the birth control fails/condom breaks/whatever then the mother should be forced to «give up» nine months of her life in order to carry the child and then give it up for adoption?@unchanged_lineup Why bring up things that I have already addressed? If the mother's life is threatened in any way then of course abortions should be permitted. Just like any other act of self-defense.
How very catholic church is that.But if the birth control fails/condom breaks/whatever then the mother should be forced to «give up» nine months of her life in order to carry the child and then give it up for adoption?
I think you misunderstand me.true but doesnt mean it cant happen. A woman can realise she wasnt pregnant after 6 months . what if she just realised then from some freak accident and doesnt want the child what them? what if she was raped and never knew she was pregnant till 7 months. If she doesnt want to be pregnant isnt her right to choice now being impeeded by the state.
The majority are medical abortions, by a pill taken early in the pregnancy.I don't know how it's done but I believe it's a surgical procedure.
Are you male or female? Because there’s nothing like watching a bunch of blokes argue about what women should and shouldn’t be able to do with their bodiesAbortion is an abhorrent crime and has absolutely nothing to do with women's rights. This is such a nonsense argument. It is about the protection of human life and your only argument against abortion would be that an unborn baby is not developed enough to be worth protecting. Again nonsense in my opinion but at least it's a point you could defend.
That's what I was thinking. He's arguing alone against 20+ people and comes across well. I don't agree with him, but I don't think he's an hypocrite like most anti-abortion are. Unfortunately, some are treating him like if he his.@Pagh Wraith I don't agree with you and I am pro-choice, but you are one of the only people I have ever encountered who are pro-life that aren't complete idiots.
Are you male or female? Because there’s nothing like watching a bunch of blokes argue about what women should and shouldn’t be able to do with their bodies
He's answering fcuk all.That's what I was thinking. He's arguing alone against 20+ people and comes across well. I don't agree with him, but I don't think he's an hypocrite like most anti-abortion are. Unfortunately, some are treating him like if he his.
I meant his attitude. I don't really think you can answer properly when being anti-abortion, as it's a very indefensible position.He's answering fcuk all.
There’s just no comeback against this.Are you male or female? Because there’s nothing like watching a bunch of blokes argue about what women should and shouldn’t be able to do with their bodies
That'll happen when people are shouting ad hominems at him and assuming his religious status.He's answering fcuk all.
I am thinking that abortion is one of those issues where women get to decide this shit, not men. Because a man also has the option to do a runner and leave the woman with a ruined life, whatever thoughts about his “rights” he might have entertained earlier on.does the father of the child have rights too? not bashing just asking what are your thoughts on this
That's always been a stupid argument too. It's a debate that involves all of society. Not just the women who have to undergo it. Otherwise we'd bar menopause and underage women from the discussion too.Are you male or female? Because there’s nothing like watching a bunch of blokes argue about what women should and shouldn’t be able to do with their bodies
I explained because I can at least understand that belief position. If you're not religious, I genuinely believe you're living in a fecking dreamworld to not appreciate there are far worse problems in the world than abortion.That'll happen when people are shouting ad hominems at him and assuming his religious status.
In fairness, from his point of view the debate is first and foremost about the lives of both male and female children.Are you male or female? Because there’s nothing like watching a bunch of blokes argue about what women should and shouldn’t be able to do with their bodies
I don't agree with him, but I think part of the problem here is that his argument isn't really related to rights of the person carrying the pregnancy: it's that he views a fetus as a child from the point of conception, and therefore regards it as a human life. Obviously if you see it from that perspective then the value of that human is going to supersede all else, except in cases where the mother's life is threatened, something he himself has acknowledged he'd allow abortions for.There’s just no comeback against this.
What kind of shit logic is that? There are far worse problems in the world than most issues so they become non-issues?I explained because I can at least understand that belief position. If you're not religious, I genuinely believe you're living in a fecking dreamworld to not appreciate there are far worse problems in the world than abortion.
Ironically I think some religions offer powerful arguments FOR abortion.That'll happen when people are shouting ad hominems at him and assuming his religious status.
I don't see that happening. Republicans may try it but I genuinely reckon you'd see mass walk-outs in workplaces in protest against it etc in liberal, Democratic-leaning areas. A lot of women in those areas have grown accustomed to abortion being allowed as the norm, and I think any government which tried to reverse this would find themselves dealing with an enormous shitstorm. And for all their religious pandering, ultimately enriching themselves tends to be the primary goal of GOP politicians.It's a contentious issue here in the states. While there is a big correlation between the pro-lifers and conservatives/evangelicals, enough citizens are against abortion that dismissing opposition to abortion as "religious nutters haha" is short-sighted. Roe vs Wade's chances of survival depend on the health of 2 octogenarians in the Supreme Court. One of them croaks in the next 2 years and it's curtains for legalized abortion at the federal level.
Personally I'm pro-choice (very reluctant), but it's a trade-off between 2 horrible alternatives.
I am thinking that abortion is one of those issues where women get to decide this shit, not men. Because a man also has the option to do a runner and leave the woman with a ruined life, whatever thoughts about his “rights” he might have entertained earlier on.
It usually seems to be men making that argument.That's always been a stupid argument too. It's a debate that involves all of society. Not just the women who have to undergo it. Otherwise we'd bar menopause and underage women from the discussion too.
