Women have the right to control their own bodies.

[Hutch Starskey]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

Open legs or closed. Upright or upside down.
First time or last time. On top or bottom.
The only time a woman gets pregnant is with a deposit from her partner.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The father also has an emotional and practical say in what happens to that baby, because what is inside her womb has his DNA also.

If a man shares the responsibility of raising the child, then he also shares the decision of whether or not that child, or potential child lives.

Obviously, if the mother is at risk of death, then yes, that would put the decision in her hands, but in the case of a child that can be brought to term without risk, then he has as much say as she does.

No...he doesn't. Because ultimately, it is her body that will have to go through this...not his.

I disagree. Part of her pregnancy is because of him. If he is going to be responsible enough to commit himself to take care of the baby, then he has a say.

If the woman does not want to concede that say, then she needs to have the fortitude to abstain from sex, and simply say no.

No one can have a say over another's body. Only their own.

Yes, they can choose not to have sex until they are ready to be a parent

As can men.

Yep, the point is, both are willing participants in the act, so both share the responsibility. If she agrees to have sex, then she agrees there is a risk of pregnancy. What you are saying is, both can be willing participants, but if she gets pregnant, and the man wants to be a father to the child, the woman can deny him his child.

You're saying that the man doesnt matter in this scenario, and that his desires do not count, so, if you are going to give sole authority to the woman over the pregnancy, then she needs to be the one to decide to have control over her body, and not have sex. If she is willing to have sex, and take the risk of getting pregnant, and shut the man out of the decision making process, then she needs to abstain.

 

[dblack]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

Open legs or closed. Upright or upside down.
First time or last time. On top or bottom.
The only time a woman gets pregnant is with a deposit from her partner.

Is this the "Forum" section?

 

[Beyond]

For better or worse, that's the way nature arranged it. Trust me, many women would be happy for men to bear that particular privilege. When men begin carrying babies, I'll be the first to defend their right to make the choice of whether or not to carry that pregnancy to full term.

A man's choice is who he chooses to have sex with, after the act, he no longer has the final say on what happens to a body he doesn't live in.

The father also has an emotional and practical say in what happens to that baby, because what is inside her womb has his DNA also.

If a man shares the responsibility of raising the child, then he also shares the decision of whether or not that child, or potential child lives.

Obviously, if the mother is at risk of death, then yes, that would put the decision in her hands, but in the case of a child that can be brought to term without risk, then he has as much say as she does.

No...he doesn't. Because ultimately, it is her body that will have to go through this...not his.

I disagree. Part of her pregnancy is because of him. If he is going to be responsible enough to commit himself to take care of the baby, then he has a say.

If the woman does not want to concede that say, then she needs to have the fortitude to abstain from sex, and simply say no.

No less than a man needs to fortitude to abstain from sex until he he forms a relationship with a woman who has agreed to to carry a child to full term should she get pregnant. The man also has the responsibility to choose his partner accordingly.

However there are no circumstances in which a man's has the right to reserve the use of a woman's body to incubate his child against her will. Again, the man's choice is in where he deposits his sperm. Men are fully aware of this and must make their choices accordingly.

I'll say again, both men and women must make their choices according to the way nature has arranged the part each plays in the procreation of the species.

You make it sound as if the woman is an unwilling participant in the sexual encounter. Fact is, unless its rape, she bears the same culpability as he does. The man is not simply the sperm donor. This talk of, the man's say stops at the encounter is wrong.

Yes, he can choose not to participate, but so can she. If they both agree, then the resulting pregnancy is half his. She does not own that child simply because it is in her body. They both consented, and the father has as much say to have that child born as she does. What you are saying is, if she gets pregnant, she has the sole discretion to deny him his child.

Sorry, but if she participates in the act, she must bear part of the responsibility. If she doesnt want the child, she can release custody to the father or put it up for adoption if neither want it. Creating life is not something one can take for granted and throw it away on a whim.

I've said nothing to indicate a woman is an unwilling participant, that's your offering to the conversation. I've said clearly they both have to make choices according to their role in procreation as set out by natural law, not man made law.

The consequences for men is different from the consequences for women, hence the decisions to be made are also different, as are the aspects each has the option to make a decision about. The woman makes decisions about the aspects that impact her body, just as the man makes the decisions about the aspects that impact his body.

A pregnancy is an event, not a commodity over which one declares ownership, so it isn't "half" anybody's. A pregnancy happens solely to the woman.

 

[Beyond]

No...he doesn't. Because ultimately, it is her body that will have to go through this...not his.

I disagree. Part of her pregnancy is because of him. If he is going to be responsible enough to commit himself to take care of the baby, then he has a say.

If the woman does not want to concede that say, then she needs to have the fortitude to abstain from sex, and simply say no.

No one can have a say over another's body. Only their own.

Yes, they can choose not to have sex until they are ready to be a parent

As can men.

Yep, the point is, both are willing participants in the act, so both share the responsibility. If she agrees to have sex, then she agrees there is a risk of pregnancy. What you are saying is, both can be willing participants, but if she gets pregnant, and the man wants to be a father to the child, the woman can deny him his child.

You're saying that the man doesnt matter in this scenario, and that his desires do not count, so, if you are going to give sole authority to the woman over the pregnancy, then she needs to be the one to decide to have control over her body, and not have sex. If she is willing to have sex, and take the risk of getting pregnant, and shut the man out of the decision making process, then she needs to abstain.

I'm saying a woman can deny a man's demand to use her body as an incubater for his offspring. It's a process that throws a woman's body and life into a spin for a minimum of 9 months, can leave her with serious medical issues for the rest of her life and can kill her. No person has the right to impose that on another person in order to have their own gratification satisfied.

I'm not saying a man doesn't matter, I'm saying each one, both men and women, must deal with the cards nature has dealt them in terms of which aspect of procreation they have governance over.

 

[Clementine]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

True enough. Thing is, it is legal in most states and they can pay for it if they choose to have one. Some Dems are already saying that they think tax payers should foot the bill. All medical procedures are expensive. Tax payers don't foot the bill for accident victims or crime victims. Why is abortion so special that women shouldn't have to pay for it themselves? We already give PP millions each year, all of which ends up getting spent on liberal campaigns.

I know some lefties are worried about Roe v Wade being overturned. It actually is something that should be decided state by state, not by federal judges. I know libs hate the constitution because it doesn't give the federal government enough power. Obama lamented about that in an interview when he was in the Illinois senate.

Shame that the left only believes in choice when it comes to reducing the population. When it comes to choosing your child's school and many other things, the left wants to chose for you.

 

[McRocket]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Yes, but only if that control does not significantly harm another sentient being.

Before the fetus is sentient - abortion should be legal.

But once the fetus is sentient (I am going to assume from the start of brain activity - 11 weeks or so - until the scientific community agrees on a different week), the mother should lose control of being able to 'dispose' of the fetus from that moment on wards (unless her life is in danger).

 

[gipper]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

So you’re really saying women are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

 

[Chuz Life]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

Every sperm is sacred, a potential new life if allowed to follow it’s natural course in the right environment. That makes masturbation mass murder. Men need to learn to control their hands.

Biology fail.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am all for women being in control of THEIR bodies. You want a boob job, tummy tuck, butt lift, go for it. The pro-"choice" advocates pretend the fetus is an unnecessary piece of fat.

And the pro-lifers pretend the fetus is a full-fledged person. More importantly, they pretend that a pregnant woman's womb is public property.

The human fetus is a human being. Take an elementary biology class. Duh.

I understand the biology just fine. The question is whether a fetus is a separate legal person, with rights that should be protected by the government.

Where do the rights of a baby begin?

‘The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157.

[…]

…an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

A child’s rights manifest once it is born; prior to birth, an embryo/fetus has no rights, it is not a ‘baby,’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

And we all know that the SCOTUS is infallible....

Just ask Dred Scott

 

[Chuz Life]

Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

Our Constitution has proclaimed it is not murder, hence, your claim abortion is murder is technically a lie.

Murder is defined as the act of ending an innocent life. A fetus is alive. Therefore, it's murder.

"Murder" is defined as the "Illegal" taking of human life. Yet, even with that law, no woman has ever been convicted of murder for getting an abortion. Don't give up your day job to practice law.

Correct.

Murder is defined as the Illegal taking of person’s life entitled to Constitutional protections.

As a fact of law an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person,’ entitled to no such protections.

Try selling your denial bullshit to anyone already convicted of murder for killing a "child in the womb" (as defined by our already existing fetal HOMICIDE laws)

 

[OldLady]

Perhaps you should ask a lawyer.

So, a lawyer gets to decide when life begins?

You are talking about charges for homicide. It doesn't sound like a medical question.

You are saying a baby is not considered a person until they are born, so I'm asking you, if a baby isnt a person, then if a pregnant woman is killed, the assailant cannot be charged with a double homicide, right?

I'm not asking what a lawyer would say, because that lawyer may believe the unborn baby is a person. I'm asking what you would say.

You cant say a baby is not a person inside the womb, but advocate for double homicide in the scenario mentioned.

Why do you keep asking me the same legal question?

Are you dense?

I'm trying to figure out when you, or other pro abortionists, consider when a baby is a person.

I am pro-choice. I chose not to have an abortion because I knew from almost the first week that (1) I was pregnant (2) that it was a boy and (3) that it was my child in there. I did not want to terminate that life, even though it was not at all what I had planned for my life at the time. I was lucky that the dad was willing to step up to the plate and we made a go of it.
Yet if things had been different I might have been forced to make a different decision. I do not consider that tiny developing embryo as being a "baby" or a "child." It is nowhere near ready to live as a functioning independent human. Another collision of egg and sperm can be arranged later down the road when a baby could enter the world wanted and celebrated, into a family that had confidence they could feed it and raise it for all its time.

Okay? Now you know my opinion. Does that clear things up for you at all? (No)

 

[OldLady]

Let's be perfectly clear on one thing. This whole argument about abortion is not about whether a fetus is alive or not. It's about whether a person has a right to end that life. Medical science is clear about the first question. It's alive. Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

And yet there is. That's usually an indication that there's disagreement over the premises of your argument. In this case you seem to be implying that 'alive' is synonymous with 'legally recognized person'. I'm not completely sure on where the legal statutes are on this, but there's clearly no consensus on when a fetus becomes a person. Some people think it's not a legally separate person, with distinct rights, until it's separated from the mother - ie 'born'. Other's think that from the moment of conception until birth, we are facing a situation of one person living inside another.

There's also a question of jurisdiction. I don't think government should be granted authority over the inner workings of a person's body, regardless of the excuse. Any kind of coherent picture of individual rights puts "self-ownership" front and center. Without that, as a basis, we have no rights at all.

I think Republicans are indulging the same conceit liberals are usually accused of: they think every problem in society can be solved by passing a law. And no matter how many times it's shown to them that law isn't, usually, the right answer - they are convinced that THIS time it's different.

I think this is more about the moral definition of personhood than the legal definition, honestly, at least from the right. However, the left seems to be looking at this from a legalistic standpoint.

the left seems to be looking at this from a legalistic standpoint.
Might that be because we are being called murderers?

 

[Correll]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You want to include the men in the decision making process? How progressive of YOU!

 

[OldLady]

I disagree. Part of her pregnancy is because of him. If he is going to be responsible enough to commit himself to take care of the baby, then he has a say.

If the woman does not want to concede that say, then she needs to have the fortitude to abstain from sex, and simply say no.

No one can have a say over another's body. Only their own.

Yes, they can choose not to have sex until they are ready to be a parent

As can men.

Yep, the point is, both are willing participants in the act, so both share the responsibility. If she agrees to have sex, then she agrees there is a risk of pregnancy. What you are saying is, both can be willing participants, but if she gets pregnant, and the man wants to be a father to the child, the woman can deny him his child.

You're saying that the man doesnt matter in this scenario, and that his desires do not count, so, if you are going to give sole authority to the woman over the pregnancy, then she needs to be the one to decide to have control over her body, and not have sex. If she is willing to have sex, and take the risk of getting pregnant, and shut the man out of the decision making process, then she needs to abstain.

I'm saying a woman can deny a man's demand to use her body as an incubater for his offspring. It's a process that throws a woman's body and life into a spin for a minimum of 9 months, can leave her with serious medical issues for the rest of her life and can kill her. No person has the right to impose that on another person in order to have their own gratification satisfied.

I'm not saying a man doesn't matter, I'm saying each one, both men and women, must deal with the cards nature has dealt them in terms of which aspect of procreation they have governance over.

I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Pregnancy in this day and age, in this country, is rarely fatal and doesn't cause life long health problems. Well, it did straighten my hair. While I understand your argument, I think it is half the man's and if there is no reason to think the woman is at medical risk, she should seriously consider having the child if he wants to take sole guardianship and raise it himself.

 

[OldLady]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

So you’re really saying women are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

 

[OldLady]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Yes, but only if that control does not significantly harm another sentient being.

Before the fetus is sentient - abortion should be legal.

But once the fetus is sentient (I am going to assume from the start of brain activity - 11 weeks or so - until the scientific community agrees on a different week), the mother should lose control of being able to 'dispose' of the fetus from that moment on wards (unless her life is in danger).

Sentient at eleven weeks? Really?

 

[OldLady]

Let's get back on topic. I stated that abortions wouldn't be required if women just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

Abortions wouldn't be required if men just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

Welcome, Beyond. Good to have you on board. Have a nosh.

 

[gipper]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

So you’re really saying women are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

 

[OldLady]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

So you’re really saying women are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.