So now taking in history and evidence and incorporating it into your views can be described as binary thinking and ignoring all evidence is … something else?
Last edited:
Abortion
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
I believe that women have the right to bodily autonomy. The fetus is part of the woman's body until she's given birth, so she has the right to terminate it up to that point. This doesn't mean that I would personally approve of late-term abortions of convenience, but those are so exceedingly rare as to be non-existent.
While I'm sure that many who desire to force women to carry and give birth to unwanted (for whatever reason) progeny are good and well-meaning people, in the end it's still solely the business of the woman and her doctor.
Arguments about rape, incest, adoption, etc. are all beside the point. As long as the fetus is unborn, it's part of her body and she has the right to terminate it. Period.
While I'm sure that many who desire to force women to carry and give birth to unwanted (for whatever reason) progeny are good and well-meaning people, in the end it's still solely the business of the woman and her doctor.
Arguments about rape, incest, adoption, etc. are all beside the point. As long as the fetus is unborn, it's part of her body and she has the right to terminate it. Period.
No, we're suggesting that something that happened years ago doesn't apply to everyone today, regardless as to whether they're on your team or not. Acting as if everyone in power is on the same page is hilarious. Truly binary thinking in action.
I’m certain different people have different motivations, but the end result is the same.
Oh, the irony!
did that need to be in blue? I thought it was obvious
This is where I disagree. The fetus and the mother have separate circulatory systems. Oxygen, nutrients, and waste are exchanged in the placenta. Obviously, there are two different sets of DNA. In some ways, the fetus behaves like a parasite with the mother being the host.
For the sake of argument, let's accept your perspective. Even if the fetus is a separate person, the mother is being forced to use her body to keep the child alive. This still violates her bodily autonomy. The right to life does not include the right to use someone else's body to survive.
I agree, however, in my opinion, the fetus being a separate entity from the mother supports the idea that if the fetus is viable outside the womb, at that point it should not be aborted.
There has to be a middle ground if a compromise is ever to be reached.
If not coming to terms means that abortion rights remain threatened, then I can agree to this compromise (with certain caveats). Late term abortions (past 24 weeks) account for fewer than 1% of all abortions, with almost all of them due to medical circumstances involving the mother and/or child. As long as those exceptions are allowed, I think we can find common ground.
You must be new here. Resistance is futile, there is no compromise.
Body autonomy? Like the decision to have unprotected sex when obviously they didn’t want children? Every democrat argument skips over that part of the discussion, and heads right to the handmaid’s tale, as if the majority of the time the woman’s decisions didn’t put her in this position to begin with.
Some abortions are necessary. Personally I’m choosing any mother over any baby 100%, even if that goes against the wishes of the mother. The fact these abortions are lumped in with convenience abortions needs to be addressed. There is a huge difference.
If abortion is between her and her doctor, let her pay for it, travel to a location where it’s legal.
Until society accepts that unprotected sex creates life, and a whole bunch of responsibility with it, things won’t change.
Agreed. By the time a woman gets to 24 weeks gestation she almost invariably (you can always find the rarest of exceptions) wants to have a child and intends to carry to term so an abortion later in pregnancy is nearly always not elective at all and more to protect the mother's life and health and/or because the fetus is not viable beyond birth or intrauterine fetal demise has already occurred. So, in my mind, banning abortions at this stage is a solution in search of a problem that is pretty much nonexistent and runs much more risk of causing great harm to the women who need these abortions than of making any positive outcomes whatsoever.
Last edited:
It's never convenient to have an abortion. It's even less convenient than going to the dentist.
Unprotected sex is going to happen. I congratulate you on your abstinence from unprotected sex. I got lucky.
I could care less who pays. I'm much more interested in the mental and physical health of the mother.
Never once in your post did you mention the father. It takes two to Tango.
If the mother does not want the child, the abortion is necessary. Why in the world anyone would want to bring an unwanted child into the world is beyond me.
That's skipped over because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Bodily autonomy means having the right to control your own body, whether it be consensual sex or an abortion. For the "she asked for it" crowd, it's all about denying women that right.
roe v. wade was the compromise
First off, unfortunately, the father has minimal in this discussion. While you may believe you can swap from male to female at will, the harsh reality is that females carry the children and bear the brunt of the ramifications of these decisions. The father has absolutely no input in this decision. If he wants to keep the baby and she doesn’t, the baby is toast. If he wants to abort the baby and she doesn’t, he’s on the hook for support. She has no body autonomy though.
Not having unprotected sex isn’t some monumental achievement. This isn’t some abstinence/abortion debate. There are so many precautions that can be taken to prevent pregnancy. All are better than the abortion alternative for everyone involved.
Obviously abortions are far more convenient than having and raising a child. Nice try on clouding the water.
The question you have to ask yourself is why would someone who doesn’t want children take the risk of having children? Pregnancy isn’t a surprise, it’s known what causes it.
It’s absolutely relevant in the discussion. How many abortions would be avoided if half the women who had them decided to hold off on sex until precautions could be taken? Hundreds, if not thousands of lives would be impacted in a positive way, if you believe the women that say abortions take a huge toll on a person. (Of course it does).
What’s so wrong with having standards?
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Projecting Tuesday's CFP top 12: Where do the Sooners and Tide land?- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Georgia gets 'down and dirty,' KO's Texas in 4th
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
JessN: Oklahoma wrap-up: Redemption tour ends as Tide can’t execute under pressure
- Started by JessN
- Replies: 0
-
Oklahoma Wrap-up: Redemption tour ends as Tide can't execute under pressure
- Started by JessN
- Replies: 1
-
-
ESPN: The SEC offered a dose of playoff football in Week 12
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0