I need a reason for abortion being legal

[nehalem256]

What an insane line of thinking.

You don't think there'd be any difference between a pre-employment colonoscopy and a pre-employment drug test?

A pre-employment drug test detects evidence of a crime and a colonoscopy does not?

Also, for a pre-employment drug test the company is essentially giving you compensation(future employment) for invading your privacy.

The woman in question is not giving you compensation for invading your privacy and forcing you to undergo medical procedures. She is doing it so she can extort money from you.

 

[actuarial]

A pre-employment drug test detects evidence of a crime and a colonoscopy does not?

Exactly, one has an actual purpose (drug test, cheek swab) and the other does not in the current situation (colonoscopy, wanding)

Also, for a pre-employment drug test the company is essentially giving you compensation(future employment) for invading your privacy.

The woman in question is not giving you compensation for invading your privacy and forcing you to undergo medical procedures. She is doing it so she can extort money from you.

What is your definition of extortion, and how does a civil suit following the law as intended fit that definition?

 

[nehalem256]

Exactly, one has an actual purpose (drug test, cheek swab) and the other does not in the current situation (colonoscopy, wanding)

They are also both optional. You are free to find employment at any number of companies that do not required a drug test.

The Paternity is not optional.

And you do realize that the logic you are presenting her works equally well for forcing a woman to bear the child to term right? Because that has an actual purpose 😉

What is your definition of extortion, and how does a civil suit following the law as intended fit that definition?

Give me money to support my life choices or you get thrown in jail. How is that not extortion?

 

[actuarial]

They are also both optional. You are free to find employment at any number of companies that do not required a drug test.

The Paternity is not optional.

And you do realize that the logic you are presenting her works equally well for forcing a woman to bear the child to term right? Because that has an actual purpose 😉

What 'logic' do you think you're pointing out here?

I've only said that two things are not equivalent, not that they could (or should) be legal. Using the logic, forcing a woman to bear the child to term is not equivalent to going around forcing colonoscopies. It's also not rape. Not a single person in this thread has argued otherwise. You are the one that created the straw man that 'if one forced medical procedure is rape then they all are'.

Give me money to support my life choices or you get thrown in jail. How is that not extortion?

Once again, you fail at biology. Unless a woman fertilizers herself, it is not exclusively her life choice.

And it's not extortion for the same reason that taxation is not extortion, and for the same reason that winning any other civil matter is not extortion.

 

[nehalem256]

What 'logic' do you think you're pointing out here?

I've only said that two things are not equivalent, not that they could (or should) be legal. Using the logic, forcing a woman to bear the child to term is not equivalent to going around forcing colonoscopies.

Oh please. You have pretty clearly been saying it is okay for women to compel men to undergo medical procedures. Clearly giving women control over the bodies of men they have had sex with.

It's also not rape. Not a single person in this thread has argued otherwise. You are the one that created the straw man that 'if one forced medical procedure is rape then they all are'.

Only ones that involve inserting phallic shaped devices into people's orifices without their consent.

For example a drug test involving peeing in a cup would not be considered rape.

Once again, you fail at biology. Unless a woman fertilizers herself, it is not exclusively her life choice.

The Supreme Court, and other courts, would disagree with you. The choice to bear a child is entirely up to the woman.

TRIVIA: What do you call a woman who demands a man give her money in exchange for sex?

 

[bignateyk]

Sorry bro, but that's her own fault. Rape is not a choice, but birth control is. Choosing not to be on birth control implicitly means choosing pregnancy.

Lots of other things are like that. Welding without a mask even when they are readily available implies that you don't care if you go blind. Driving without a seatbelt means you don't care if you live or die. Not being on birth control tells the world you're willing to accept the consequences of being raped. It's not like rape is a rare thing. Women know how incredibly common it is. It's very likely that you know several people who have been raped. I'm not even 30 and I know at least 3 women who have admitted it. It's as common as crashing a car, and we wear seatbelts because we know how common that is.

What the fuck, seriously? You're blaming a girl who gets raped for not using birth control? You do realize that birth control has really bad side effects in most women, right? Why should a woman who isn't having sex subject her body to the chemicals in birth control unnecessarily?

You do also realize that going through pregnancy and child birth changes a woman's body permanently, right? And that sometimes child birth can be dangerous for the mother?

I don't think I've ever seen such a stupid comment on here, and that's saying something.

 

[actuarial]

Oh please. You have pretty clearly been saying it is okay for women to compel men to undergo medical procedures. Clearly giving women control over the bodies of men they have had sex with.

I have said no such thing. This whole line of debate started because I said there would be a difference between a drug test and a colonoscopy.

Only ones that involve inserting phallic shaped devices into people's orifices without their consent.

For example a drug test involving peeing in a cup would not be considered rape.

Can they not also do a blood test if the person wanted?

The Supreme Court, and other courts, would disagree with you. The choice to bear a child is entirely up to the woman.

Link? I am aware the supreme court has said it's a woman's choice if she wants to choose to bring a child to term or not. The existence of that child is not exclusively her choice, and I have seen no ruling that says otherwise.

The fact that laws on paternal support exist (and how they are structured) disagree with your interpretation of the court's opinion as well.

 

[actuarial]

TRIVIA: What do you call a woman who demands a man give her money in exchange for sex?

His wife?

 

[nehalem256]

I have said no such thing. This whole line of debate started because I said there would be a difference between a drug test and a colonoscopy.

You said there was a difference to defend violating a man's bodily integrity so a woman can get money from him

Can they not also do a blood test if the person wanted?

A blood test would not be rape. But would still be a violation of the person's bodily integrity.

Link? I am aware the supreme court has said it's a woman's choice if she wants to choose to bring a child to term or not. The existence of that child is not exclusively her choice, and I have seen no ruling that says otherwise.

And if the woman chooses not to bring the fetus to term the child will not exist. Simple biology. Sex creates a fetus. Choosing to carry a fetus for 9 months creates a child.

The fact that laws on paternal support exist (and how they are structured) disagree with your interpretation of the court's opinion as well.

It shows that the courts are a bunch of hypocrites who have no problem violating men's bodily integrity to give women money.

I will point out that the courts also upheld fugitive slave laws. So I guess it is not a surprise they have no issue with forcing one group of people to be slaves to privileged groups.

consider this posting I made that demonstrates how absurdly men are treated in order to advantage women:

When a man has sex with a woman and a child results he typically is required to pay child support. Even if he has no interest in having a child.

That is the case we are talking about.

Women are currently allowed not have to take care of children they don't want because its a fetus is not a life and it is there body and so can abort it.

However, if artificial wombs were available. A fetus would be viable outside of the mother from conception and would therefore be a life from conception(even under current law) and it would therefore be murder to kill it. And as the fetus would be incubated in an artificial womb it would no longer be necessary to use the woman's body.

The woman would in effect be just like a man. She would be responsible for a child she created by having sex, but that was incubated outside of her.

 

[nehalem256]

His wife?

Someone has never heard of a sexless marriage huh? ^_^

 

[actuarial]

You said there was a difference to defend violating a man's bodily integrity so a woman can get money from him

No I didn't.

A blood test would not be rape. But would still be a violation of the person's bodily integrity.

So there isn't an equivalency then.

And if the woman chooses not to bring the fetus to term the child will not exist. Simple biology. Sex creates a fetus. Choosing to carry a fetus for 9 months creates a child.

So since the supreme court can choose to invalidate any law, they are exclusively responsible for every law on the books? The house, senate and president take no responsibility in any law that exists?

It shows that the courts are a bunch of hypocrites who have no problem violating men's bodily integrity to give women money.

I will point out that the courts also upheld fugitive slave laws. So I guess it is not a surprise they have no issue with forcing one group of people to be slaves to privileged groups.

consider this posting I made that demonstrates how absurdly men are treated in order to advantage women:

That's a nice goalpost shift.

I don't see the treatment of men as absurd at all. If it was possible to raise a fetus outside the womb, and the man wanted it and the woman didn't, I would support it being incubated and the woman paying child support.

 

[nehalem256]

So since the supreme court can choose to invalidate any law, they are exclusively responsible for every law on the books? The house, senate and president take no responsibility in any law that exists?

So 15 minutes of having sex results in the same responsibility as carrying the fetus for 9 months? ^_^

Also, the law exists after Congress/President pass it. The child does not exist until the woman carries the fetus around for 9 months.

Lets put it this way. Is the steel manufacturer responsible for shootings?

I don't see the treatment of men as absurd at all. If it was possible to raise a fetus outside the womb, and the man wanted it and the woman didn't, I would support it being incubated and the woman paying child support.

What if neither wanted it? Should they both pay child support then? Or should the child just be destroyed?

 

[actuarial]

So 15 minutes of having sex results in the same responsibility as carrying the fetus for 9 months? ^_^

Also, the law exists after Congress/President pass it. The child does not exist until the woman carries the fetus around for 9 months.

Lets put it this way. Is the steel manufacturer responsible for shootings?

The law does not exist until the President signs it, so Congress is not responsible? The sponsors of the bill aren't responsible, since the bill doesn't exist until Congress passes it?

A steel manufacturer is never held responsible for what the steel is used for, but biological parents are often held responsible for a child.

You have said that a baby is completely a woman's choice, simply because she has veto power. The applies to the supreme court example. It does not apply to the steel manufacturer example.

What if neither wanted it? Should they both pay child support then? Or should the child just be destroyed?

Ideally, they would be obligated to pay society for the cost of raising their children. This would have to be weighed against the potential consequences of that decision.

 

[nehalem256]

The law does not exist until the President signs it, so Congress is not responsible? The sponsors of the bill aren't responsible, since the bill doesn't exist until Congress passes it?

If someone donates $50 to a congressional campaign are they equally responsible for laws being passed?

A steel manufacturer is never held responsible for what the steel is used for, but biological parents are often held responsible for a child.

You have said that a baby is completely a woman's choice, simply because she has veto power. The applies to the supreme court example. It does not apply to the steel manufacturer example.

If the steel manufacturer did not sell the steel to the gun company the gun would not exist. So by your logic it is equally responsible.

Ideally, they would be obligated to pay society for the cost of raising their children. This would have to be weighed against the potential consequences of that decision.

Well I applaud your consistency. It would certainly create a rather interesting world. But I doubt it would work they way you want.

 

[actuarial]

If someone donates $50 to a congressional campaign are they equally responsible for laws being passed?

I have never claimed a never ending line of equivalent responsibility.

I did not say all parties who share some responsibility should be held equally. For example, I did not put forth an argument that the biological father's parents are equally responsible since the father could not exist without them.

I do believe that all voters share some responsibility in the laws passed by those they voted for (or any laws passed for those that choose to abstain).

If the steel manufacturer did not sell the steel to the gun company the gun would not exist. So by your logic it is equally responsible.

Show me where I have argued for equal responsibility. In addition, the gun would (or could) still exist in a world where there are multiple steel manufacturers. The gun produced would be substantially the same regardless of which steel company is chosen.

Again, arguing that there is some share of responsibility > 0 is not arguing for equivalence. You have taken a position of absolutes (male responsibility = 0) which is what I disagree with.

Well I applaud your consistency. It would certainly create a rather interesting world. But I doubt it would work they way you want.

I doubt it too, which is why I hedged. I do not pretend to know all the answers with absolute certainty, and I believe trying to pretend that answers exist only in black and white leads to worse solutions.

 

[Lalakai]

I have popcorn and a lawnchair.

lol it's like a Muslim asking a Christian why their religion is the true one?

A democrat asking a republican why tax increases aren't the answer?

.....no middle ground nor can one side even acknowledge the other. But it does make for interesting reading.

BTW....butter on the popcorn??

 

[Linux23]

I just had a baby, unexpectedly, and i'll be honest if my girl gets pregnant again, that baby will be aborted asap. I do not need another baby.

 

[dabuddha]

I just had a baby, unexpectedly, and i'll be honest if my girl gets pregnant again, that baby will be aborted asap. I do not need another baby.

Unexpected? You do realize that when a penis enters a vagina and goes boom boom a babby could possibly happen?

 

[Onceler]

I'm very pro-abortion, but someone pointed out that almost every problem related to unwanted babies can be solved by putting babies up for adoption.
I can't afford to raise a baby --> adoption
I don't want my baby to be born in the year of the dragon - -> adoption
I was raped --> adoption
I don't want a baby --> adoption
Centipedes in my vagina --> adoption


The only stuff left is convenience. Being pregnant sucks. Is that what this is about? It interferes with school, it interferes with work, it makes it harder to find random men to sleep with, it means buying a whole new set of clothes, etc. Is that what it comes down to?

because all unborn babbies go to Heaven whereas according to the fundies they are born into the world almost guaranteed to go to Hell

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Go read the major opinion on Roe vs. Wade law noob.

 

[5150Joker]

First because its a choice and the law should never force anyone to give birth if they do not wish to. Sometimes condoms fail or people forget their birth control pill. Second, carrying a pregnancy to term can be risky for some women (eclampsia etc.) and they shouldn't be forced to subject themselves to that for 9 months just to put up a baby for adoption when an over the counter pill will solve the issue.

All of this debate is based on Christian twisted ideas about conception and when life occurs. Take the b.s. morality out of the debate and there is no reason not to be pro-choice. Also, are pro-lifers willing to foot the bill for the prenatal care of the mother to ensure a safe pregnancy? How about postpartum depression counseling, doctor visits and funds for raising the baby? Put your wallet where your big mouths are or better yet, keep your ideas of morality to yourselves.

 

[nehalem256]

First because its a choice and the law should never force anyone to conceive if they do not wish to.

You do realize abortion doesn't prevent conception.

Sometimes condoms fail or people forget their birth control pill.

But if you are a man too bad. Its time for you to man up.

Second, carrying a pregnancy to term can be risky for some women (eclampsia etc.) and they shouldn't be forced to subject themselves to that for 9 months just to put up a baby for adoption when an over the counter pill will solve the issue.

But if a 14 year old girl or 16 year old girl wants to be a mother we should all worship her decision even though she could use a pill to solve the issue.

All of this debate is based on Christian twisted ideas about conception and when life occurs. Take the b.s. morality out of the debate and there is no reason not to be pro-choice.

How about because any ideology based on worshiping the choices of pregnant teenagers is insane?

 

[mizzou]

I was raped --> adoption

D:

Sperm of the rapist is just sperm of the rapist, it's not magical disney sperm. I don't think anything that comes out of a rapists dick should be allowed to remain inside a woman for several months, that just seems wrong.

 

[Onceler]

I was raped --> adoption

D:

Sperm of the rapist is just sperm of the rapist, it's not magical disney sperm. I don't think anything that comes out of a rapists dick should be allowed to remain inside a woman for several months, that just seems wrong.

I agree. Don't let those little spawn of evil survive. If it is rape abortion should be mandatory even if the mother wants to have it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

There are FAR too many people in the damn world. Adoption doesn't reduce that number, abortion does. Fewer people = better for everyone in nearly every way.

Besides, it's the woman's body. Period.