Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Pastor Barnhart explains right-wing anti-abortion politics.

Page 10 of 17 [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 17  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,585

11 May 2022, 6:33 am

Fnord wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
... What about a situation where the woman who gets pregnant IS the rapist?  Has anyone here thought of that?  I mean, it's far rarer for the rapist to be the one to get pregnant than it is for the victim, but I've heard of a case like that, so...
If a woman has sex with a man without his consent, that is rape (i.e., he is stoned, drunk, asleep, comatose, or otherwise cognitively incapacitated and cannot give consent).

But what is it called when a woman has mutually consensual sex with a man, but lies to him about being unable to conceive?

I mean, a man cannot tell if a woman is using contraception just by looking at her, and he would have to get uncomfortably invasive with her to find out by touch.

So she says, "It's okay, I'm on the pill!", and a year later, the man is slapped with a paternity suit for what he thought was a safe one-night stand.

Is there a legal basis for the man to claim she committed fraud?


Maybe there could be if he could prove she said that and lied? I mean, a woman can be on the pill and still get pregnant, so in a situation like that, it could be possible that no one lied and they just got unlucky. I think it would be very hard to prove that the woman wasn't on the pill if she claims that she was.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,797
Location: Over there

11 May 2022, 6:45 am

AngelRho wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
You're setting up many preconditions there, but it seems you're arguing that a man has an inalienable right to his progeny, irrespective of the circumstances of its creation, and a woman should just fall into line with that as its vessel.
No, no, keep it simple.
But I am keeping it simple. :lol:

You're presenting the existence of a foetus as evidence for some sort of binding transaction between a man and a woman and while that's true in some, even in many circumstances, I think it's bogus to argue male rights to a woman's body as a vessel just because his DNA was involved.
Ultimately it's still a woman's body and ultimately, it must always be her choice as to what happens with/to it.
Quote:
Also, set aside the possibility of conceiving through Sexual assault, or otherwise abuse.
Why - because it invalidates your vessel/foetus ownership argument? :chin:


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,797
Location: Over there

11 May 2022, 6:45 am

Mikah wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Nothing on the statement from Sarah Weddington to the Supreme Court?
Why should any woman have lesser constitutional rights to bodily autonomy than a man?

Since you asked - in short: biological differences do not or at least, should not, abate moral duty. From a moral standpoint, there is no inequality, neither man nor woman should be allowed to kill their own children without very good reasons. Pregnancy is uniquely female, yes, both blessing and curse, and yes, biology is "unfair", but this does not mean women should get a free pass to act like monsters.
A woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body is not a moral decision - it is, or at least it should be, a fundamental right of bodily autonomy and being blessed/cursed with the ability carry a child makes no difference to that. It seems you're arguing that because she can do that, she should therefore be barred from actively preventing it.

You can argue the moral implications of an abortion all you want, but that's a different issue.
And frankly, injecting emotional noise like "kill their own children", "women should get a free pass to act like monsters" doesn't advance any argument.
A bunch of cells at the time an abortion would be considered is no more a child than a sperm. Not interested in what constitutes the start of a life, the precise point at which those cells become "person" - because it tends to be fanciful and faith-driven.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

11 May 2022, 7:22 am

Cornflake wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
You're setting up many preconditions there, but it seems you're arguing that a man has an inalienable right to his progeny, irrespective of the circumstances of its creation, and a woman should just fall into line with that as its vessel.
No, no, keep it simple.
But I am keeping it simple. :lol:

You're presenting the existence of a foetus as evidence for some sort of binding transaction between a man and a woman and while that's true in some, even in many circumstances, I think it's bogus to argue male rights to a woman's body as a vessel just because his DNA was involved.
Ultimately it's still a woman's body and ultimately, it must always be her choice as to what happens with/to it.
Quote:
Also, set aside the possibility of conceiving through Sexual assault, or otherwise abuse.
Why - because it invalidates your vessel/foetus ownership argument? :chin:

It does invalidate the ownership argument. Exactly. I never imagined that a woman should be forced to keep the baby if she was raped. What you give someone as part of a mutual agreement carries conditions, likely that you’d get it back in some form at a later time. Whatever ends up in the dumpster is fair game. And where human life is involved, someone has to be held accountable when it’s destroyed.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 May 2022, 2:25 pm

Cornflake wrote:
A woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body is not a moral decision - it is, or at least it should be


You can try to frame the argument that way and so avoid the moral conundrum, but it doesn't hold much water. Whether the unborn are human or not, the possibility that they might be immediately make this a moral quagmire.

Cornflake wrote:
a fundamental right of bodily autonomy and being blessed/cursed with the ability carry a child makes no difference to that.


It's not fundamental though is it? We take it away from women as soon as the foetus/baby is old enough.

Cornflake wrote:
It seems you're arguing that because she can do that, she should therefore be barred from actively preventing it.


I'm answering a direct question about the perceived unfairness of a law - yes it is unfair, due to differences between the sexes - but morality can and should trump any unfairness or disproportionate impact of a law.

Cornflake wrote:
A bunch of cells at the time an abortion would be considered is no more a child than a sperm. Not interested in what constitutes the start of a life, the precise point at which those cells become "person" - because it tends to be fanciful and faith-driven.


Well, unfortunately, that is rather important to the argument and the ability to make any sort of judgement about this topic.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 May 2022, 2:37 pm

Mikah wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
A woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body is not a moral decision - it is, or at least it should be


You can try to frame the argument that way and so avoid the moral conundrum, but it doesn't hold much water. Whether the unborn are human or not, the possibility that they might be immediately make this a moral quagmire.

Cornflake wrote:
a fundamental right of bodily autonomy and being blessed/cursed with the ability carry a child makes no difference to that.


It's not fundamental though is it? We take it away from women as soon as the foetus/baby is old enough.

Cornflake wrote:
It seems you're arguing that because she can do that, she should therefore be barred from actively preventing it.


I'm answering a direct question about the perceived unfairness of a law - yes it is unfair, due to differences between the sexes - but morality can and should trump any unfairness or disproportionate impact of a law.

Cornflake wrote:
A bunch of cells at the time an abortion would be considered is no more a child than a sperm. Not interested in what constitutes the start of a life, the precise point at which those cells become "person" - because it tends to be fanciful and faith-driven.


Well, unfortunately, that is rather important to the argument and the ability to make any sort of judgement about this topic.


Have you heard of ectopic pregnancies where the fetus implants in the wrong place? The only treatment for that is abortion. If she is denied an abortion that is a death sentence....what does your morality say about that?

No human being has the right to use another human being's body without their consent so why does it matter when it becomes a person?

Also, the only morals that say abortion is wrong are religious morals, and we are supposed to have separation of church and state.


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

11 May 2022, 2:45 pm

Fireblossom wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
... What about a situation where the woman who gets pregnant IS the rapist?  Has anyone here thought of that?  I mean, it's far rarer for the rapist to be the one to get pregnant than it is for the victim, but I've heard of a case like that, so...
If a woman has sex with a man without his consent, that is rape (i.e., he is stoned, drunk, asleep, comatose, or otherwise cognitively incapacitated and cannot give consent).  But what is it called when a woman has mutually consensual sex with a man, but lies to him about being unable to conceive?  I mean, a man cannot tell if a woman is using contraception just by looking at her, and he would have to get uncomfortably invasive with her to find out by touch. So she says, "It's okay, I'm on the pill!", and a year later, the man is slapped with a paternity suit for what he thought was a safe one-night stand.  Is there a legal basis for the man to claim she committed fraud?
Maybe there could be if he could prove she said that and lied? . . .
Then it comes down to a "He Said / She Said" argument, which is usually decided in the woman's favor.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,402
Location: Houston, Texas

11 May 2022, 2:54 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
A woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body is not a moral decision - it is, or at least it should be


You can try to frame the argument that way and so avoid the moral conundrum, but it doesn't hold much water. Whether the unborn are human or not, the possibility that they might be immediately make this a moral quagmire.

Cornflake wrote:
a fundamental right of bodily autonomy and being blessed/cursed with the ability carry a child makes no difference to that.


It's not fundamental though is it? We take it away from women as soon as the foetus/baby is old enough.

Cornflake wrote:
It seems you're arguing that because she can do that, she should therefore be barred from actively preventing it.


I'm answering a direct question about the perceived unfairness of a law - yes it is unfair, due to differences between the sexes - but morality can and should trump any unfairness or disproportionate impact of a law.

Cornflake wrote:
A bunch of cells at the time an abortion would be considered is no more a child than a sperm. Not interested in what constitutes the start of a life, the precise point at which those cells become "person" - because it tends to be fanciful and faith-driven.


Well, unfortunately, that is rather important to the argument and the ability to make any sort of judgement about this topic.


Have you heard of ectopic pregnancies where the fetus implants in the wrong place? The only treatment for that is abortion. If she is denied an abortion that is a death sentence....what does your morality say about that?

No human being has the right to use another human being's body without their consent so why does it matter when it becomes a person?

Also, the only morals that say abortion is wrong are religious morals, and we are supposed to have separation of church and state.


I always thought ectopics were, or could be, treated in ER's


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 May 2022, 3:09 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:

I always thought ectopics were, or could be, treated in ER's


Yes, they have to remove the fetus before it kills the pregnant woman. Also sometimes when women miscarry their body won't expell the fetus and they need an abortion...or they risk death from a dead fetus stuck inside of them.


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 May 2022, 3:37 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Have you heard of ectopic pregnancies where the fetus implants in the wrong place? The only treatment for that is abortion. If she is denied an abortion that is a death sentence....what does your morality say about that?


It's fine - it's an easy problem. As I understand it, ectopic pregnancies are almost invariably fatal for the baby and extremely dangerous for the mother compared to normal pregnancy. You can't really say two lives are in the balance in that instance. Abortion is justified in that case.

Sweetleaf wrote:
No human being has the right to use another human being's body without their consent so why does it matter when it becomes a person?


This is just a made up principle to justify abortion - not some eternal truth that has deep roots in philosophy or science. The unborn have as much right to their mother's body as you do to air and food. How much right you have to the chemical necessities of life is itself an interesting discussion and not one with an obvious answer - but to say the unborn have no right to these things is premature at best, if not disturbingly callous. Anyway I've discussed it to death on this forum, even quite recently and if it's all the same to you I don't want a repeat so soon.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also, the only morals that say abortion is wrong are religious morals, and we are supposed to have separation of church and state.


Wrong. I don't use religious arguments and came to the anti-abortion side long before religion.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 May 2022, 4:06 pm

Mikah wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Have you heard of ectopic pregnancies where the fetus implants in the wrong place? The only treatment for that is abortion. If she is denied an abortion that is a death sentence....what does your morality say about that?


It's fine - it's an easy problem. As I understand it, ectopic pregnancies are almost invariably fatal for the baby and extremely dangerous for the mother compared to normal pregnancy. You can't really say two lives are in the balance in that instance. Abortion is justified in that case.

Sweetleaf wrote:
No human being has the right to use another human being's body without their consent so why does it matter when it becomes a person?


This is just a made up principle to justify abortion - not some eternal truth that has deep roots in philosophy or science. The unborn have as much right to their mother's body as you do to air and food. How much right you have to the chemical necessities of life is itself an interesting discussion and not one with an obvious answer - but to say the unborn have no right to these things is premature at best. Anyway I've discussed it to death on this forum, even quite recently and if it's all the same to you I don't want a repeat so soon.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also, the only morals that say abortion is wrong are religious morals, and we are supposed to have separation of church and state.


Wrong. I don't use religious arguments and came to the anti-abortion side long before religion.


Well at least you can see the necessity in the case of ectopic pregnancies. That said though how will women have access to abortion in that case if abortion is banned?

But also why should a fetus have more rights than anyone else? No one else has the right to use your body without your consent, a fetus shouldn't be exempt just because it needs the mothers body to survive. Someone's body is not the same thing as air and food. Its not even a made up principle that people don't have a right to your body, it is a big reason why rape is illegal it just can be applied to unwanted pregnancy as well.

Alright if not religion than, what exactly brought you to that side. I mean abortions can take place before it even develops into a fetus, why oppose an abortion that early outside of religious reasons?


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 May 2022, 4:25 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
That said though how will women have access to abortion in that case if abortion is banned?


Is this actually the case? That abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy is set to be banned?

Sweetleaf wrote:
But also why should a fetus have more rights than anyone else? No one else has the right to use your body without your consent, a fetus shouldn't be exempt just because it needs the mothers body to survive. Someone's body is not the same thing as air and food. Its not even a made up principle that people don't have a right to your body, it is a big reason why rape is illegal it just can be applied to unwanted pregnancy as well.


The heart of it is the right not to be killed for stupid or selfish reasons, a right hopefully applied to all humans, not just the unborn. Everything else flows from that.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Alright if not religion than, what exactly brought you to that side. I mean abortions can take place before it even develops into a fetus, why oppose an abortion that early outside of religious reasons?


I'm good at spotting the holes in logic in the pro-choice argument and noting disturbing parallels in language and thought between the abortion topic and other historical mass atrocities.

In seeking a consistent, moral position, basically by elimination, I arrived where I am - the beginning of human life is conception and the vast majority of abortions performed today are immoral.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

11 May 2022, 4:47 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Nothing on the statement from Sarah Weddington to the Supreme Court?
Why should any woman have lesser constitutional rights to bodily autonomy than a man?

Since you asked - in short: biological differences do not or at least, should not, abate moral duty. From a moral standpoint, there is no inequality, neither man nor woman should be allowed to kill their own children without very good reasons. Pregnancy is uniquely female, yes, both blessing and curse, and yes, biology is "unfair", but this does not mean women should get a free pass to act like monsters.
A woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body is not a moral decision - it is, or at least it should be, a fundamental right of bodily autonomy and being blessed/cursed with the ability carry a child makes no difference to that. It seems you're arguing that because she can do that, she should therefore be barred from actively preventing it.

You can argue the moral implications of an abortion all you want, but that's a different issue.
And frankly, injecting emotional noise like "kill their own children", "women should get a free pass to act like monsters" doesn't advance any argument.
A bunch of cells at the time an abortion would be considered is no more a child than a sperm. Not interested in what constitutes the start of a life, the precise point at which those cells become "person" - because it tends to be fanciful and faith-driven.

To be fair it is a moral decision. Presumably you believe that the fundamental right to bodily autonomy is a good thing, and that someone who physically denied that right woud be doing a bad thing? You can't get away from moral questions.

We might say that the right to bodily autonomy, in a general sense, is uncontroversial... and you probably wouldn't find many people in our society who would be prepared to come out as against bodily autonomy. But it isn't guaranteed. There are people who think they should be able to control other people's bodies. Heck, I think relatively few people support total bodily autonomy (all drugs legalised, no sectioning suicide risks, ability to sell organs, no immigration restrictions, no taboos about consentual sexual activity between adult humans). I know some people who are that liberal, but most people, myself included, accept some limits to bodily autonomy other than someone else being harmed (which is almost universally accepted as a limit).

I do agree with your thoughts on the consideration we should give to zygotes, embryos and foetues.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

11 May 2022, 4:53 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Have you heard of ectopic pregnancies where the fetus implants in the wrong place? The only treatment for that is abortion. If she is denied an abortion that is a death sentence....what does your morality say about that?


It's fine - it's an easy problem. As I understand it, ectopic pregnancies are almost invariably fatal for the baby and extremely dangerous for the mother compared to normal pregnancy. You can't really say two lives are in the balance in that instance. Abortion is justified in that case.

Sweetleaf wrote:
No human being has the right to use another human being's body without their consent so why does it matter when it becomes a person?


This is just a made up principle to justify abortion - not some eternal truth that has deep roots in philosophy or science. The unborn have as much right to their mother's body as you do to air and food. How much right you have to the chemical necessities of life is itself an interesting discussion and not one with an obvious answer - but to say the unborn have no right to these things is premature at best. Anyway I've discussed it to death on this forum, even quite recently and if it's all the same to you I don't want a repeat so soon.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also, the only morals that say abortion is wrong are religious morals, and we are supposed to have separation of church and state.


Wrong. I don't use religious arguments and came to the anti-abortion side long before religion.


Well at least you can see the necessity in the case of ectopic pregnancies. That said though how will women have access to abortion in that case if abortion is banned?

But also why should a fetus have more rights than anyone else? No one else has the right to use your body without your consent, a fetus shouldn't be exempt just because it needs the mothers body to survive. Someone's body is not the same thing as air and food. Its not even a made up principle that people don't have a right to your body, it is a big reason why rape is illegal it just can be applied to unwanted pregnancy as well.

Alright if not religion than, what exactly brought you to that side. I mean abortions can take place before it even develops into a fetus, why oppose an abortion that early outside of religious reasons?

Pretty much what Mikah said.

But this is what I've been talking about, too. First of all, ectopic pregnancies: This is one reason why I've consistently said abortion will not be completely banned. You can't have a situation that places a person in danger and denies that person the right to defend herself when there are procedures that save women's lives. In principle, there is no difference between that shooting an armed robber to death in your own home. I'd like to see some evidence that a state has a trigger law on the books that would make a life-threatening condition such as ectopic pregnancy untreatable. Even Mississippi's trigger law allows exceptions when the woman's life is in danger. I get the impression that rhetoric concerning abortion bans and nightmare situations like ectopic pregnancy are greatly exaggerated.

Babies do not have more rights than anyone else. The abortion issue is not about whether babies should have more rights than anyone else. It's that no person should have LESS rights than anyone else. I'm not just talking about babies, here. Fathers have an interest in what happens to their DNA. If consensual sex results in pregnancy, 1/2 of that baby is the father's. If she wants to give up her rights to her own DNA, that's fine, but abortion means destroying another person's child. Father's are at least entitled to that much.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 May 2022, 4:55 pm

Mikah wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
That said though how will women have access to abortion in that case if abortion is banned?


Is this actually the case? That abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy is set to be banned?

Sweetleaf wrote:
But also why should a fetus have more rights than anyone else? No one else has the right to use your body without your consent, a fetus shouldn't be exempt just because it needs the mothers body to survive. Someone's body is not the same thing as air and food. Its not even a made up principle that people don't have a right to your body, it is a big reason why rape is illegal it just can be applied to unwanted pregnancy as well.


The heart of it is the right not to be killed for stupid or selfish reasons, a right hopefully applied to all humans, not just the unborn. Everything else flows from that.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Alright if not religion than, what exactly brought you to that side. I mean abortions can take place before it even develops into a fetus, why oppose an abortion that early outside of religious reasons?


I'm good at spotting the holes in logic in the pro-choice argument and noting disturbing parallels in language and thought between the abortion topic and other historical mass atrocities.

In seeking a consistent, moral position, basically by elimination, I arrived where I am - the beginning of human life is conception and the vast majority of abortions performed today are immoral.


Yes, some states want to ban all abortion(obviously not everyone in those states).

Also I don't see how risk to ones health is a stupid reason, it may be a bit selfish but....so is choosing not to be an organ donar and I don't see anyone saying that should be mandatory.

And well biology/science just doesn't support the sentient life starting at conception argument.

Also what have I said that is similar to arguments supporting any mass atrocities? my position is no one has the right to your body without consent. How has that argument been used for mass atrocities or are you referring to something else?


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 May 2022, 5:15 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Have you heard of ectopic pregnancies where the fetus implants in the wrong place? The only treatment for that is abortion. If she is denied an abortion that is a death sentence....what does your morality say about that?


It's fine - it's an easy problem. As I understand it, ectopic pregnancies are almost invariably fatal for the baby and extremely dangerous for the mother compared to normal pregnancy. You can't really say two lives are in the balance in that instance. Abortion is justified in that case.

Sweetleaf wrote:
No human being has the right to use another human being's body without their consent so why does it matter when it becomes a person?


This is just a made up principle to justify abortion - not some eternal truth that has deep roots in philosophy or science. The unborn have as much right to their mother's body as you do to air and food. How much right you have to the chemical necessities of life is itself an interesting discussion and not one with an obvious answer - but to say the unborn have no right to these things is premature at best. Anyway I've discussed it to death on this forum, even quite recently and if it's all the same to you I don't want a repeat so soon.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also, the only morals that say abortion is wrong are religious morals, and we are supposed to have separation of church and state.


Wrong. I don't use religious arguments and came to the anti-abortion side long before religion.


Well at least you can see the necessity in the case of ectopic pregnancies. That said though how will women have access to abortion in that case if abortion is banned?

But also why should a fetus have more rights than anyone else? No one else has the right to use your body without your consent, a fetus shouldn't be exempt just because it needs the mothers body to survive. Someone's body is not the same thing as air and food. Its not even a made up principle that people don't have a right to your body, it is a big reason why rape is illegal it just can be applied to unwanted pregnancy as well.

Alright if not religion than, what exactly brought you to that side. I mean abortions can take place before it even develops into a fetus, why oppose an abortion that early outside of religious reasons?

Pretty much what Mikah said.

But this is what I've been talking about, too. First of all, ectopic pregnancies: This is one reason why I've consistently said abortion will not be completely banned. You can't have a situation that places a person in danger and denies that person the right to defend herself when there are procedures that save women's lives. In principle, there is no difference between that shooting an armed robber to death in your own home. I'd like to see some evidence that a state has a trigger law on the books that would make a life-threatening condition such as ectopic pregnancy untreatable. Even Mississippi's trigger law allows exceptions when the woman's life is in danger. I get the impression that rhetoric concerning abortion bans and nightmare situations like ectopic pregnancy are greatly exaggerated.

Babies do not have more rights than anyone else. The abortion issue is not about whether babies should have more rights than anyone else. It's that no person should have LESS rights than anyone else. I'm not just talking about babies, here. Fathers have an interest in what happens to their DNA. If consensual sex results in pregnancy, 1/2 of that baby is the father's. If she wants to give up her rights to her own DNA, that's fine, but abortion means destroying another person's child. Father's are at least entitled to that much.


It is possible to find out before it is life or death that a pregnancy has complications that could lead to a life or death situation. Abortion bans could require a woman who finds out about these complications to be forced to keep the pregnancy until she suffers the complications because 'its not a life or death emergency' yet. Even though at that point the longer she keeps it the riskier it is to her health.

Also, sure a baby or person should not have more rights but a fetus should have the one right none of us have, the right to someone elses body.

Also since most couples are on the same page about having children or not, what makes you think the father doesn't want an abortion to? I don't think there are a lot of situations where couples agree to try for a child and then the mother later insists on getting an abortion the father disagrees with. More likely the couple finds out there are complications and both agree the best choice is to get an abortion. Or in my case me and my boyfriend do not want children so if I got pregnant due to not getting a morning after pill in time, he would support me in getting an abortion. Also though men put in 10% of the effort to get pregnant, while women take on 90% of being pregnant.


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/