Page 4 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Jan 2013, 2:44 am

unknowjondoe wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Adoption is certainly a viable option for a woman who opts to carry her pregnancy to term.

But for all that, it is in no way an adequate answer to a woman's inherent right to life, liberty and security of the person. Even if every bill is paid, and every loss during the course of her pregnancy is made good, still, at the end of the day, she is the one whose body is put through the pregnancy.

I applaud those women who opt to carry their children to term and give them up to parents who will love and care for them. But that in no way suggests that it is an appropriate course of action for any other women who find themselves pregnant.


Right to life, liberty and security? What about the child's right to life? If you take that then they don't have any liberty. And not to mention security.

If the mother is medically incapable of caring the child then I agree with abortion. But considering the mother already made a choice to put herself in that situation why not follow through? I mean if you are pro choice what about the choice to use birth control or a condom they are not that hard to find.

Saying that the mother 'made a choice to put herself in that situation, therefore she should not be allowed to terminate,' is a lot like saying that a motor vehicle accident victim should be allowed to bleed out by the side of the road because they voluntarily got into the car. There are medical solutions to either predicament.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Jan 2013, 2:46 am

unknowjondoe wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
unknowjondoe wrote:
what about the choice to use birth control or a condom they are not that hard to find.

These things are not fool proof.


And that is why we should not let fools procreate. Most the birth prevention out there is 99% and considering there are billions of people using it that means your chances of being the 1% are extremely slim.

You are not correct wrt. the effectiveness of birth control.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health ... -22710.htm



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

06 Jan 2013, 4:07 am

There can be no argument asserted that abortion causes suffering because the organism in question has virtually no experiential capacities, so the idea, then, of asserting rights to protection of prima facie non-existent interests is quite humorous.

What's all the more telling is that no such "right" to parasitism would ever be exerted for me,
an UNAMBIGUOUSLY-sentient being,
to use LKL's kidneys against her will,
nor for any entity to mandate such a situation,
even should my death result otherwise.

On the flip side, the impact on women's health, on children's health, on poverty, on an economy, is devastating wherein women are not the arbiters of their reproduction.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 06 Jan 2013, 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

06 Jan 2013, 4:12 am

LKL wrote:
unknowjondoe wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Adoption is certainly a viable option for a woman who opts to carry her pregnancy to term.

But for all that, it is in no way an adequate answer to a woman's inherent right to life, liberty and security of the person. Even if every bill is paid, and every loss during the course of her pregnancy is made good, still, at the end of the day, she is the one whose body is put through the pregnancy.

I applaud those women who opt to carry their children to term and give them up to parents who will love and care for them. But that in no way suggests that it is an appropriate course of action for any other women who find themselves pregnant.


Right to life, liberty and security? What about the child's right to life? If you take that then they don't have any liberty. And not to mention security.

If the mother is medically incapable of caring the child then I agree with abortion. But considering the mother already made a choice to put herself in that situation why not follow through? I mean if you are pro choice what about the choice to use birth control or a condom they are not that hard to find.

Saying that the mother 'made a choice to put herself in that situation, therefore she should not be allowed to terminate,' is a lot like saying that a motor vehicle accident victim should be allowed to bleed out by the side of the road because they voluntarily got into the car. There are medical solutions to either predicament.


Also, if women made a "choice" to carry a resulting pregnancy to term when they agree to have sex,
they wouldn't seek abortions, now would they?
This is really about punishing women for elective sex, and the language of such arguments shows this.

If a woman chooses to have sex (and use birth control, or not) as an exercisement of her bodily autonomy (a violation of which would be rape),
then why is choosing to have an abortion any less rightful an exercise of that same bodily autonomy (a violation of which, IE, forced pregnancy being considered analogous)?


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."