The ‘punish the sluts’ argument is not going to go over well here.
You’re asking everyone else to do what you couldn’t.
Why don’t you tell me why you assume that any woman who’s pregnant and doesn’t want to be is ‘irresponsible’? How do you know that?
I don’t ever want any children. Does that mean that I should never in my life ever have sex?
Is it? It’s choosing an arbitary but not subjective line, before which some conditions and apply and after which they do not. It’s no more circular than deciding one has to be 18 to vote.
What it probably means is that you should have a tubal ligation, to ensure that you will not have an unwanted pregnancy.
In my opinion, whether or not a fetus is exactly equivalent to a person, or abortion is exactly equivalent to murder, is somewhat beside the point. The relevant questions are:
(1) To what degree is a fetus’s continued existence worth preserving?
(2) How much priority should be given to letting a pregnant woman choose whether to terminate her pregnancy?
Subsidiary to question (1) are several other questions, such as:
(a) To what degree is a baby’s continued existence worth preserving?
(b) What qualities of a baby make a baby’s continued existence worth preserving?
(b) To what degrees does a fetus differ from a baby with regard to those qualities that make a baby’s continued existence worth preserving?
Subsidiary to question (2) are such questions as:
(a) To what degree is someone entitled to make medical descisions regarding her own body?
(b) Does the level of entitlement depend on whether other people are affected by a decision, and on the way in which others are affected?
© To what degree does a fetus share any qualities of “other people” that make them relevant to this decision?
(d) To what degree and in what way does the level of entitlement in (a) depend on the reason why the procedure is being performed?
(e) How much is the degree to which a woman is “responsible” for her pregnancy relevant, if at all?
(f) What factors determine the degree to which a woman is “responsible” for her pregnancy, if this is relevant?
There’s another issue to consider as well: Regardless of whether the legallity of abortion is “justified” in the above sense, should it be allowed to prevent people from pursuing illegal means of abortion? In particular, illegal abortions could pose a greater risk to the woman. Also, if all abortions were equally illegal, it would remove a lot of the disincentive against those types of abortion that are currently illegal in some jurisdictions.
Another issue is the question of what role, if any, the government should play in the matter. For instance, someone could conceivably believe that all abortion is morally wrong, but that it should nevertheless be legal. To what degree should the government enforce moral behavior? What does constitute a good justification for a law?
Most of these questions strike me as incredibly complex. Sometimes I think that the more complex the issue, the more likely it is to be reduced to a bumper sticker. At any rate, if anyone has any thoughts on any of these questions, I’d like to hear them.
So **catsix **should pay three to seven times as much for a procedure with much higher risks that isn’t a guarantee against getting pregnant, rather than use birth control and deal with a possible failure by having what is most likely (88%) a safe, early term abortion? Why?
She asked a pro-lifer if they thought she should give up sex, so as to not ever be put in the position of having an abortion. My answer was, no, you don’t have to give up sex. No one said that.
How many doctors would be willing to perform such an operation on a woman who’s never had children? Not many. IIRC, catsix has tried in the past to obtain one and was turned down. (I realize I’m not your favorite person, catsix, but perhaps you could correct me if I’m wrong).
OK, let me rephrase my answer. Whatever catsix’s solution to not wanting children is, that is her business.
Personally, if I knew I would never want to have children, I would search high and low for a doctor who would perform a tubal on me. And I wouldn’t have sex until I found one.
You suggested that she “should” get an unnecessary invasive surgical procedure rather than rely on conventional birth control with a small risk of failure.
A tubal ligation is not 100% effective either, so what is your point? Why is a TL preferable to the pill? If a woman gets pregnant after having her tubes tied, was she being “irresponsible?”
And then what would you do if you got pregnant anyway (it happens)?
Given that she said she’s pro-life, I’m guessing the answer is “have a baby.”
Exactly.
I think it is responsible to make careful use of birth control, and that if you are careful (and I mean, careful), it is very unlikely you will become pregnant. If you should become pregnant anyway, then the responsible thing to do is have the baby.
The reason I would have a tubal instead of taking the pill forever (if I never wanted children) is because it is really quite easy to forget to take the pill.
And, even though I disagree with her, I support Sarahfeena’s decision-there are even pro-choice women who wouldn’t choose an abortion for themselves, but would want others to have that option.
But birth control is no guarantee so the only way to be 100% sure is not to have sex, is it not?
Also, what’s responsible about having a baby you don’t want. Isn’t it far MORE responsible to terminate the pregnancy before any baby is ever produced?
Would a second light bulb have helped?
Yes, it is. So? If I did everything in my power (aside from abstaining) to avoid pregnancy, and I still became pregnant, I would have a baby. This is why, when I was not in a position to handle having a baby, I chose abstension.
I think we have had this conversation before. I do not agree with this at all. I believe it is more responsible to have the baby and keep it, if you decide you want to, or give it up for adoption.
You’re contradicting yourself. Upthread you said this:
Now it sounds like you’re saying a woman DOES have to abstain from sex in order to avoid having to be put in the position of having to get an abortion? Is that now your correct position? Is that your final answer?
I ask again, how is it responsible to have a baby you don’t want or can’t take care of? That sounds pretty IRresponsible to me. Isn’t it more responsible NOT to have a baby you don’t want or can’t take care of? I don’t understand what’s irresponsible about terminating a pregnancy before any baby ever exists. Can you explain that to me?
Now that’s funny.
But that’s HER choice to make. Part of being pro-choice is about understanding that everyone has the right to make decisions for their OWN bodies.
Why is it wrong for Sarahfeena not to want to have an abortion?