DtC, given that both of them asserted that men would be charged with rape, I can only assume that they say what they mean, which is that many women would have no qualms about sending innocent men, quite possibly men they at some point liked enough to have consensual sex with, to prison so that they can obtain an abortion.
OK, first of all, it’s not offspring at this point, and it’s not killing. Ending a pregnancy you don’t want is a responsible action. You claim to be pro-choice, but you’re arguing from the indefensible standpoint that pregnancy is a necessary and irrevocable consequence (read: “punishment”) of having sex, all of which boils down to your belief that life begins at conception. None of which is a pro-choice stance.
Permission? Your body performs plenty of natural functions that you have no control over. I really would love to hear your answer to my question regarding contracting an STD. Surely that’s just as much a risk and consequence of having sex. Do you propose that we withhold medical services from these people, too?
Look, this is just dumb. Change your example to “running through a room full of blastocytes” and it might be appropriate. And I think you’d be hard pressed to find anybody who thinks you can’t scrape off a microscopic clump of cells.
Here’s one for you: You’re in a burning building and can either save a baby, or a beaker full of ten thousand blastocytes. Which do you choose?
Oooh. I like that!
I like that one too Salt Seller. May I have your permission to pose it as a question in a debate I’m having elsewhere?
When did I say “most women are lying sluts”? I said that there will be more false rape accusations if abortion is treated as a crime and one of the only ways to obtain one is if one claims they were raped. Do you disagree with this statement?
True. And pro-life is not the correct terminology to use, as well. It’s anti-choice.
Group A (moldy old patriarchs) = “society” while Group B (pro-choice individualists) ≠ “society”?
Yes, it is about social structures. Totally so. But a social structure in which relatively unimpeded access to sex (at least between consenting adults) is incorporated is still a social structure, and in a broad sense that in the direction our social structure has been morphing.
[del]You can’t fuck until you get married[/del] Yes you can now. Give or take a silly midwestern municipality, there are very few legal barriers to consenting adults setting up housekeeping , and still fewer ones for single adults getting laid. You didn’t mention [del]You can’t marry except in accordance with both parents’ wishes[/del], which fell by the wayside even longer ago.
[del]You can only fuck your spouse after you’re married[/del]. Again, very few official penalties. Lots of disapproval if you do it behind your spouse’s back, but if your spouse is fine with it, no harm no foul. Even if your wronged spouse is irate about it, your spouse mostly can only divorce you, which was always an option anyway, since [del]Once you’re married, you have to stay married[/del] is yet another one that has fallen aside and doesn’t apply any more. Even “fault”, i.e., obtaining better settlements in divorce as a consequence of your spouse cheating, is fading from the scene.
[del]You’ve got to raise the kids you helped create[/del]. Adoption. Or they may be taken away from you if you aren’t any good at it.
[del]You can’t abort your babies - we need them to build strong Folk[/del]. And herein lies the crux of the changes. We don’t need a vast infant-supply in order to end up with a decently large youth-supply due to the falloff in infant mortality; and we don’t need a decently large youth-supply either, as everyday life no longer ticks to the beat of backbreaking physical labor, we’re post-agrarian now and folks don’t need to work anywhere near as hard as they used to. So you can lighten up with the fruitful multiplying. Sex can be for sex, doesn’t need to be yoked to reproduction by societal intention, so [del]You can only have sex to make babies, no birth control, no sex in a context that isn’t set up to maximize the likelihood of babies[/del] fell of the list too.
Thank you. By all means, go ahead!
As to men getting less sex if abortion was unavailable, this is my reasoning, based on my own experiences.
I’m not pro-abortion, and I’ve never had one. I have three kids, only one of which wasn’t an ‘accident’. I definitely don’t need more children at this point in my life, and I know I would consider an abortion if I did become pregnant, though I can’t say for sure what I would do if it came up…I might go with adoption, or change my mind and decide a fourth kid wouldn’t be too bad.
My husband and I have a healthy sex life. We practice multiple forms of birth control, including condoms, avoiding my most fertile times of the month, and lots of messy spermicides (unfortunately my body can’t handle the pill and I don’t want to even try the shot). I am also aware that if I have sex a few times a week, even with methods that are 99.9% reliable, there is a real chance that I may get pregnant again over the years.
This chance is small, but real enough that if I knew that I didn’t have an option to not go through the pregnancy, that if there was a birth control failure and I did get pregnant I would be forced by the state to go through the 9 months of pregnancy and give birth to a child that I’d probably feel obligated to give up because of my financial situation, I would not want to have sex with him. I’d hate to have an abortion, but it’s there as an option for me so I don’t have to worry every time I have sex that I might end up going through another pregnancy and have to deal with having another child out there, somewhere.
Removing abortion as an option wouldn’t only effect single women’s willingness to have casual sex outside of marriage, it would hurt a lot of families.
Like **DtC ** said, the number of reported rapes by “unidentified” attackers would indeed go up. I disagree that there is a significant number of women who would allow an innocent man to be tried and/or jailed to allow them to have an abortion. If that’s not what you meant, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Truer words were never spoken. According to Guttmacher (page 13) 38% of women seeking abortion present “Have completed childbearing” as their reason. The **majority ** of women who have an abortion already have children.
Well that will be a source of contention between us, to me this is a false statement, 'nough said.
So you think someone who intentially kills a wanted fetus without harming the mother should not be charged with a crime?
A ‘pro-choice’ stance - I said I’m reluctantly pro-abortion - I accept that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn but fully ‘human’ offspring - but I call it what it is, killing or murdering her offspring. This is for the good of society, to prevent false accusations of rape, and colapse of modern day society. The moral implications of such a action (killing) is on the woman and the doctor - not society.
True, but consentual sex in not one of them.
Where did you get this one from? A woman who is pregnant is fully entitled to medical services to assist in the prenancy, the fetus can also recieve medical services.
If you accept that full human life begins at conception there is really no difference.
I’ve heard and though about this before. The obvious answer is the baby, since we see him visually as fully human, and able to feel pain, suffer, and has emotional attachments to the parents and his extended family. We don’t see these factors with blastocytes. A blastocyte will not suffer, as tempatures rise it will die pretty quickly - so even if it can feel pain, it will be over very quickly. There doesn’t sound like anyone is particularly attached to these mirco-people and it also doesn’t sound like these ‘mirco-people’ have a chance to get past that stage of deveolpement.
I think there’s a significant number of what you would call “lying sluts” who WOULD accuse a guy they consented to sex with of rape if it was the only way they could get an abortion. I never said they were a majority, but they are out there.
As to the “unidentified” attackers, since criminalized abortion would cause a lot of women to claim rape, there would be a lot of suspicion towards women who claimed to be raped by unidentified strangers. How many times is this going to lead to a woman who was in fact raped by a stranger having her claims considered a lie? Would the courts pressure hospitals to provide the embryo for DNA testing?
“Ma’am, I’m sorry to hear about your rape, but I have some good news. DNA testing on your zygote has shown that the masked man who raped you was in fact your boyfriend. Aren’t you glad we have him locked up?”
And on the other side - when rape really happened:
“Yes Ma’am, suuuuure you were raped” while the cops right down in the book, ‘just another female thought she was pregnant after consentual sex but claimed rape so she could get a abortion if needed’
Another varent back at you, you choice is one healthy baby, or 2 terminal (less then 6 months to live) ill babies?
No, I’m sure that they would refuse to testify and not cooperate. The abortion would obviously happen before the trial.
As an example, in New York, which has backwards divorce laws, men set up fake affairs all the time in order to generate a reason for the divorce. kanicbird is totally wrong about his “responsibility” junk, but he’s right that an abortion for rape law would have unexpected consequences. If he were saying that this is a reason not to allow the exception, I’d oppose it, but at least he is saying that this is a reason to support full abortion rights. There are better reasons, but hey…
I think there’s a significant number of what you would call “lying sluts” who WOULD accuse a guy they consented to sex with of rape if it was the only way they could get an abortion. I never said they were a majority, but they are out there.
As to the “unidentified” attackers, since criminalized abortion would cause a lot of women to claim rape, there would be a lot of suspicion towards women who claimed to be raped by unidentified strangers. How many times is this going to lead to a woman who was in fact raped by a stranger having her claims considered a lie? Would the courts pressure hospitals to provide the embryo for DNA testing?
“Ma’am, I’m sorry to hear about your rape, but I have some good news. DNA testing on your zygote has shown that the masked man who raped you was in fact your boyfriend. Aren’t you glad we have him locked up?”
Sigh, this is the second time I’ve done this (double-posted). Sorry.
I did think of that when I switched from anit-abortion to pro-abortion, but I can’t justify that a fully human, full person rights fetus has the right to use the female for initial development with out her permission. As I pointed out that permission is intrinsically given during consensual sex, but this does not apply to rape of the female. So even though the fetus is a full human person, he has no place that has offered him a enviroment where he can develop. This is not to say that the mother can not offer him that permission if she wishes, but that choice is hers.
I agree with that, but I’ll say that most women will refrain from pointing the finger at a specific man in order to pull off the scam. Jeez…I’d hope so, anyway. Desperate people take desperate measures.
Not to hijack the thread, but you & your husband sound like perfect candidates for a vasectomy.
I was talking about a healthy dog, too. So I didn’t misunderstand, and if that’s the reason you’re running away with your hand stapled to your forehead, don’t. At least respond to my reply rather than just insult-and-dash.
Can’t you comprehend the difference between “potential” and “actual”. If it’s not born, it’s not offspring, in the true meaning of the word.
A crime, yes. Murder, no. Probably some sort of property crime. And probably assault, too, as I can’t see any other way to abort a foetus against the mother’s will.
Look, could the anti-choicers at least be honest - there’s a religious element to your objection, and you want to impose that religious view on everyone. It’s that simple. Show of hands:
Who here is a pro-lifer and *doesn’t *believe the foetus has a soul or some such thing.