On what basis would you oppose abortion, except in the case of rape? If life begins at conception, how can you justify killing a child because his father is a rapist? If every embryo is sacred, how can you make any exceptions at all?
As well as giving actual rapists the defensive claim that the victim fabricated the rape solely to obtain emergency contraceptives.
Er… what makes you think emergency contraception is used only for rape?
Or do you seriously expect a woman to show up at a pharmacy with a note from the police saying “my husband and I were engaged in consensual sex when the condom broke so can we please have some Plan B”?
WTF? Do you think abortion is now limited to cases of rape? And WTF would emergency contraception be in this case, getting a rubber for the next rapist in the gang? WTF kind of question is this?
If y’all will read the thread, you’ll find that the OP has already admitted the mistakes and has apologized.
Even so, I’d like to know WHY he felt that way in the first place.
Because we also object to the notion implicit in the OP’s proposal, which has not yet been disclaimed, that anyone other than the woman who would carry the child has a role in determining whether an abortion is “truly necessary” or not.
The right to an abortion is not a favor graciously bestowed upon women by society, it is a right to have the decisive say in matters of family planning, and parties other than mother have no more say in authorizing (or prohibiting) it than I need my neighbor’s permission to have ice cream for dinner.
Fear-You really expect a woman to carry a child she conceived via non-consenual sex?:dubious:
Do you really expect a woman to carry a child she doesn’t want?
My point was, if you object to abortion on the grounds of the sanctity of life of the unborn, making an exception for rape is inconsistent. I support the right of a woman to choose abortion on demand, without asking anyone’s permission.
No. Emergency contraception should be inexpensive and available over-the-counter, just like ibuprofen or acetaminophen.
I am, in general, opposed to abortion, and if it were politically feasible, I would have no objection to significantly tighter laws restricting abortion.
And I still say absolutely not to this. Emergency contraception, or Plan B, or whatever you want to call it, takes effect at a sufficiently-early stage in the process that there is no logical or rational argument whatsoever that the embryo has attained personhood or any consideration of rights. It’s a purely medical issue at that point, not a moral one.
I actually know two women who did exactly that, carried and gave birth to a child conceived by rape. These were women living in the US with access to abortion and the money to pay for one. One of those women chose to also raise that child. The other did not.
Her body, her choice.
In Australia, RU486 has been recommended for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme which means the cost is government subsidised.
It requires a prescription from a doctor as far as I know, but certainly nothing else.
Short form, a woman who has consensual sex without protection can choose to go and get the drug afterwards to prevent pregnancy. It’s referred to here as “the morning after pill”. Doesn’t do wonder for STD’s but hey, everyone makes mistakes after a drink or two when the passion is up.
No way should a police report or anything that intrusive be required, I’d actually be quite happy to see it available over the shelf at the pharmacy without a prescription required.
etv78: Can you please answer my question in post #19? I think a lot of people want to know the answer to that.
I could’ve written this post! Thank you Chronos!
I haven’t read the rest of the thread, and I’m sure the sentiment I am about to express has already been rendered by others. Nonetheless I feel obliged to share it.
The answer is your question is not simply no. Not simply hell no. Not simply fuck no, or fucking hell no. It is
FUCKING HELL NO!!!
I mean that in the nicest way possible, of course.
I’m not going to address the definition of “truly necessary abortions,” as I don’t feel like it and I’d just get angry anyway. But the only purpose I can see this proposal serving is expanding the humiliation and shaming experienced by rape victims, not reducing abortions.
Broomstick-I commend those women for that choice. The reason IMO the rape/incest exceptions exist is becasue we don’t want to force women to have to look at (in the case of moms who keep the child) a child and be reminded of being brutally violated at conception.
Someone above wondered why the exceptions exist, the above paragrpah is why!
And that’s the reason why one should read a thread before responding: The OP rescinded the question by post #5 when his error was pointed out.
That’s a piss-poor reason, if you think abortion is murder.
And if you don’t think abortion is murder, then what the hey?
Facts, Eturia, mock insult involving flaming bees.
Forget the abortion thing. You can substitute “contraception” for abortion and what I wrote remains true. What **etv78 **proposes is simply a mechanism for controlling the bodies and choices of others.