As someone has already said, it's not as if we all don't know how a woman gets pregnant, but using abortion as a form of birth control is not right either. If a woman's life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, I think the woman should be able to have a Medicare funded abortion. If that pregnancy is the result of not taking the necessary precautions to prevent a pregnancy then the abortion costs should be shouldered by those wanting an abortion. Medicare was intended to fund medically necessary procedures, and if the woman's health is not endangered or incest or rape is not involved, Medicare should not pay for this voluntary, non-emergency medical procedure.
When does pro-choice become pro-abortion?
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
I entirely disagree with payment (or right to abortion) based on someone elses holier than thou judgement of what constitutes right versus wrong. The 'only if' rape or incest argument is bovine scattology. Lets not forget what is at the heart of that argument; the embryo's right to life as per the righteous. It either has a right to life or it doesn't. The way in which it was created doesn't give one version of embryonic life more right to life than another.
A guy doesn't need a vasectomy either, yet it is covered. I say we remain out of people's lives to let them decide for themselves when and why an abortion is needed.
A guy doesn't need a vasectomy either, yet it is covered. I say we remain out of people's lives to let them decide for themselves when and why an abortion is needed.
I think the term "pro-choice" is a misnomer for a practice that should be more accurately termed "consequence-free". And in my view, that's what modern women want. A consequence free life and lifestyle.
I pride myself in being "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion". I think a woman's right to choose ends with her consent to have sexual intercourse without sufficient means of contraception. I don't hold that the fetus should have to do the time for the woman's crime, if you will. And I see this as a big problem in society.
It seems that women in our western culture have reached a point where they believe they can carry on a reckless lifestyle and "choose" to not have to pay the consequences for their actions. I cannot support that rationale.
I do support what I call "medically necessary" or "involuntary pregnancy" abortions. That is, I think it appropriate for a woman to choose to have an abortion if it is medically necessary to avoid medical complications that could effect her own life. (I don't see that getting an abortion because "my father will kill me if he finds out I'm pregnant" is a medically necessary validation) I also support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion in instances of rape.
But a woman that just recklessly engages in promiscuity? No! She made her choice when she spread her legs and allowed that sperm to swim up her fallopian tube. Her right to choose ended with that ejaculatory thrust of wanton recklesslness.
What is it that people aren't getting? Was it not you who made the comment that others shouldn't choose what is right or wrong for another?
What right does a woman get to carry on a reckless lifestyle? She gets every right to do so. What right does a woman get to say that she will not accept responsibility for her actions? She gets none. At least, she shouldn't get that right.
I look at the pro-choice feminists and liken them to bank robbers who hold that they have the right to shoot the witnesses. I mean, it's pretty much the same thing. They're both saying that they have the right to not have to deal with responsibility for their actions.
If a woman engages in reckless sexual proclivity, and becomes pregnant, the only choices she should get are:
1) Will she keep the child or give it up for adoption?
2) If she keeps the child, what will she name it?
3) If she keeps the child, what color will she paint the walls of the child's room?
These are the kinds of choices that women get post-unprotected sex. The choices she gets pre-unprotected sex are:
1) Do I want to have sex?
2) Do I want to get pregnant?
3) If I do not want to get pregnant, what method of birth control do I want to use?
4) If I do not want to have protected sex, am I prepared for nine months of pregnancy and childbirth?
In my opinion, if the courts and medical boards deem that women have the right to shirk responsibility for their actions, the courts and medical boards just aren't getting it! :angryfire::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::angryfire:
Warrior, for someone who wants to start a porn lovers association, you have pretty conservative/1950's views of things.
Lets say you knocked a hooker up, would that be due to her recklessness or your outright stupidity worn with a mask of idiocy?
Lets say you knocked a hooker up, would that be due to her recklessness or your outright stupidity worn with a mask of idiocy?
Aside from the fact that I would never engage in sex with a hooker, if the sex were by consent... And both parties to the act recklessly conducted themselves in a manner that resulted in a pregnancy, then yeah, the hooker should have to go fullterm.
And spare me the nonsense about porn having anything to do with abortion. In case you hadn't noticed, most porn participants are very mindful of the fact that they could become pregnant. How do they deal with the risk? They use contraceptives.
When you have something intelligent to say DurkaDurka, you can call me stupid. Until then, however, well....
A woman goes out looking for a good time... She has sexual relations with someone she knows or doesn't know... She doesn't care about the risk of getting pregnant because... Well, she can just get an abortion. :roll::roll::roll:
Spare me, dude! I'm ANTI-ABORTION! Pro-choice isn't about women's rights or empowerment. It's about women being able to do as they bloody well please and not have to suffer the consequences. I mean, really. Anyone who thinks otherwise has got to be braindead!
And while we're at it, let's let women be stalkers too! After all, it's THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR PARTNER, right? Who cares if the dude doesn't want her? It's her right to tell the dude, "Too bad!" I don't think so! Women think they can do whatever the fuk they want and get away with it. They think that empowerment and equality means repression of men's rights! Sell your crap somewhere else, DurkaDurka!!!
Last edited:
Concept here:
This concept of yours where "If she chose to have sex" is bull. And as much as I find it distasteful, so is the concept of "You can't use abortion for birth control".
There are 2 options.)
1.) The fetus is alive. If it is alive, then even if it were a case of incest or rape and Abortion should be illegal. You can't kill a living child for the sins of its father. If its alive then aborting a fetus for its conception would be no different than killing a toddler when you find out its method of conception. It isn't the kids fault.
2.) The fetus is NOT alive. In which case , even if distasteful, its not your business how many abortions a woman has. In the end its just a tissue growth, and no different than if a woman keeps having liposuction rather than diet and excersize.
"Abortions only in certain circumstances" Is really, despite its pleasant sounding words, going to come off as a moral abomination no matter what stance you take. Either you are still murdering babies for the crimes of their fathers, or you are still enslaving women to your religious beliefs.
This concept of yours where "If she chose to have sex" is bull. And as much as I find it distasteful, so is the concept of "You can't use abortion for birth control".
There are 2 options.)
1.) The fetus is alive. If it is alive, then even if it were a case of incest or rape and Abortion should be illegal. You can't kill a living child for the sins of its father. If its alive then aborting a fetus for its conception would be no different than killing a toddler when you find out its method of conception. It isn't the kids fault.
2.) The fetus is NOT alive. In which case , even if distasteful, its not your business how many abortions a woman has. In the end its just a tissue growth, and no different than if a woman keeps having liposuction rather than diet and excersize.
"Abortions only in certain circumstances" Is really, despite its pleasant sounding words, going to come off as a moral abomination no matter what stance you take. Either you are still murdering babies for the crimes of their fathers, or you are still enslaving women to your religious beliefs.
I disagree, that's my perogative. And I believe my exact words were, "If she chose to have unprotected sex." The concept of "not using abortion as a means of birth control" is just as valid as the concept of "not using murder to accumulate wealth."
I assume you won't mind me taking a look at your options.
This is the view that I hold. I believe that the fetus is alive and does deserve the "chance" for a full life.
To the latter element of this, permitting abortion in cases of rape, I hold that it would be permissable to not chain the mother to any further victimization. So I would take the view that abortion in the case of rape could be "medically necessary" if only for the woman's psychological well-being. Of course, many rape victms choose to keep their illegitimate sons or daughters.
That's just my opinion.
True. If you hold that the fetus is NOT alive.
We allow many things under "limited circumstances". Murder, for example, is permissable under the right circumstances. There's no argument made that the "murdered*" person was just tissue growth.
Of course, I have nothing but ill-feelings toward the female gender. I genuinely despise females. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know... How evil of me. Can't really say that I care.) It is my view that women should have absolutely no rights whatsoever. I offer this only in the interest of full disclosure.
*Murder, as I use it, is defined as willfully taking another person's life. Examples: Capital punishment, self-defense, war, euthanasia, etcetera.
Last edited:
I can't imagine what it must feel like to carry such a load of hatred around with one through their life. I wish you sincerely some glimpse of the spirit of the season. Seems like you could use some good will and peace in your heart.
I agree with Zzarchkov.
Bestowing rights to a fetus opens the door to all sorts of problems. For starters, the fickle nature of women. (See Juan, this is how to stir the pot mate.)
Before you get upset ladies, it's not a personal thing. Allowing anyone the right to decide if it's just an accident or murder is and has always been a foolish idea. Because the fulcrum is always the woman and how she feels about it. And that sort of power placed in someones hands based only on gender, and to top it off, someone who is going through the largest flux of hormones this side of adolescence is a recipe for disaster.
I think it is impossible to bestow only partial human rights upon a person as well. It's either all or nothing isn't it?
Sentiment and emotions aside, we must first look at the possibilities that a law has to cause harm. Providing for the safety of the populous and the individual rights of the person.
Personally I could never be part of an abortion. Nor knowingly allow for a child of mine to be aborted if there was a chance of life without undue risk to the mother. I suggest that I could stand up and take responsibility for a partially unwanted baby and make the argument for the mother to carry to term and then release the child into my custody with some consideration to any financial set backs arising out of the pregnancy and birth.
But that opinion ends at the tip of my nose as I would not want to level that responsibility upon anyone other than myself.
If life is so important, there are plenty of takers now who have little or no rights at all. Go save them.
Bestowing rights to a fetus opens the door to all sorts of problems. For starters, the fickle nature of women. (See Juan, this is how to stir the pot mate.)
Before you get upset ladies, it's not a personal thing. Allowing anyone the right to decide if it's just an accident or murder is and has always been a foolish idea. Because the fulcrum is always the woman and how she feels about it. And that sort of power placed in someones hands based only on gender, and to top it off, someone who is going through the largest flux of hormones this side of adolescence is a recipe for disaster.
I think it is impossible to bestow only partial human rights upon a person as well. It's either all or nothing isn't it?
Sentiment and emotions aside, we must first look at the possibilities that a law has to cause harm. Providing for the safety of the populous and the individual rights of the person.
Personally I could never be part of an abortion. Nor knowingly allow for a child of mine to be aborted if there was a chance of life without undue risk to the mother. I suggest that I could stand up and take responsibility for a partially unwanted baby and make the argument for the mother to carry to term and then release the child into my custody with some consideration to any financial set backs arising out of the pregnancy and birth.
But that opinion ends at the tip of my nose as I would not want to level that responsibility upon anyone other than myself.
If life is so important, there are plenty of takers now who have little or no rights at all. Go save them.
I don't understand why a mother's feelings would change what a fetus is. That makes no sense to me. She thinks therefore it is...? Like it or not, this is tied to abortion. There is just no rational reason why a mother's feeling makes aborting one fetus ok, but killing another murder.
You simply can't murder someone who isn't alive. A baby that hasn't been born isn't alive. I love them and I work with them, but I recognize there is a reason birth certificates give the day of their birth as the start of their life. Besides, I see a lot of women choose to have babies who harm them horribly in utero. Why should that be allowed if the choice to have a baby makes it a person worthy of rights?
BTW, they have a law like that down here. It is being used as an argument against abortion.
What is it that people aren't getting? Was it not you who made the comment that others shouldn't choose what is right or wrong for another?
What right does a woman get to carry on a reckless lifestyle? She gets every right to do so. What right does a woman get to say that she will not accept responsibility for her actions? She gets none. At least, she shouldn't get that right.
I look at the pro-choice feminists and liken them to bank robbers who hold that they have the right to shoot the witnesses. I mean, it's pretty much the same thing. They're both saying that they have the right to not have to deal with responsibility for their actions.
If a woman engages in reckless sexual proclivity, and becomes pregnant, the only choices she should get are:
1) Will she keep the child or give it up for adoption?
2) If she keeps the child, what will she name it?
3) If she keeps the child, what color will she paint the walls of the child's room?
These are the kinds of choices that women get post-unprotected sex. The choices she gets pre-unprotected sex are:
1) Do I want to have sex?
2) Do I want to get pregnant?
3) If I do not want to get pregnant, what method of birth control do I want to use?
4) If I do not want to have protected sex, am I prepared for nine months of pregnancy and childbirth?
In my opinion, if the courts and medical boards deem that women have the right to shirk responsibility for their actions, the courts and medical boards just aren't getting it! :angryfire::lol::lol:
If you think an abortion is consequence free or unprotected sex is the only way people get pregnant, you definitely don't get it:lol:
Choosing to have sex is a woman doing as she pleases with herself. More power to her.
A woman choosing to have sex with a male who does not want to have sex with her, is not a woman's right. Too bad for the bitch.
A woman choosing to have an abortion, is not a woman doing as she pleases with herself. To hell with women and their attitude that the world must revolve around them. To hell with them.
Did I say that abortion was consequence free? No! I said that pregnancy was a consequence of engaging in reckless sexual proclivity. I said that abortion is the means of avoiding responsibility for that reckless conduct.
As for the consequences of undergoing an abortion, there are few and often none. Although part of me wishes the consequences of abortion to be most severe.
Where did I say that unprotected sex was the only means of getting pregnant? I neither stated it nor implied it. But it's typical of females to argue a point that isn't even on the table, isn't it? Uh huh... Yeah, I thought so!
What consequence is it for you if a woman has an abortion?Did I say that abortion was consequence free? No! I said that pregnancy was a consequence of engaging in reckless sexual proclivity. I said that abortion is the means of avoiding responsibility for that reckless conduct.
As for the consequences of undergoing an abortion, there are few and often none. Although part of me wishes the consequences of abortion to be most severe.
Where did I say that unprotected sex was the only means of getting pregnant? I neither stated it nor implied it. But it's typical of females to argue a point that isn't even on the table, isn't it? Uh huh... Yeah, I thought so!
It's of no personal consequence to me. The consequence is to our society that comes to expect easy answers. And you are, I'm quite sure, aware that there are no easy answers.
What I'm seeing is a society that is becoming to comfortable in the notion that we can destroy ourselves as long as we maintain some avenue of 'quick fix'. The danger to our longevity and survival as a species, is, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, very real. I see things like abortion to be but one symptom of an ailing society.
It's no consequence to me that Picton killed all those women. Is it any consequence to you?