If you don't like men having an opinion on abortion, then don't be a man with an opinion on abortion.
Well then if a woman 'never wants children', which was the wording in the post I originally replied to, perhaps a hysterectomy is a more responsible option.
It's not, hysterectomies are not done for the purpose of birth control. Hysterectomy is a drastic surgery for a young person.
BEcause for the pro-choice position… a child isn't killed…and that is what is important to them. Gotta sacrifice something. Hysterectomy would stop them from ever getting an abortion and that would be a bad thing..
Why not? Pro-aborts consider pregnancy a deleterious medical condition. Why not get rid of the infrastructure that allows a pregnancy to take place? That way a woman can screw here head off and not worry about taking contraceptives (that don't always work) AND not be bothered about 'inconvenient' serial pregnancies and bothersome serial abortions. Remember the original post I was replying to said "never wants children."
I love the way you put things…..and you make excellent points I might add. This would be a perfect solution. Now Sanger wanted to force women to do this…so if she were alive today…there might be camps set up for people who refuse to do it.
What objection can there be to establishing modern infrastructure in modern times that may prevent any need for the medical procedure of abortion; simply and ostensibly, for the greater glory of our immortal souls.
Hysterectomy is a serious surgery. It dramatically changes a woman's body. Do you see in the list of indications below ANY connected to birth control? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterectomy Indications Hysterectomy is a major surgical procedure that has risks and benefits, and affects a woman's hormonal balance and overall health for the rest of her life. Because of this, hysterectomy is normally recommended as a last resort to remedy certain intractable uterine/reproductive system conditions. Such conditions include, but are not limited to: Certain types of reproductive system cancers (uterine, cervical, ovarian, endometrium) or tumors, including uterine fibroids that do not respond to more conservative treatment options.[9] Severe and intractable endometriosis (growth of the uterine lining outside the uterine cavity) and/or adenomyosis (a form of endometriosis, where the uterine lining has grown into and sometimes through the uterine wall musculature), after pharmaceutical or other surgical options have been exhausted.[9] Chronic pelvic pain, after pharmaceutical or other surgical options have been exhausted.[9] Postpartum to remove either a severe case of placenta praevia (a placenta that has either formed over or inside the birth canal) or placenta percreta (a placenta that has grown into and through the wall of the uterus to attach itself to other organs), as well as a last resort in case of excessive obstetrical haemorrhage.[10] Several forms of vaginal prolapse.[9] Occasionally, women will express a desire to undergo an elective hysterectomythat is, a hysterectomy for reasons other than the resolution of reproductive system conditions or illnesses. Some of the conditions under which a woman may request to have a hysterectomy (or have one requested for her if the woman is incapable of making the request) for non-illness reasons include: Prophylaxis against certain reproductive system cancers, especially if there is a strong family history of reproductive system cancers (especially breast cancer in conjunction with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation), or as part of recovery from such cancers. Part of overall gender transition for transmen.[11] Severe developmental disabilities, though this treatment is controversial at best, and specific cases of sterilization due to developmental disabilities have been found by state-level Supreme Courts to violate the patient's constitutional and common law rights.[12]
Pregnancy 'dramatically changes a woman's body' as well as I have been told umpteen million times by the pro-aborts right here on the Forum. I have also been told that pregnancy and child delivery is akin to a serious operation, heck consider caesarean sections, they are invasive, and would-be dangerous procedures. (I know, I WATCHED my son born that way while holding my wife's hand...I could see the whole operation...YIKES!!!)
Wow it is so dangerous that everyone who has ever lived was born. LMAO Birth is as natural as death is. And in many cultures the women squat on the ground pop the child out and go on working. It is the pro-abort side that thinks pregnancy is so invasive and dangerous ..it is not.
Yep exactly my point! I was told that abortion is an option for women who 'never want children' when I suggested self-sterilization for such a woman they started crying about the danger involved in that procedure yet, in other discussions I was told that childbirth is dangerous. So, I have learned that pro-aborters think women who don't ever want children should screw their heads off and abort as needed. (remember contraceptives are not 100% effective and I was told that tying one's tubes is not 100% effective either) What a bunch of ninnies...LOL
Folks, "persohood" is purely a legal construct, not a biological construct. Whether you're using the Humanist rational that an organism must presently possess sapience, or the Christian concept that the right to live in conferred upon conception, both sides are trying to use biology to support a religious opinion. Therefore, you're all wrong. "Personhood" is enjoyed by corporations, and even police and military K-9s. "Personhood" is a legal status, and as a legal status, regulated by the state, the only tangible factor that matters is how conferring 'personhood' on a given target helps the state. Just as the only reason slaves were freed by the Union was to help the war and general economy, not some moral social leap, so to must your side show how it helps the state economicly more than the other side, to win. All arguments in any other direction are red-herrings. I'm passionately pro-life, but on this topic pro-choice have the clear home-field advantage, since more abortion = less crime, just like more guns= less crime.
YOU ARE PASSIONATELY PRO-LIFE? ARe you also pro-choice? Because if you are then you stand with those who oppose protection for the living human in the womb. Then you would be pro-abortion. Our laws in the United States are wishy washy on this. They do not assign personhood to the unborn….but then they do should something illegal happen to it. Scott Peterson killed wife….AND UNBORN SON. The laws gave Connor personhood…because Peterson is not sitting on death row…for just one death but two. You can hire the hit done if you pay for it and have it done at a licsenced clinic…but if you don't you face prosecution. If there is no person in the womb…then what basis do they have for anything?
YOU ARE PASSIONATELY PRO-LIFE? ARe you also pro-choice? Because if you are then you stand with those who oppose protection for the living human in the womb. Then you would be pro-abortion. Our laws in the United States are wishy washy on this. They do not assign personhood to the unborn .but then they do should something illegal happen to it. Scott Peterson killed wife .AND UNBORN SON. The laws gave Connor personhood because Peterson is not sitting on death row for just one death but two. You can hire the hit done if you pay for it and have it done at a licsenced clinic but if you don't you face prosecution. If there is no person in the womb then what basis do they have for anything?
I live in Arizona and know many Indians particularly the Hopi tribe. They tell me most women particularly women in earlier times, I said most….have the child and continue on with business the very same day. http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24097 "In America, women are usually given about six weeks of "rest" post-partum. The amount of recuperation time varies considerably among different cultures. A well-to-do Gaojiro Indian woman of Colombia is given a month of bed rest after delivery. But among the Yaghan of Tierra del Fuego, a new mother is expected to be back gathering shellfish by the end of the day she gave birth." "To the Jarara of South America, childbirth is such a normal event that it traditionally takes place in a location that is easily viewed by everyone in the village! http://pregnancy.families.com/blog/lets-talk-about-the-cultures-of-childbearing# Childbirth is the most natural thing a woman can do. If it was so invasive……no one would do it…and certainly you would not be here to post how you campion abortion.
I dont see much of a point at all ? It is a fact that pregnancy can be dangerous. It is a fact that pregnancy changes a womans body. I have never heard anti-abortionists claim that women should use abortion as a primary contraceptive. In cases where contraception does not work abortion is the only option for those that do not want a child at that time.
As I have told others here who are apparently not aware, my original discussion and answer was in relation to a discussion about women who 'never want children.'
OK ... that makes more sense. On that note I would say that there are not too many young women who are 100% sure they do not want children. Older women who have children already there would be more.
If you really want to get down to it everything can be dangerous. Driving, eating, drinking ya might choke ..swimming, riding in a car plane .walking down the street taking any drug over the counter or illegal ..drinking ..breathing can be dangerous. Aside from that .pregnancy can be dangerous when? How many of us were born? It is a natural thing as natural as death is. If it were that dangerous no one would get pregnant.
I agree .. life is a dangerous undertaking. The thing about freedom is that it allows each individual to mitigate the danger by not engaging in dangerous activities .. many of which are on your list. Many women are willing to risk the danger in order to have a child. So long as that is the case the human race will survive. If tomorrow all women stop wanting to have children .. so be it. The main point here is that in a free society, in general I do not have the right to force another person to engage in dangerous activities. If a woman does not want to undertake the risk of pregnancy .. what right do I have to force this risk on her ?
Giftedone said, Pregnancy is not dangerous, not for the most part. Abortion can be dangerous, I am sure you would agree. WEll of course not….especially if you knew that…the activity would kill someone. Abortion is different than everything on the list I presented. Abortion kills a living human being. The others do not intentionally do that. No hit is hired done. I do not think in a free society…that living humans should be targeted like the unborn is. Abortion is like no other surgery on earth….it is done with the sole purpose to kill a human. "If a woman does not want to undertake the risk of pregnancy .. what right do I have to force this risk on her ?" If you feel this way then late term abortions should be embraced as a right afforded every woman in America. If you say that its the woman's body…then its her body in the third month…nothing changed to the ninth month. I find this barbaric thinking….. immoral at its core.
In areas where prenatal care and skilled birth attendants are unavailable, the maternal mortality rate is significantly higher, proof that pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous. Women will always want families enough to willingly risk the danger to their health and lives, but no woman should be forced to take that risk.
