What is it?

So? Each pregnancy carries with it the risk of health problems and the possibility of death. We are not forced to undergo any other risks in life against our will, so why make an exception for this?

But as I know you will just go roundabout again with this Sam, let me ask you something. You are right that most pregnancies in FIRST WORLD countries are not entirely life threatening since we have medical technology to help women now, but most abortions occur because a woman cannot afford to have baby. What will you and your pro-life brethren do to help these women in this instance? Because I assure you there are plenty of women who do want to have their babies, but choose abortion when they know they cannot afford to keep it. What will you all do to help these women realize their dreams of having the babies they want? You care about these babies and these women right? Do you not want to help them?

Right now I am writing a novel and I remind myself every day that if I make it big with this book of mine I am going to start a foundation for impoverished pregnant women who want to carry to term who otherwise would have chosen to abort, because I care about women and their children and I care about the quality of the lives they have. I don't think any woman should feel pressured due to financial insecurity to have an abortion, I think it is sad and wrong and this is one thing I would very much like to change about our society.

It saddens and angers me to think how these pro-life groups make so much money, same with religious foundations and charities that support the pro-life mantra, but not one of these offers any kind of financial support to help these women.

 

but you are not arguing the merits of my argument, you are still using information from as it is now, not as it could be. you are using arguments that would have no credence in a post Roe world, they simply would not apply because abortion would be illegal.

 

Nothing a woman does makes it ethical for a man to kill a woman, pregnant or not. But we know that some men will kill a woman they cannot control because they believe it is their right to have control.

The SCOTUS said they need not solve the problem of when life begins because experts could not come an agreement on the matter. No we are no closer to a definitive answer of when life begins than we were in 1973.

Right now, the only persons having input into a pregnancy/abortion question are the ones the woman chooses to allow input. And that's how it should stay.

 

No sex is not a prerequisite for pregnancy, if that were the case then there would be no IVF clinics and neither would lesbian women be able to get pregnant without sexual intercourse .. both of these exist and as such render the act of sex unrequired.

already dealt with the issue of consent in legal terms -

consent 1) n. a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations.

Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent.

The proposition that is consented to is sexual intercourse, not pregnancy . .the only way expressed consent (contract) would be applicable is if there was signed agreement stating that if the female were to become pregnant from the sexual intercourse then she would agree to the pregnancy .. and even then it is not set in stone. I refer you to McFall vs Shimp - http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html - where the court included in it's decision the following - The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue ... Our society, contrary to many others, has as its first principle, the respect for the individual, and that society and government exist to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by another. ... For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.

We then have implied consent - n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered. Examples: a) a "contract" based on the fact that one person has been doing a particular thing and the other person expects him/her to continue; b) the defense in "date rape" cases in which there is a claim of assumed consent due to absence of protest or a belief that "no" really meant "yes," "maybe" or "later."

Consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence. - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent

Implied consent is an ongoing agreement that rests with the acquiescence of the woman, the second she seeks an abortion she is explicitly saying 'no', she is no longer inactive or silent, at that point implied consent becomes moot. In law no means no, and this is further validated in other consent type laws such as rape laws, a woman can, if she wishes, revoke consent to sexual intercourse during the actual act taking place, if the man does not stop then he is legally committing rape.

The only fairy tale world is the one you are attempting to make. Do you partake in any dangerous sports, if you do you are "taking a risk" of injury .. however that risk does not exclude you from receiving medical treatment for any injury incurred. If you break your leg while skiing are you refused medical treatment because you took a risk, does the natural law of cause and effect dictate you cannot be treated, or is more a truer case that you can pursue any and all treatment to remedy the injury as soon as possible, and make no mistake ALL pregnancies cause injuries to the woman to the point that pregnancy is already deemed a serious literal injury in some cases and is legally recognized as such in some state laws.

I don't .. but it does show the hypocrisy of those pro-lifers who stand against comprehensive sex education, surely any attempt to reduce abortion should start at the root cause, not after the horse has bolted.

There is one right that has, as far as I am aware, not been infringed by arbitrary decisions created by law and that is the right to decide who, what, where and when your body is used .. one of the reason I claim that body autonomy is a greater right than the right to life, the right to life has and is over ruled via executions, war and self-defence, yet even the most evil murderer cannot be forced to give a single pint of their blood to another, even their victims.

Prior to differentiation there is no human being, everyone of those 200+ cells are exactly the same, in fact anyone of them could become a human being .. are you suggesting that those 200+ cells are all individual human beings, and I so not just rely on the law for protected rights .. people defending there own bodies has been part of the human race since it began long before legislation came to be.

Erm yes it is, a woman does not require the mans consent to get an abortion, there is no legal requirement for a mans consent.
No I am not arguing for special rights for the female, I am arguing for exactly the same rights that every other non-pregnant person has, the right to decide who, what, where and when their body is used. Pro-lifers on the other hand ARE arguing for special rights for the fetus, the right to use another persons body without consent, no other person has that right so why should the fetus?

No he doesn't simply because he is not the one whose body is being used by the fetus, it has no direct effect on his body autonomy, that decision rests solely with the female as it is her and only her body autonomy that is being effected .. if he were able to become pregnant then the same right applies to him, and the violinist argument is flawed IMHO.

The debate on items after the birth is a different subject, in my opinion a man should be able to avail himself of all responsibility if he does not want to be a father .. and let is not forget that it is not the woman who forces the man to support a child it is the courts, and this I believe is based more on monetary costs of welfare than anything else (something else conservatives gnash their teeth and wail over).

The other thing you seem to be overlooking is that once the birth is over the resulting child is not infringing on any other persons body autonomy, and is no longer biologically dependent on a single person, it is socially dependent but its needs can be met by any person.

 

An innocent child's life is not at stake if a person is being treated for skiing injuries. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

A woman who has an unwanted born child may not have her body autonomy affected, but she has the same motivations that a pregnant woman has-the desire to avoid raising a child. Body autonomy is not the motivation for abortions.

 

Nice an appeal to ridicule

and really is totally irrelevant to abortion.

 

Which is wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether treatment is given for getting an injury by taking a risk or not.

 

Only in your world.

Just how many times does it need to be said that once the pregnancy is over there are other alternatives that can be pursued, and please do not bother coming back with the whole "adoption is an option for a pregnant woman" because that is just an inane statement.

 

Its not an inane statement. If a pregnant women doesn't want to raise a child for 18 plus years, she can give it up for adoption once it's been born. For most pregnant women, the issue is unwanted parenting, not the pregnancy itself.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't irrelevant.

 

And here's my question you never answer: How do you prove that ""For most pregnant women, the issue is unwanted parenting, not the pregnancy itself.""


How do YOU know what women's reasons are for having an abortion?

 

common sense and research.

 

Well, scratch the "common sense" and show the research...and try to remember that some women when asked their reasons may have said said, "Mind your own business and no I don't want to be in a survey."

 

If you have a phobia of paper cuts, you are free to keep your own property free of all kinds of paper. The point is that you make the choice of how much risk you are willing to take.

 

By doing this you are placing an undue burden onto the woman, you are forcing them to suffer injuries for a projected period of time that could be removed very quickly .. this would be the same as telling someone they cannot have a transplant operation for nine months, even though the treatment is available right away.

As far as respite from injury is concerned it is, otherwise when a woman's life is in danger from pregnancy the 'innocence' of the fetus would be a factor in the decision of whether to abort or not. You are saying that the fetus cannot be blamed for the injuries it causes in a normal pregnancy, so how can it be blamed in a life threatening pregnancy, does the fetus suddenly gain an intent to injure, how arbitrary of you.

 

I don't believe that pregnancy is an injury. please, use a different arguement.

 

and as replied before I don't give two hoots what you believe, your beliefs are not relevant when pregnancy is already deemed an injury in some cases and is stated as such in some state laws.

I don't believe a fetus is innocent so please use a different argument
I don't believe that pregnancy is an inconvenience so please use a different argument
I don't believe that adoption is a viable option in pregnancy so please use a different argument

that pretty much puts all your arguments out the door.

 

Having a new organ in their bodies doesn't bother most pregnant women. It's the unwanted parenting.

 

If that REALLY were the case Sam then why don't most women just choose to give birth and give it up for adoption? Please explain.

 

Do you know any women who have had abortions?
Did they tell you that having a placenta was the reason they had an abortion?

 

I don't believe that having a new organ in their bodies doesn't bother most women, so please use a different argument
I don't believe that unwanted parenting is a reason for abortion, so please use a different argument

See how it works Sam, any argument you come up with can be met with the same reply you gave me.

Now let's get real . .you consistently spew arguments that you NEVER provide a single thing to substantiate, EVERY single argument I use I provide legal findings and documentation to support .. I don't, as you do, just state something I also provide the 'because' .. From now on Sam unless you oblige with the same your comments will be met with the same reply you gave me.

 

Yes.

How about you answer my question first? I am curious as to why you think that women simply want to avoid parenting rather than the entirety of the pregnancy only to end up giving the end product away forever.

 

Do you have any evidence that women have abortions to avoid the pregnancy itself?

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

 

But the placenta and fetus do not. They have other human's DNA. If we are using DNA as a standard then the fetus, male, and placenta should also be considered; and not just the woman given special rights.

Is versus Ought. We already know what is, and what is should never be left to decay into immoral behavior. That's why I ask for a comparison to some other behavior that condemns a human to death without moral consideration. Name one?

Baring a hysterectomy. I already removed this from the equation. A uterus is no more valuable than a kidney, which directly affects health after removal, and at least one of which is required for survival. Sorry, try again with better hyperbole.

If you're presuming an irresponsible male in this scenario, then yes it's her problem alone. But I don't think giving the male a complete get out of jail free card is warranted. What if this is a responsible man who's wife get's uterine cancer? How is it not his problem to worry about? You're extending the pro-choice argument too far, and isolating a woman to be the bearer of all the consequences of pregnancy. It's unfair.

A woman has no choice on the natural function of her uterus. If I choose to drink too much alcohol, I don't have a choice if I vomit or not. It's biology. We could argue why a woman would hate her biology but we can't argue the function of such biology.