What is it?

It isn't quite that simple, but regardless, a woman doesn't lose ownership of her uterus when she becomes pregnant.

 

How would you respond to pro-choicers who say that pro-lifers want to "punish women for sex", and that consequences=punishment?

 

Whether the fetus (it is not a baby in terms of development) is a human being or not has been argued by scholars for ages, and there is still no consensus, and never will be. By saying that is the only consideration in the abortion issue, you are admitting that you think women have no rights to their own bodies and lives, that they are merely life support machines with legs.

 

She only became pregnant because of the consequences of her actions.

 

The problem you are having is this insistence that pro-choice people see the fetus as "some random cells", we do not and this continuous usage of incorrect terminology is boring, and purely emotional projection, it is not a 'baby' until it is born, take a look at a medical dictionary and see the definition of baby, in fact I'll post it for you;

Baby - 1. An infant; a newborn child. - http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=9072

If you cannot even be bothered to use the correct words in a debate why should anyone take you seriously?

I care about reducing abortion without removing the rights of a woman, legislation against abortion does not work and has never worked, where as comprehensive sex education a free contraception has been proven to work.

So you want it all ways then, you want the zef to be accorded all the rights from the moment of conception but you want it to be above the rights accorded to the woman (and every other person) . .why are you so free and easy with other peoples rights?

Do you consent to being injured after a game a football just because you accepted the risk of being injured during the game?
Pregnancy is already defined in law as a serious literal injury in some cases and there are states that define pregnancy as an injury.
Individual people have to gain individual consent for each act from the other person .. the consent to sex is a single consent given to an individual (the man) this does not imply that he can have sex with the woman again a week later or even an hour later, he must gain separate consent. IF as is stated the zef is an individual 'person' from the moment of conception then the consent given to the man does not imply that the woman has given consent to the zef .. how can it, it is a different person according to pro-lifers and even if a case could be built for this incorrect assumption a person may remove consent at anytime for any reason.

Your 'pay the price' comment works just as well for anything that incurs a risk . .hey you went skiing, you took the risk you could get injured therefore your don't get medical help "You play the odds and lose, then you pay the price"

The only consequences of sex are that a person is taking a risk and not even a high risk for a single act of sex - 15-20% risk of pregnancy occurring during a single act of unprotected sex, factor in contraception and that risk falls to less than 4%.

I'm still waiting for any pro-lifer to explain how consent given to one person for one act implies consent given to a separate person (In pro-lifers opinion) for a completely different act .. care to give it a try?

 

You said that already, but it isn't that simple, and regardless, that doesn't mean she has to stay pregnant.

 

sorry you are wrong, self defence laws are not just about threats to life;

Currently states recognize three contexts of when deadly force in self defence is justified;

1. when one is threatened with death
2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)
3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnaping, rape, or slavery

the woman can also be an involuntary participant. The argument for self-defence is no more stupid than the argument of 'personhood' at conception.

 

Whose morality, yours, and why should your morality over ride another persons?
sex is not immune from the law, there are plenty of rules governing sexually behavior

That is it then, we should stop treating people for cancer, or drug addiction, or alcohol related problems, or injuries incurred from sport, or anything else that incurs a risk that may lead to injury.

 

Its unquestionably a baby by 21 weeks as that is the earliest a baby has been born and survived. As medical technology and understanding advance, the time of viability will continue to decrease.

Early in the pregnancy, at exactly what point it becomes a human is debatable.

No, I am saying if the baby is a human, then there are 2 humans involved and both require consideration. The fact that one of them is dependent (up to a point) on the other is a factor in the issue but does not authorize the woman to have total life and death control over the baby.

Can a woman smoke, take drugs, or drink alcohol while pregnant? There are legal and social consequences if she does. If a person causes a pregnant woman to lose her baby, or a doctor through malpractice causes the teermination of teh pregnancy or harms the baby, there are legal consequences. We already place restrictions on a pregnant woman, and already place a value on the baby. Its just a matter of time before abortion is strictly limited.

 

You can play word games all day, everyone knows what the issue is. To quote Juliet from Romeo & Juliet,

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;​

Is it a human being or not? Thats the fundamental issue.

And laws against murder are not 100% effective at preventing murder, but they do reduce the number of murders by the deterrence from punishment.

If you play in the football game, you accept the risks and consequences of playing the game.

If you have sex, you accept the risks and consequences of sex. Its absolutely foolish to argue that sex and the resulting pregnancy are two independent actions.

 

Even at 21 weeks it is not a baby, it is not a baby until its moment of birth and regardless of how arbitrary you may feel that point is it is a medical fact.

The only time a fetus younger than 21 weeks will survive will be when we have invented an artificial womb, at that point abortion will become almost a moot point anyway .. I say almost because there will always be a requirement for abortion should the fetus die in the womb.

Not the only factors, nor the most compelling.

I'm sorry but until the time comes if or when the state decides that a woman loses the right to her body autonomy then she is the only one who can make that life or death decision, and even if that time come it will not stop abortions happening, all it will end up doing is to cause more women to die .. not forgetting that the fetus will also die.

There is no law that stops a woman from smoking, they are advised not to .. but again it is down to their own choice.
There is no law that stops a woman from taking prescription drugs, they are advised not to .. but again it is down to their own choice.
Please cite me any law that prosecutes a woman for smoking or taking prescription drugs while pregnant?

When a third party cause the unconsented death of a fetus it is then and only then that a crime is committed, so again it comes down to the woman's choice.

Tell me what restrictions do we place on a pregnant woman that she does not consent to, show me any law that restricts a pregnant woman from doing what she wishes.

They already are.

 

It is not a word game, it is a plain and simple medical fact that you choose to ignore (nice to be able to have a choice isn't it) and if you really think it is just a word then you should have no issue with using the correct ones should you, or is it more that by using the incorrect word projects an emotional reaction in others.

True, but do we deny medical treatment for the consequences, and does your consent during the game imply consent after the game.

Ok, you prove to me that an act of sex is the same as a pregnancy .. can you?

 

That isn't what you said at all.

Well sorry, but a woman does have total life and death control over the fetus (there is no baby until birth). It is only by her efforts that a fetus has the potential for life.

Again, consequences. Can you think of nothing but punishment for pregnant women? Pregnant women with addictions need help. Thinking of ways to help troubled women instead of only punishing them would save more lives.

Of course there are, because the woman loses her choice.

The fetus has no value to anyone until it is gestated by the woman.

 

You are being dishonest. You are accusing pro-lifers of being motivated by a desire to punish women for sex (which isn't what I believe.)

 

My post suggests nothing of the sort.

Do you represent all pro-lifers?

 

No. Quote at least two quotes from pro-lifers where they say that they believe that women should be punished for choosing to have sex.

Saying that pro-lifers want to "punish women for sex" is a strawman argument.

 

Why do you view accepting responsibility as "punishment"?

 

Being human is a reason for failures since all humans do have them. It is not realistic to expect women, and women only, to never make a mistake involving sex. Yes, she does have to live with the consequences, but there are few choices about consequences, and it is the women involved who will be making those choices.

Even IF the fetus is A human, the woman is not obligated to shelter it within her body. IF the fetus is A human and treated like a human of any age, it will not be entitled to shelter within someone else's body. No human has a right to reside within an unwilling host's body, NONE.

 

Men are typically on the hook for 18 years of child support for their (sic) mistakes and men do not have the option of killing the lil unwanted bastard to escape from that legal responsibility.

Banning elective abortion doesn't cause disparity. If anything it levels the playing field. It's only 'fair' that women be held just as responsible for the lives that they help create as the men are.

Mr. Bear, are we ready to address that "if" that Grannie is talking about - once and for all?

As for your claim, Grannie?

I would argue that "a human" placed into the woman's body as a direct result of the choices she mad and the actions that she took (along with her partner) to put it there... actually does have the right to be there.

(All legalities aside) If you snatch a child off the street and drive off with them in your car.

Don't they have a right to be there?

Do you have the right to change your mind?

Sure.

But you don't have the right to speed up to 80 mph. and push them out because you later regretted your decision to have them in there.

Do you.

I digress.

Bear, let me know when you and the other mods are ready to move past this denial crap.

 

No, typically abortion decisions are mutually made, and taking abortion rights away from women would also

mean taking input away from men, and a good many more men would be "on the hook."

Banning abortion forces women to create lives. That is what 9 months of gestation does, it creates a life.

That is your theory, and as logical as it may seem to you, others would argue that "a human" is not "placed" in the woman's body, but gradually develops over the course of 9 months.

Your analogy compares a born child to a zygote, a pregnant woman to a kidnapper, her body to a speeding car, and ironically you complain about "denial crap"? Give me a break.

 

Fatherhood and Motherhood are equally important in the debate of abortion. If you disagree then you are ill-informed about what goes into conception.

In a 'decrepit', 'advanced' society we have somehow defined abortion as advantagious in certain scenarios.

We as a society have lost perception of innocent life. The life 'given-a-chance' to live backseat to the inconveniences of already existing life. We have in relation perpetuated our own inadequacies over human responsibilities.

To get it straight, aside from complicated births, we have the ability and fortitude to ensure a fighting chance for any new birth to flourish given the chance.

The only hurdle left is the circumstantial factor in the expectant mother's future desires. Abort and continue life as planned, or give birh to new life.

I have a close friend who aborted birth and she has expressed sincere regret often. She wonders what she gave up on. It haunts her.

What do we choose?
-disparition of life?
-lifestyle?

The precarious scenarios are inept in such a debate as they reflect little in the debate of 'life' upon conception or fetal recognition or definition. The scenarios are countless and offer no evaluation to the value of conceptualized life by definition.

 

While I view your post as direct and responsive, I find it subjective.

You somehow come across as a proponent of 'convenience of lifesyle' over 'responsibility as an adult human-being'.

Where is life subject to irresponsible behavior/lifesyle? Where does 'life' have no life? Are we nothing more than animals who eat their own young for survival? Where do you draw the line?

I have read (and responded) to many of your posts but have still to grasp your logic.

 

Women already are held "just as responsible" for the lives they help create. Men are not held responsible for anything until AFTER birth.

You can argue that, but you'll get nowhere. Laws were passed reflecting that viewpoint in the 1800's in every state. Women still had abortions in the same numbers.

 

It is very much based on fact. How is it not?

In many circumstances, abortion is the more responsible choice. A pregnant woman has no "responsibility" to give birth, that idea is certainly not based on fact, nor is it based on the Bible.

If a woman has an irresponsible lifestyle, why do you want her to become a parent? That seems like the least responsible thing she could do. There are many theories about when one becomes a human being or person, but they are all just that--theories. Your theory is no more valid than others.

 

So when did becoming pregnant from a rape become a "lifestyle"?