When a woman spreads her legs she signs an unwritten contract...

A woman does have a choice whether to have a baby or not.
But once a she engages in risky activity, then finds herself knocked up, she has a responsibility to carry the pregnancy to completion, provided of course it is a healthy baby and she was not raped.

 

By the same logic, we should deny healthcare to accident victims. They engaged in a risky activity (driving), knew in advance they can have an accident, so they have a responsibility to die when it happens. The same with smokers who got cancer, and million other examples.

Sorry, that logic makes no sense.

 

If your agenda is primarily to punish the dirty sluts who dared have sex voluntarily, it all makes perfect sense.

Now, given he allows rape exceptions, he also has to allow killing of 5-year-olds that were conceived by rape. The pro-life logic chain works like this.

1. Killing pre-born humans is murder.
2. Such murder is allowable if the pre-born human was conceived by rape.
3. Killing pre-born humans is exactly the same as killing post-born children.

Therefore,
4. The same allowances for killing must apply to pre-born and post-born humans, since the moral worth of both is exactly the same.
5. Therefore rape-exception pro-lifers, to be logically consistent, must say it's acceptable to kill 5-year-olds who were conceived by rape.

Yes, they'll deny the conclusions, but not very convincingly, since those conclusions follow logically from the premises. The real conclusion we gather from it all is that their premises are BS -- they don't believe killing a fetus is murder.

 

What a stupid post. There is no "unwritten contract", its the woman CHOICE not yours, and frank you are going to have to deal with it and like it.

 

No she doesn't. The Supreme Court already answered this with Roe v Wade. It is a choice she has and one that she gets to make based on her moral, and religious beliefs not to mention the circumstances of her life at the time of conception. Starting with making birth control more affordable and accessible (which Obamacare is doing) that will help PREVENT unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, however, there are always going to be women that, for whatever reason, find themselves burdened with an unwanted pregnancy that carrying to term is not feasible. Her right to privacy, which SCOTUS, has already based its decision on, allows her to decided whether or not to continue it. Beyond that it is not anyone else's business. It is her decision but she does have to live with it.

 

No she doesn't. Tell me, where does that responsibility come from? Who's making it HER responsibility? You? Thanks for deciding what women can or cannot, should and should not do. Does a woman not have control of her own body? Should she lose it? Tell me, if a woman is not in control of her body during a pregnancy, who is? You? The government? God? What right do you have to tell her what she is allowed to do to regulate the inside of her own body? I love this stuff. People think they can stand up on a pulpit and declare that abortion(any by abortion, I really mean the ability to control the outcome of a pregnancy at all) is wrong and women should simply accept their pregnancy just because they had sex. Who gives you that right? God? Yourself? Tell me, where does your authority over the inside of another human being's body come from?

Gonna talk about what's right and what's not? Abortion is wrong you'll say! It's horrible! It's murder! The only real description is simple. IT is none of YOUR business.

 

That's nothing like the same logic, obviously, since it's necessary for many people to drive in order to carry out their legitimate responsibilities, since a new human life is not created by a car accident, and since no one proposes that having an unplanned pregnancy should be a capital crime.

Of course it doesn't, to someone who is clearly about as good a logician as is the average sea urchin.

 

A man does have a choice whether to have a baby or not.

But once he engages in risky activity, then finds his opposite number knocked up, he has a responsibility to do what he should have done in the first place. Have a vasectomy instead of throwing the blame all over the place, rather than direct it where it belongs, on himself.

And if he is religious, then all the more so, since he didn't take enough care in the first place.

 

Make sure you INFORM the women you meet of your rules.

 

Not at all, I don't believe rape should be an exception.

Leftists know that a fetus is a human being, they just pull out the "anti-sex" or "wanting to punish women for promiscuity" drivel as a way to distract from the truth.

 

Have you had sex with a woman Anders? Yes I know it's impudent but it's important. Have you?

 

Rubbish. You've made too many assumptions to be taken seriously.

 

When a man gets a woman pregnant, most of us agree that he's signed an "unwritten contract" to help provide for his offspring. A father who leaves his woman and child and doesn't pay child support would be called a deadbeat - so why is it any different in regards to a woman caring for her child?

 

Do you consider parents who give their children up for adoption deadbeats?

 

For all the brain-dead liberals out there...A pregnancy is not an 'accident' it is the result of procreational intercourse which is MEANT to produce offspring. So...if you don't want a pregnancy, women.....cross your legs....men....zip it up. OH and to all you men out there.....You have 0 rights in this matter, think about it.

 

So would you agree with denying healthcare if the drive was not "necessary in order to carry out their legitimate responsibilities" (whatever you mean by it)? If someone had an accident while driving just because he likes it, let him die?

Irrelevant. Human life that is not a person (an embryo) is a thing, and noone has any legal obligations to it, no matter the circumstances and causes of its creation. Just like you have no legal obligation to keep a tree in your garden alive, even if you planted it.

You propose that treating unplanned pregnancy should be a capital crime (because the woman allegedly has a responsibility for it), which is equivalent to claiming that treating unplanned accident should be a capital crime (because the driver allegedly has a responsibility for it).

 

Only if the woman wanted it.

Naturalistic fallacy. Besides, not all pregnancies are the result of not using contraception. Contraception can fail.

If you dont want a car accident, dont drive?

I have a better solution - if you dont want an accident, drive responsibly, and set up hospitals to treat eventual accident victims (which are unavoidable, since no car is 100% secure).

 

This is where you have a point. Of course the solution is not to make abortion illegal, but to provide an option for "male abortion" to men (an option to opt out of all child support before abortion limit has passed). More freedom, not less freedom. Men should not be forced to provide for their offspring against their will just because they (not deliberately) got a woman pregnant. Its slavery.

 

This type of argument is flawed. By that logic, a woman should be granted control over her own body when she strangles her husband to death over an argument.

I find it rather amusing that progressives suddenly become libertarians when it comes to abortion. While they may try to use libertarian arguments about invidual liberties in the abortion debate, the real reason they support abortion has nothing to do with this. If I do not even have the right to buy whatever type of light bulb I want, why should women be granted special privilleges?

Murder is murder. The baby may be inside her body, but it is NOT inside of her body. There is a subtle yet critical difference. The baby is not the woman's body. The baby even has a separate blood flow system. In other words, while the woman should have sovereignty over her own body, she does not necessarily have sovereignty inside her body, when this inside of her body is not actually her body.

 

It's certainly actually of her body. It's the woman's organs that sustain the life of the zef.

If the woman dies, the embryo dies.

 

Not true. A pregnancy reroutes a woman's circulatory system so that her blood is available for the needs and uses of the z/e/f. "As a result, blood plasma volume increases 40%, cardiac volume increases 40%, heart rate increases 15%, stroke volume increases 30%, peripheral resistance increases 25%, and diastolic blood pressure increases 15%. The total blood flow through the umbilical cord, which attaches the fetus to the placenta, is on the average about 125 milliliters per kilogram of body weight per minute, and at term is about 500 milliliters per minute. The amniotic fluid, which surrounds the fetus and is composed largely of maternal plasma filtrate and fetal urine, undergoes constant exchange between the fetus and mother. At term, this exchange of water is approximately 3500 milliters per hour in each direction."--Eileen L. McDonagh, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock

 

except when the baby's life can be sustained outside the womb.
There have been babies prematurely delivered at only 21 weeks that have survived (with medical help of course).

The blood that circulates from the umbilical cord comes from the placenta, not the mother. There is oxygen and nutrient exchange accross the placenta, but there is not actually exchange of any blood cells between the mother and growing baby.

 

I'm sorry, intercourse can be recreational as well as procreational. Pregnancy can be intended or unintended. We do know what causes pregnancy though, so the precedent actions are definitely limited (absenting divine intervention, Zeus coming to earth and doing the ladies again, or parthogenesis) to sexual intercourse (usually - there are exceptions). Sexual intercourse is usually (and desirably) a negotiated process and it's usually the case (in law) that a woman can tell the man to stop at any time and he must comply (refusal is rape in many jurisdictions). Now you know where that old saw about a woman being able to change her mind comes from.

It's not as simple as you'd like to think.

 

That makes no sense. How would blood come from the placenta, if not from the woman first?

http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site636/mainpageS636P0.html

 

Such logic only works if the spreading of the woman's legs by the man was with intent to breed, and it was mutual intent, then the unwritten contract is between the man and the woman; the woman's right to choose what to do with the man's contribution depends upon both of their intent, and the law, and an unwritten contract is usually not easy to prove because there is no "signing."

There is no contract between the woman and her accident where there is no requirement for her to have insurance like with a car. If the society provides for abortion, as an option, there can be no easement or absolute interest by society into the woman's womb to make a "responsibility to carry the pregnancy to completion." And if there is no requirement to make the man carry his responsiblity to the offspring's growth and development, then there is no mutual contract.

The woman is not the only one involved in risky activity, it takes two, as it is an unwritten contract between the man and the woman to be responsible for what they both create.

Since we have no risky (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) or dick taxes (to pay for the growth's development until it is viable as an adult) or a law against abortion, therefore, there simply is no social contract between society and what is growing in the uterus.

Since there is "no social contract between society and what is growing in the uterus," therefore, your logic is flawed, consequently, she has NO responsibility to carry the pregnancy to completion.