Rather than citing a single example of the Kardashian media machine in which no force of any kind was used to persuade his wife into an abortion while they were divorcing, the fact is women forced to be pregnant is VERY common including by sabotaging condoms and contraceptives, violence and spousal/boyfriend rape, and threats of murder. "A new study has found that among 71 women aged 18-49 with a history of intimate partner violence, 74 percent reported having experienced some form of reproductive control, including forced unprotected intercourse, failure to withdraw as promised or sabotaging of condoms. Women who became pregnant were coerced to proceed in accordance with the wishes of their partners, who in some cases threatened to kill them if they had an abortion. In the largest study of this phenomenon to date, “Pregnancy Coercion, Intimate Partner Violence and Unintended Pregnancy,” published in the January issue of the journal Contraception, lead researcher Elizabeth Miller and others surveyed nearly 1,300 16- to 29-year-old women who’d sought a variety of services at five different Northern California reproductive health clinics. Among those who had experienced intercourse, i.e., who could be at risk of unintended pregnancy, not only did 53 percent of respondents say they’d experienced physical or sexual violence from a partner, but one in five said they had experienced pregnancy coercion; 15 percent said they experienced birth control sabotage, including hiding or flushing birth control pills down the toilet, intentional breaking of condoms and removing contraceptive rings or patches." http://www.alternet.org/story/14704...orce_women_to_get_pregnant_against_their_will
By that type of logic, men can be "forced" to have a child also. In fact, it happens far more often to men than women. Do you think that a woman who had her contraceptives sabotaged was "forced to reproduce" ? After all, she did voluntarily choose to engage in the initial act of reproduction of her own free will. Is it wrong to "force a woman to reproduce" if she is already carrying a child of 26 weeks gestation in her womb? Didn't the woman already "reproduce" ??
Men are not forced to "have a child" ... they are however forced into paying for the child. Of course she is not forced to reproduce (Thanks to abortion). She was force into pregnancy.
Most of the time the woman is threatened if she doesn't get an abortion. So much for Abortion being a woman's freely chosen "choice". Abortion is the un-choice
lol, "failure to withdraw as promised", sorry that is not forced pregnancy, that is stupidity.. - - - Updated - - - pro-lifers believe the gov should be able to force you to give birth pro-abortionists believe the gov should be able to force you to abort your birth PRO-CHOICEers believe this should be the womens choice, not the governments choice pro-abortionists and pro-lifers are the ones that want to force a women, not pro-chociers .
And by your logic a man is agreeing to abortion if he has sex with a woman. He did voluntarily choose to engage in the initial act of reproduction of his own free will knowing it is as legal to abort as it is to carry the pregnancy to delivery. Didn't the man ALREADY agree to acts that can lead to abortion? Most pro-choice understand that most pro-life have the viewpoint that all sex is sinful for which women are to be punished by pregnancy and labor. But then clearly men must be punished for having sinful sex by child support payments for children he didn't want and by abortions he doesn't want. - - - Updated - - - That is false and the only source is the anti-abortion blog quoting itself.
The fetus has to come out of there one way or another. Pro-lifers believe it should be in one piece. The policy that "pro-choicers" advocate leaves the door open to women being forced to abort.
Forcing a woman to get pregnant is wrong—and illegal in most cases. But two wrongs don't make a right. Abortion shouldn't be used as a remedy just because the woman was tricked into getting pregnant.
I understand, for the "wrong" of being a female, the woman should be physically punished 24/7 for the next nine months, then the agony of torturous labor, and exposed to being permanent crippled or dying in the process. That is the price she pays for being evil and the cause of all sin in the world as a woman. The Bible says this is her punishment for a woman being the cause of all evil, suffering and death. As you said, two wrongs don't make a right in your opinion: 1. "Wrong" because she is a female. 2. "Wrong" for not accepting God's punishment of her for being a woman. And because you are a male that makes you "right." And you could make it THREE "wrongs," her defying a man in wanting to have sex with her. God gave man domination over women, right?
considering the fact that you have run away from EVERY debate on whether consenting to sex = consenting to pregnancy, I pretty much think anything you have to say on the subject is irrelevant. The Legal cause of pregnancy Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman. While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus. So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy. How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence. A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause. Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred. This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state. In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task. While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences. Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies. A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause. The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary and significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause. Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/ Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/
Pretty much everything in the link you provided has been blown apart, though repeating the crap is pretty much expected as it is sourced and paid for by the Elliot Institute a zealous pro-life group including the director, so-called Dr. David Reardon whose "research" has been discredited numerous times, this so-called Doctor got his Ph.D in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University (Hawaii), an unaccredited correspondence school offering no classroom instruction. He is the pseudo-science expert of the decade. Pacific Western University (Hawaii) and the affiliated Pacific Western University (Louisiana) were not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by the United States Department of Education. As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of PWU (Hawaii) and PWU (Louisiana) degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions -- Reardon is a quack and an imposter. now you and other pro-lifers may blinker yourselves into the continuation of being lead by the nose by people who are not adverse to confirmation bias, misrepresentation and basically lying . .that of course is your prerogative . .however don't expect people who have taken the time and trouble to ACTUALLY research the subject to fall for your BS.
Unless you have stats I find that hard to believe..... ......phrases like "everyone knows it", "most of us" just don't cut it.
so why hasn't any of these been reported as rape because what was described all would be considered rape
Some men do want to force women to get pregnant - why else do you think they tamper with contraception. This happened to a friend's adult daughter - her b/f poked holes in the condoms. He admitted it. She aborted and broke off with him.
Some do. And that 's not the point....Anti-Choicers want to FORCE women to stay pregnant. Anti-Choicers are all about force....
This is of course why abortion is necessary. We all know it's like this but it just happens to be a social taboo to suggest it.
...and I think that's why some men are so Anti-Choice. They believe men should have power and control over women and abortion choice gives women the freedom and power to do as they please........some men just can't handle that..
