one of the main arguments to abortion is that a women clearly has the right to control her body, and that extends to having an abortion, now the women had the right to enter into a sexual relationship, and despite what we may be brainwashed into believe we do not die of sex deprivation, you do have a choice to have sex, but with that choice is an inherit risk which is that you may become pregnant, no protection is 100% and so that is always a risk, it may be a small risk if the use of birth control is utilized, but it will always still be their when 2 fertile people have sexual intercourse.
no so we have established that the women has choice to have sex or not to have sex, but the unborn child does not have a choice in the matter and that makes them a minor, with options like adoption there is no reason for unborn children to be denied the right to life. I know this thread is one of the 100's saying this but I just feel better putting my thoughts into words and letting people know this is how I personally feel.
so am I pro-choice, I am, you can choose to have sex, but the ending of life is not something that should be given anyone as an option.
You're only looking at one aspect of abortion. What if the health of the woman is at stake? What if a pregnancy could kill them both?
there are times when there is a need for abortion, if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest then that wasn't the women's choice, and if the women would die because the birth is in the falopeon (I dunno how its spelled) tube or something then that is a tragic thing that has to happen.
I agree there are circumstances that justify the sacrifice of human life out of nessesity.
one of the main arguments to abortion is that a women clearly has the right to control her body, and that extends to having an abortion, now the women had the right to enter into a sexual relationship
So basically, you're saying that men should be free to enter in to any kind of sexual relationship they please, but women who dare to enter in to sexual relationships should be prepared to lose the right to control their bodies.
In no case can a man ever lose his right to decide which medical treatment he wants or what he can do with his own body. Only women are subject to a loss of basic human rights for the "crime" of having a sexual relationship.
In a nutshell, what you are advocating is sexist government control of women's bodies. Despicable.
Women do not choose to be born female. Women do not choose to be fertile. Women do choose to have sex, but sex is not a crime. So why should women, and only women, lose rights for having sex?
Nobody has the right to use another person's body against his/her will, even if it's a matter of life and death. So why should fetuses have this right over women? Who better than women themselves to decide whether they are ready to have children?
Who better than women themselves to decide whether they are ready to have children?
The author of the blog believes that "There's always adoption". What he fails to realize is that adoption is not an easy decision or one with overwhelmingly positive consequences. Many of the women who give their children up for adoption experience life long psychological issues because they gave their child up for adoption. Children who are adopted are shown to have life long psychological issues because their mothers gave them up for adoption. The truth is that while adoption is sometimes the best or the only option for both pregnant women and childless couples, it isn't the ideal situation for dealing with a pregnancy or gaining a child.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
Sex is no crime. Murder is. We all should already know that the old '70s feminist argument that a fetus is "just a blob of tissue" is false. Thanks to advances in ultrasound, we can clearly see that fetuses develop very early in gestation into living beings, complete with motor skills, a heartbeat, a brain, etc.
A woman and her fetus are two different people, with the only unusual circumstance that the baby lives inside the mother. Unless the fetus agrees to be aborted, then abortion should be out of the question.
Women not ready to have children should not engage in acts that could easily result in a child such as, say, I don't know, unprotected sex. It all comes down to, as usual in today's society, the failure of people to take responsibility for themselves.
there is no easy answer to the equality of this, the only consolation I can offer is that the great blessing of bearing children comes with that responsibility, every father has a obligation to support his biological offspring.
but having children is a blessing, there is a bond between mother and father that will never exist in between a child and her father, not a better bond but a special bond, having children is a great blessing, and it does come with responsibilities.
sex is not a crime, it is something tho that has inherit risks that we need to take responsibility for.
I am not sexist.
If the fetus is a separate being, then how about this: We separate the fetus from the mother, and hope it doesn't die. Since the fetus is a separate being, ie., an individual, it should be self-sustaining and should not rely on any other being for its physiological needs.
Have you ever seen an embryo before one month? It doesn't have motor skills. It doesn't even look human. I'm assuming from your comments about motor skills, heartbeat, and brain that you're a vegan who has never used pesticides or leather goods. I'm sure that you don't take vaccinations, since these require animal sacrifice to develop. I guess you could make an exception to these situations if the animals chose to die, according to your argument.
To the writer- your entire blog is only 4 sentences long. It's one giant, run-on nightmare. Please, help us all out by using some punctuation other than a comma.
F*** Religion. Read more here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/020528-f-religion
one of the main arguments to abortion is that a women clearly has the right to control her body, and that extends to having an abortion
Of course; abortion is, after all, a form of birth control.
you do have a choice to have sex, but with that choice is an inherit risk which is that you may become pregnant, no protection is 100% and so that is always a risk, it may be a small risk if the use of birth control is utilized, but it will always still be [there] when 2 fertile people have sexual intercourse.
Indeed. The question is: what is so inherently sacred about potential human life that post-conception birth control is unacceptable even while society fully embraces pre-conception birth control?
so we have established that the [woman] has [a] choice to have sex or not to have sex, but the unborn child does not have a choice in the matter and that makes them a minor
No, the fetus is not a child or a minor until AFTER birth; for so long as it is wholly dependent upon its mother's life force for its continued survival -- or, unborn-- it is not a separate entity.
with options like adoption there is no reason for unborn children to be denied the right to life.
How are the trials and tribulations of gestation so easily dismissed? The physiological and psychological toll of carrying to term an unintended pregnancy; no unwitting mother should be forced to subject her body to travails and/or cesarean.
/jkh
A single sperm cell, while living, is not a being in itself. Neither is a single egg cell. It is only when they are joined that a new living being is formed. For this reason, abortion is not a form of contraception. There's nothing wrong with preconception birth control, after all, millions of sperm cells fail to fertilize the egg and are wasted anyway.
I said abortion is a form of birth control, not contraception.
My question remains: what is so inherently sacred about potential human life that post-conception birth control is unacceptable even while society fully embraces pre-conception birth control?
A fetus, while technically "new life," is not a sentient human being; it is only potentially so.
/jkh