Is it really so bad if a man slips a woman an abortion pill?

What you are running up against is human biology.

From there, all you have to do is notice that it is the woman's body.

And, what YOU think THEY are thinking really doesn't even matter - let alone the fact that you are undoubtedly wrong about what they are thinking.

 

I have no clue what you are blubbering about or how anything you are saying relates to any of my arguments.

Do you even know what my argument is ?

 

Just because a woman uses a man to get pregnant does give that woman any right to do anything to that man.

So why then do women have the right to force a man into indentured servitude against his will for 18 years?

 

I see you took my post off in another direction that has nothing to do with what I was discussing but

you are correct, just because a woman gets pregnant by a man doesn't give her the right to do anything to that man.

However, the courts have a right to demand that he pay for the support of the child or children he fathers.



You""So why then do women have the right to force a man into indentured servitude against his will for 18 years?"""


They don't.


Just like Anti-Choicers have no right to force women into indentured servitude for the rest of their lives because they became pregnant...

 

But weirdly, it does make the man's labor her property, and he can be jailed for not giving her that labor. I know many lives destroyed by the child support system. Utterly destroyed.

 

Children need supporting. If men sincerely do not wish to support any offspring, then they have to ensure they do not help cause a pregnancy. It's the only choice they have and can ever have.

 

Continuing to deny your position isn't going work.

Which is all good because they can't be given one.

Which is also good, because they aren't.

There isn't a difference. You want men to have a birth control choice after sex

I've supplied you with a link several times, which you've chosen to ignore.

 

So? Then SUPPORT abortion rights and men getting vasectomies and affordable, accessible birth control, fight the Republicans when they shut down clinics where people can attain affordable birth control and support complete sex education in schools and tell "abstinence only" people that they are fools...

 

If the man is so adamant about not having a baby, he should have used protection before the problem arose. This is what I find so frustrating about the abortion issue. Contraceptives are widely available. Why would you not use them, get pregnant and then abort the fetus because it is unwanted, when all you had to do is to use contraceptives in the first place.

 

Some women don't want to use birth control, some women can't afford the best most expensive BC.

I can understand some women not wanting to use drugs or devices and they are under no obligation to do so.

 

People make mistakes.

 

And they should take responsibility when they make those mistakes, instead of dumping the consequences onto someone else.

 

Sometimes they do.

 

Yes, a woman who finds her BC failed and she's pregnant can take responsibility by having an abortion.

OR having the kid........neither involves dumping on anyone else.

 

AboveAlpha said in another thread:

Why is this true? Why does the human being who is carrying it have the right to birth it, if she wants to?

Is it simply because somebody else does not have the right to interfere with her body? If that is the case, that is a very weak argument, because the woman's rights would only be infringed insofar as much as her body (which does not include the fetus) was interfered with. Forcing an abortion would therefore, under this view, not be such a big violation of her rights. It would be no worse than slipping her a Plan B pill when she wasn't pregnant. Yeah, she would have her period a little bit earlier than usual and her uterus would expel it's contents. So what?
The fetus doesn't really matter, right?

 

Plan B pill is not without serious side-effects, up to - and including - death of the mother. Only a coward would do such a thing.


aas to the mother having the last word on abortions - she is the only one who faces the potential of death during the gestation and birth - therefor, she
has the last word.

End of story, dude.

 

The pro-choice logic is completely absurd and inconsistent here.
You can't say that it's a baby if the woman wants it, and a meaningless clump of cells if she doesn't want it.
Either abortion is a horrible thing or it isn't. Everyone knows abortion is horrible if that's what the woman didn't want. So why is it such a jump to say abortion may not be such a good thing? It's still the same fetus, the woman just feels differently about it.

Pro-choicers have tried to jump around the issue, but the fact is that we ALL know that forced abortion isn't just a matter of the woman's body having been violated. No, it's much worse than that. Pro-choicers know this (though many of them may be reluctant to say it). Some try to assert that the fetus is the woman's property, but then we run into the murky issue of father's rights. I believe most pro-choicers believe that the fetus's life has value; they just believe that the woman's right not to be pregnant if she doesn't want to overrides the fetus's worth.

Well, if we are to follow this type of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, that would mean that a forced abortion could be no worse than a woman who was forced to remain pregnant. Right? But this type of conclusion just does not make intuitive sense. We all know that forced abortion is worse than forcing a woman to remain pregnant.

So our moral intuitive sense is indicative that the pro-choice logic behind this may have some flaws behind it. Honestly, just give this some thought. Tell me where I went wrong in my reasoning.

 

You went wrong from the first line, making assumptions all the way through without a shred of logic or reality anywhere.

 

Ok, so you believe the fetus is the same whether the woman wants it or not, yes? Let's start from there.
If the women has her pregnancy terminated against her will, the fetus dies. If the woman chooses abortion the fetus dies. Same outcome, at least as far as the fetus goes. Am I correct so far?

Now, pro-choicers believe that a woman having to be pregnant when she doesn't want to is worse than a fetus dying. This is a given.

Well then, if a woman having to be pregnant is worse than a fetus dying, it follows that a woman having to be pregnant is worse than the fetus of another woman dying when she didn't choose it, if hypothetically we were to temporarily not count the effects on the woman.
This is basic logic.

So now it logically follows that a woman losing her fetus (when that's not what she wanted) can only be worse than a woman having to be pregnant (when that's not what she wants) if the effects on the first woman are greater than the effects on the second woman.

Wouldn't you agree? This is pretty straightforward. Please tell me where I went wrong if there's anything in this post you don't agree with.

If you agree with all the above, then I can proceed to elaborate further.

 

Pride. A woman has a chance to make a human being, she will feel proud. Why someone would see the trouble to give birth to one she doesn't want to keep? Beats me. I'd just get rid of it. If I did have it I'd keep it. No way I let one of these soulless monsters raise what came to be in me.

 

correct

as far as the fetus is concerned yes

not strictly correct, but keep going.

this is where you start to lose it, you cannot simply "not count the effects on the woman" as that is one of the principal reasons concerning abortion, the reality that the fetus as a person means the fetus requires consent to invade the autonomy of another person, just as every other person has to get consent .. if that consent is not given then the fetus, whether intentionally or not, is causing injury to the female without her consent and as such she has every right to use what ever means possible to stop those injuries from occurring.

You want to ignore the effects because if you don't then your argument falls to pieces.

Your whole analogy complete ignores the reality of consent, a woman who is pregnant with a wanted fetus but loses it, had consented to the injuries the pregnancy (fetus) were causing her, where as the woman who is pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy has not consented to the injuries pregnancy (fetus) are causing her .. tell me what is it about consent that you fail to comprehend, I'll try to enlighten you.

you went wrong the second you arbitrarily decided to ignore consent and the effects of pregnancy on the female.

 

Anything that takes away her choice is unacceptable.

There is a birth control pill that can be taken before sex. Its chewable and comes in mint flavor.


(They're called Pre-dick-a-mints)

 

Nancy Grace: Fetus killed by pancakes laced with abortion drug

 

Again (and again and again) so what?