Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

1356728

Comments

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJinIL said:
    Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

    What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

    If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

    Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.
    Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
    For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
    Just playing devil's advocate here.
    Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)
    it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

    "I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

    while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 
    I think it's perfect logic when you remember to factor in reality, and in this case, reality is that the fetus, at least up to the point of viability outside of it, is literally a part of another human being's body. That's what it is before anything else, including the man's baby.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,117
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).
    I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.
    Not one dime of tax dollars goes toward funding it now.  Stop this tired, false rhetoric already.

    Besides, if we make that stipulation then we have to make sure congress allows every American to ONLY pay the tax dollars for causes they're for and don't opppose.  Good luck regulating that.  This is just a stupid cop-out counter-argument when you have nothing else to say.
  • riley540riley540 Bellingham WAPosts: 907
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).
    I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.
    Not one dime of tax dollars goes toward funding it now.  Stop this tired, false rhetoric already.

    Besides, if we make that stipulation then we have to make sure congress allows every American to ONLY pay the tax dollars for causes they're for and don't opppose.  Good luck regulating that.  This is just a stupid cop-out counter-argument when you have nothing else to say.
    That is false. Any quick search will show that tax dollars infact do pay a few “dimes” towards abortion 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    Tax dollars certainly pay for it in Canada, thank goodness.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,904
    I personally am happy that abortion is safe, legal, and paid for under our medical services plan in Canada. Not that availability is perfect, but it’s not perfect for any medical service. If you live in the boonies you get fewer services. 

    Non-surgical abortion via RU-486 is also available and covered now in many of our provinces, though not all. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • wobbler_kittywobbler_kitty Millbury, MAPosts: 155
    riley540 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).
    I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.
    Not one dime of tax dollars goes toward funding it now.  Stop this tired, false rhetoric already.

    Besides, if we make that stipulation then we have to make sure congress allows every American to ONLY pay the tax dollars for causes they're for and don't opppose.  Good luck regulating that.  This is just a stupid cop-out counter-argument when you have nothing else to say.
    That is false. Any quick search will show that tax dollars infact do pay a few “dimes” towards abortion 
    Links?

    If you’re going to make that kind of claim, the burden is on you to provide the evidence. And no, Youtube vids and conservative news sources don’t count.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,904
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJinIL said:
    Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

    What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

    If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

    Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.
    Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
    For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
    Just playing devil's advocate here.
    Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)
    it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

    "I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

    while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 
    The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

    Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJinIL said:
    Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

    What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

    If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

    Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.
    Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
    For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
    Just playing devil's advocate here.
    Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)
    it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

    "I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

    while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 
    The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

    Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 
    I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    edited March 2018
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJinIL said:
    Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

    What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

    If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

    Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.
    Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
    For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
    Just playing devil's advocate here.
    Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)
    it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

    "I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

    while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 
    The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

    Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 
    I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  
    You may not like the nature of the language, but it makes absolutely no difference. The meaning doesn't change whatsoever. And it really IS tough shit. That isn't dismissive, just brutal. If anything, it's acknowledgement of that fact that it sucks that the man doesn't have a say in it, even though there is no other option. As for fucked up logic... yeah, when it's the woman's body that's part of the equation, it really is fucked up logic.
    As for "I have all the power, so fuck you."... Well, um, yeah, I think that is a completely justified attitude when someone is trying to deny a woman of her right to choose. I 100% support that message, in exactly those words, when someone is suggesting that the woman doesn't have control over her own body. Surely these worthless niceties aren't necessary or justified when it comes to the war against a woman's right choose.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,929
    edited March 2018
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).
    I can agree with that with the addition that those apposed to it do not have one dime of their tax dollars going towards funding it directly or indirectly.
    Not one dime of tax dollars goes toward funding it now.  Stop this tired, false rhetoric already.

    Besides, if we make that stipulation then we have to make sure congress allows every American to ONLY pay the tax dollars for causes they're for and don't opppose.  Good luck regulating that.  This is just a stupid cop-out counter-argument when you have nothing else to say.
    Good point, I think that the Hyde Amendment should stay in place and there should be no taxpayer funds going towards it (although it’s easy to argue that they do indirectly).
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • jnimhaoileoinjnimhaoileoin Baile Átha CliathPosts: 2,682
    I am, quite simply, pro-choice. This is an ongoing subject of discussion in Ireland with a referendum on the 8th Amendment to be held this year
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    edited March 2018
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJinIL said:
    Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

    What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

    If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

    Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.
    Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
    For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
    Just playing devil's advocate here.
    Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)
    it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

    "I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

    while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 
    The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

    Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 
    I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  
    You may not like the nature of the language, but it makes absolutely no difference. The meaning doesn't change whatsoever. And it really IS tough shit. That isn't dismissive, just brutal. If anything, it's acknowledgement of that fact that it sucks that the man doesn't have a say in it, even though there is no other option. As for fucked up logic... yeah, when it's the woman's body that's part of the equation, it really is fucked up logic.
    As for "I have all the power, so fuck you."... Well, um, yeah, I think that is a completely justified attitude when someone is trying to deny a woman of her right to choose. I 100% support that message, in exactly those words, when someone is suggesting that the woman doesn't not have control over her own body. Surely these worthless niceties aren't necessary or justified when it comes to the war against a woman's right choose.
    ah, fuck it. no point. 

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJinIL said:
    Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

    What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

    If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

    Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.
    Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
    For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
    Just playing devil's advocate here.
    Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)
    it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

    "I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

    while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 
    The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

    Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 
    I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  
    You may not like the nature of the language, but it makes absolutely no difference. The meaning doesn't change whatsoever. And it really IS tough shit. That isn't dismissive, just brutal. If anything, it's acknowledgement of that fact that it sucks that the man doesn't have a say in it, even though there is no other option. As for fucked up logic... yeah, when it's the woman's body that's part of the equation, it really is fucked up logic.
    As for "I have all the power, so fuck you."... Well, um, yeah, I think that is a completely justified attitude when someone is trying to deny a woman of her right to choose. I 100% support that message, in exactly those words, when someone is suggesting that the woman doesn't not have control over her own body. Surely these worthless niceties aren't necessary or justified when it comes to the war against a woman's right choose.
    ah, fuck it. no point. 


    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    Who  cares if tax dollars are used? If you knew half of what our tax money is wasted on, abortion would be at the bottom of your concerns.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    edited March 2018
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJinIL said:
    Legal, in cases medical professionals would deem carrying full-term would be life threatening to the woman or baby. Not for mistakes/convenience/birth control.

    What I think about is if a man and woman have a consensual experience that results in a pregnancy...what are the father's rights? Next to zero at this point. Some pushes have been made for rights of a HUSBAND, but even those have been struck down.

    If the woman doesn't want it, sign the baby away to the dad. If that means the father pays for the prenatal care, medical bills, etc. so be it. That woman loses any visitation or other parental rights at that point.

    Not to be harsh, but when you get right down to it, my attitude is "tough shit for the man." Please don't mistake that for me thinking the father doesn't matter. He does. The problem is that it's still irrelevant. It's still the woman's body, and there is no getting around that IMO. Blame nature.
    Just curious. Why do men have the financial burden of child support then? If the women has the only right to chose, shouldn't she be the only one financially responsible?
    For the record I think any deadbeat dad is a douche. But if I completely agreed with what you said, then why is he dragged into it if he doesn't want to? If he has no say, and it is only about the woman and her body and what she wants, then why force the dad into it? The dad can;t force an abortion if he doesn't want a kid.
    Just playing devil's advocate here.
    Because tough shit, that's why, lol. It's still his kid when it's born. Just because he can't stop women from aborting while the fetus is a part of her body and isn't viable outside of it, it doesn't mean the man's responsibility is gone when the baby becomes viable/born. What kind of fucked up logic is that? (I say to the devil, not you as advocate, lol)
    it's not fucked up logic whatsoever. what you are saying is:

    "I can kill this baby whether you like it or not, but if I don't, pay up"

    while I'm not saying that's not the way it should be, that's a pretty fucked up logic from the guy's point of view. 
    The problem is that it’s a binary choice. It’s only ever yes or no for the decision to have an abortion; there’s no middle ground or compromise position possible and that’s a biological reality. So, given that the only two choices are to either have the decision made by the mom or the dad, the only reasonable choice is that it is made by the person whose body is involved, who has a much greater stake in the decision. 

    Once that situation is finished, though, they are equal parents with equal responsibilities. 
    I agree that it is the woman's choice, and only the woman's choice, as it is her body. I am only stating this on a theoretical level: one person having the full say over someone else's lifelong responsibility shouldn't just be glossed over as "tough shit" or "fucked up logic, lol".I understand the reality, and the need for it to be only her decision. but the disrespectful nature and dismissiveness gets me. like "I have all the power, so fuck you".  
    You may not like the nature of the language, but it makes absolutely no difference. The meaning doesn't change whatsoever. And it really IS tough shit. That isn't dismissive, just brutal. If anything, it's acknowledgement of that fact that it sucks that the man doesn't have a say in it, even though there is no other option. As for fucked up logic... yeah, when it's the woman's body that's part of the equation, it really is fucked up logic.
    As for "I have all the power, so fuck you."... Well, um, yeah, I think that is a completely justified attitude when someone is trying to deny a woman of her right to choose. I 100% support that message, in exactly those words, when someone is suggesting that the woman doesn't not have control over her own body. Surely these worthless niceties aren't necessary or justified when it comes to the war against a woman's right choose.
    ah, fuck it. no point. 


    funny, my sentiments exactly. 
    Post edited by HughFreakingDillon on
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    I don't understand why you do that HFD. All I did was disagree with you, with actual points, and you are completely (and ironically, given your previous post) dismissive of what I have to say, plus you just kind of wuss out of the conversation.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,479
    PJ_Soul said:
    I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).
    Isn't that really what everyone does? Try to push their beliefs on them? Isn't that really what politics is?
    You don't see the need for guns so you try to push your beliefs through gun bans.
    If you don't think people should do certain drugs people vote for a drug ban.
    If you don't believe a fetus is a human life you push for the legalization of abortion. If you believe it is a life then you push for pro-life laws.

    I never get that argument of "believe what you want, just don't expect me to" angle, because isnt that what we all really try to do? Isn't that the whole point of voting?
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    PJ_Soul said:
    I don't understand why you do that HFD. All I did was disagree with you, with actual points, and you are completely (and ironically, given your previous post) dismissive of what I have to say, plus you just kind of wuss out of the conversation.
    there was no dismissiveness on my part. your points weren't the point. 

    wuss out of the conversation? what conversation? a conversation has two or more people. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    I also thoroughly enjoyed "wuss out of the conversation". like we're in 4th grade. :lol:
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I have no problem with people not believing in abortion at all. They can go ahead and never have an abortion. Great. My only problem is with people who don't believe in it telling other women what they should do (within reason, anyway, for me, but I'm no warrior for my own opinions on that).
    Isn't that really what everyone does? Try to push their beliefs on them? Isn't that really what politics is?
    You don't see the need for guns so you try to push your beliefs through gun bans.
    If you don't think people should do certain drugs people vote for a drug ban.
    If you don't believe a fetus is a human life you push for the legalization of abortion. If you believe it is a life then you push for pro-life laws.

    I never get that argument of "believe what you want, just don't expect me to" angle, because isnt that what we all really try to do? Isn't that the whole point of voting?
    I don't think everyone does it, no. There are differences. With abortion, it is a woman OWN body - there is no way to argue, scientifically, that what is inside a woman's body and can't exist outside of it isn't hers and hers alone. With guns, it is about general public safety, and I think that is put before individual rights generally. Just not when it comes to guns.
    I think all drugs should be legalized, so that's a good example.
    And FWIW, I actually do believe that fetuses are human life - to say otherwise makes no sense to me. I just don't think they are viable human lives until after a certain point, and that is the entire reason abortion has to be legal. Until they're viable, they are literally a part of a woman's body (and a danger to her health).

    That argument of "believe what you want, just don't expect me to" is only valid when the law isn't involved.

    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJinILPJinIL satan's bedPosts: 391
    The whole argument about it being the woman's body is skewed to me. I don't have facts or articles to point to, but I'd believe the majority of decisions made about having an abortion are more about the lifestyle changes and obligations that come with parenthood, not the actual decision of whether the woman is worried about her physical being. So it becomes a decision of "do I want a baby or not?" That is a very different discussion than "do I fear for my life and birthing complications enough to abort?"

    Think of it this way, if a woman who finds herself pregnant could have the embryo/fetus/etc taken out to be developed to term in another environment, would she still want the baby? If she doesn't want the baby either way, I think that's a barometer for telling the woman she doesn't qualify for an abortion, it's totally elective and a selfish decision that does affect other people's lives. Thus, I believe in some injection (get it?) of father's rights in elective decisions. I do NOT believe a father should have authority to make the mother have an abortion.

    Not to say the decision isn't torturous, I thought my girlfriend in HS got pregnant and we were scared out of our minds when she was 3-4 days late. Over the next couple of days, neither of us could say it was right to think about having an abortion. Turns out, she got her period about 2 hours after we made the decision to keep it, much to our delight. Never been so happy to have a girlfriend with a period in my life!


    It's amazing what you hear when you take time to listen.
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    PJinIL said: 
    The whole argument about it being the woman's body is skewed to me. I don't have facts or articles to point to, but I'd believe the majority of decisions made about having an abortion are more about the lifestyle changes and obligations that come with parenthood, not the actual decision of whether the woman is worried about her physical being. So it becomes a decision of "do I want a baby or not?" That is a very different discussion than "do I fear for my life and birthing complications enough to abort?"

    Think of it this way, if a woman who finds herself pregnant could have the embryo/fetus/etc taken out to be developed to term in another environment, would she still want the baby? If she doesn't want the baby either way, I think that's a barometer for telling the woman she doesn't qualify for an abortion, it's totally elective and a selfish decision that does affect other people's lives. Thus, I believe in some injection (get it?) of father's rights in elective decisions. I do NOT believe a father should have authority to make the mother have an abortion.

    Not to say the decision isn't torturous, I thought my girlfriend in HS got pregnant and we were scared out of our minds when she was 3-4 days late. Over the next couple of days, neither of us could say it was right to think about having an abortion. Turns out, she got her period about 2 hours after we made the decision to keep it, much to our delight. Never been so happy to have a girlfriend with a period in my life!


    It's really not relevant. I doubt most woman do consider their bodies well being. Still doesn't change the FACT that it's her body to do as she chooses regardless of the reason. 

    I also do not have any facts or figures ,  but I'm guessing if a married woman decides to get an abortion, the husband and the wife would make the decision together.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    PJinIL said:
    The whole argument about it being the woman's body is skewed to me. I don't have facts or articles to point to, but I'd believe the majority of decisions made about having an abortion are more about the lifestyle changes and obligations that come with parenthood, not the actual decision of whether the woman is worried about her physical being. So it becomes a decision of "do I want a baby or not?" That is a very different discussion than "do I fear for my life and birthing complications enough to abort?"

    Think of it this way, if a woman who finds herself pregnant could have the embryo/fetus/etc taken out to be developed to term in another environment, would she still want the baby? If she doesn't want the baby either way, I think that's a barometer for telling the woman she doesn't qualify for an abortion, it's totally elective and a selfish decision that does affect other people's lives. Thus, I believe in some injection (get it?) of father's rights in elective decisions. I do NOT believe a father should have authority to make the mother have an abortion.

    Not to say the decision isn't torturous, I thought my girlfriend in HS got pregnant and we were scared out of our minds when she was 3-4 days late. Over the next couple of days, neither of us could say it was right to think about having an abortion. Turns out, she got her period about 2 hours after we made the decision to keep it, much to our delight. Never been so happy to have a girlfriend with a period in my life!


    this is why most agree it should be legal, safe, and RARE. I don't think anyone is positing that some women abort out of fear of the possibility of complications. is that what you are saying?
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,855
    Of course keep it legal.

    To show how much time I spend thinking about this topic, I recently learned that in Canada a pregnancy can be terminated at any stage.  If true, it was interesting fact.  If I’m wrong please correct me.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,479
    PJinIL said:
    The whole argument about it being the woman's body is skewed to me. I don't have facts or articles to point to, but I'd believe the majority of decisions made about having an abortion are more about the lifestyle changes and obligations that come with parenthood, not the actual decision of whether the woman is worried about her physical being. So it becomes a decision of "do I want a baby or not?" That is a very different discussion than "do I fear for my life and birthing complications enough to abort?"

    Think of it this way, if a woman who finds herself pregnant could have the embryo/fetus/etc taken out to be developed to term in another environment, would she still want the baby? If she doesn't want the baby either way, I think that's a barometer for telling the woman she doesn't qualify for an abortion, it's totally elective and a selfish decision that does affect other people's lives. Thus, I believe in some injection (get it?) of father's rights in elective decisions. I do NOT believe a father should have authority to make the mother have an abortion.

    Not to say the decision isn't torturous, I thought my girlfriend in HS got pregnant and we were scared out of our minds when she was 3-4 days late. Over the next couple of days, neither of us could say it was right to think about having an abortion. Turns out, she got her period about 2 hours after we made the decision to keep it, much to our delight. Never been so happy to have a girlfriend with a period in my life!


    this is why most agree it should be legal, safe, and RARE. I don't think anyone is positing that some women abort out of fear of the possibility of complications. is that what you are saying?
    How do you keep it "rare"?
    Other than an honor code that is impossible to enforce, I don't see any way to ensure that it is rare.
    Like you said, most who are pro-choice agree it should be "legal, safe and rare," I would also argue that most who are pro-life would not only be comfortable with, but insist on exceptions exist for medical and a few other reasons. 
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,904
    Of course keep it legal.

    To show how much time I spend thinking about this topic, I recently learned that in Canada a pregnancy can be terminated at any stage.  If true, it was interesting fact.  If I’m wrong please correct me.
    It’s correct that there is no federal law limiting  abortion in Canada. The last law prohibiting abortion was struck down 30 years ago. It is now treated as a medical procedure, and thus under provincial jurisdiction. 

    Alrhough legal everywhere, availability varies significantly. There is no access to surgical abortion in the province of PEI, and access is very limited in most of the Maritimes. Surgical abortions can occur in hospital or in private clinics. Access to medical abortions is increasing and is funded in most provinces now. 

    That’s the broad brushstrokes; there are many details, of course. The Mulroney conservatives in the ‘90s attempted to criminalize abortion again and failed. Trudeau has made it clear he won’t reopen the discussion despite being a staunch Catholic. 

    Here’s a review of the legal status:

    http://www.nafcanada.org/legal-abortion-ca.html
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,904
    mace1229 said:
    PJinIL said:
    The whole argument about it being the woman's body is skewed to me. I don't have facts or articles to point to, but I'd believe the majority of decisions made about having an abortion are more about the lifestyle changes and obligations that come with parenthood, not the actual decision of whether the woman is worried about her physical being. So it becomes a decision of "do I want a baby or not?" That is a very different discussion than "do I fear for my life and birthing complications enough to abort?"

    Think of it this way, if a woman who finds herself pregnant could have the embryo/fetus/etc taken out to be developed to term in another environment, would she still want the baby? If she doesn't want the baby either way, I think that's a barometer for telling the woman she doesn't qualify for an abortion, it's totally elective and a selfish decision that does affect other people's lives. Thus, I believe in some injection (get it?) of father's rights in elective decisions. I do NOT believe a father should have authority to make the mother have an abortion.

    Not to say the decision isn't torturous, I thought my girlfriend in HS got pregnant and we were scared out of our minds when she was 3-4 days late. Over the next couple of days, neither of us could say it was right to think about having an abortion. Turns out, she got her period about 2 hours after we made the decision to keep it, much to our delight. Never been so happy to have a girlfriend with a period in my life!


    this is why most agree it should be legal, safe, and RARE. I don't think anyone is positing that some women abort out of fear of the possibility of complications. is that what you are saying?
    How do you keep it "rare"?
    Other than an honor code that is impossible to enforce, I don't see any way to ensure that it is rare.
    Like you said, most who are pro-choice agree it should be "legal, safe and rare," I would also argue that most who are pro-life would not only be comfortable with, but insist on exceptions exist for medical and a few other reasons. 
    You keep it rare by  providing decent sex education to kids and supporting access to contraception for everyone  rather than limiting it and imposing conservative Christian values on society. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    mace1229 said:
    PJinIL said:
    The whole argument about it being the woman's body is skewed to me. I don't have facts or articles to point to, but I'd believe the majority of decisions made about having an abortion are more about the lifestyle changes and obligations that come with parenthood, not the actual decision of whether the woman is worried about her physical being. So it becomes a decision of "do I want a baby or not?" That is a very different discussion than "do I fear for my life and birthing complications enough to abort?"

    Think of it this way, if a woman who finds herself pregnant could have the embryo/fetus/etc taken out to be developed to term in another environment, would she still want the baby? If she doesn't want the baby either way, I think that's a barometer for telling the woman she doesn't qualify for an abortion, it's totally elective and a selfish decision that does affect other people's lives. Thus, I believe in some injection (get it?) of father's rights in elective decisions. I do NOT believe a father should have authority to make the mother have an abortion.

    Not to say the decision isn't torturous, I thought my girlfriend in HS got pregnant and we were scared out of our minds when she was 3-4 days late. Over the next couple of days, neither of us could say it was right to think about having an abortion. Turns out, she got her period about 2 hours after we made the decision to keep it, much to our delight. Never been so happy to have a girlfriend with a period in my life!


    this is why most agree it should be legal, safe, and RARE. I don't think anyone is positing that some women abort out of fear of the possibility of complications. is that what you are saying?
    How do you keep it "rare"?
    Other than an honor code that is impossible to enforce, I don't see any way to ensure that it is rare.
    Like you said, most who are pro-choice agree it should be "legal, safe and rare," I would also argue that most who are pro-life would not only be comfortable with, but insist on exceptions exist for medical and a few other reasons. 
    it's unenforcable, obviously. just stating my position that it should be available, but not abused. i was friends with a girl who used it as birth control, seriously. 5 abortions by the age of 23. that sickened me. 

  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 4,582
    I say let a woman do whatever she wants with her body.  It’s definitely not a form of birth control though, that’s super duper fucked up.
    I'm like an opening band for your mom.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,479
    edited March 2018
    mace1229 said:
    PJinIL said:
    The whole argument about it being the woman's body is skewed to me. I don't have facts or articles to point to, but I'd believe the majority of decisions made about having an abortion are more about the lifestyle changes and obligations that come with parenthood, not the actual decision of whether the woman is worried about her physical being. So it becomes a decision of "do I want a baby or not?" That is a very different discussion than "do I fear for my life and birthing complications enough to abort?"

    Think of it this way, if a woman who finds herself pregnant could have the embryo/fetus/etc taken out to be developed to term in another environment, would she still want the baby? If she doesn't want the baby either way, I think that's a barometer for telling the woman she doesn't qualify for an abortion, it's totally elective and a selfish decision that does affect other people's lives. Thus, I believe in some injection (get it?) of father's rights in elective decisions. I do NOT believe a father should have authority to make the mother have an abortion.

    Not to say the decision isn't torturous, I thought my girlfriend in HS got pregnant and we were scared out of our minds when she was 3-4 days late. Over the next couple of days, neither of us could say it was right to think about having an abortion. Turns out, she got her period about 2 hours after we made the decision to keep it, much to our delight. Never been so happy to have a girlfriend with a period in my life!


    this is why most agree it should be legal, safe, and RARE. I don't think anyone is positing that some women abort out of fear of the possibility of complications. is that what you are saying?
    How do you keep it "rare"?
    Other than an honor code that is impossible to enforce, I don't see any way to ensure that it is rare.
    Like you said, most who are pro-choice agree it should be "legal, safe and rare," I would also argue that most who are pro-life would not only be comfortable with, but insist on exceptions exist for medical and a few other reasons. 
    it's unenforcable, obviously. just stating my position that it should be available, but not abused. i was friends with a girl who used it as birth control, seriously. 5 abortions by the age of 23. that sickened me. 

    I am happy to see the last 2 responses against using it for birth control.
    At least for me, my perception is that many are completely okay with abortion as birth control. Maybe my perspective was completely off, but it doesn't help when those who are very outspoken about their stance seem to be proud of their abortions.
    That interview with that girl from Goonies made me sick like you described, essentially cheering the fact that she had abortions at a young age and how great it was.
    I consider myself pro-life, but really only have issues with abortions used for birth control.
Sign In or Register to comment.