NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, if you are pro-choice on the matter of abortion please post your arguments/justifications here.

I would ask that anti-abortionists please refrain from posting in this thread. There have been plenty of threads on the issue of abortion, I have created this one simply to hear the pro-choice case.

Note: This is not like a "please explain yourselves for the killing of millions" type of thread, I just want to get the pro-choice case...

Thankyou.

OK, if you are pro-choice on the matter of abortion please post your arguments/justifications here.

Could anti-abortionists please refrain from posting. There have been plenty of threads on the issue of abortion, I have created this one simply to hear the pro-choice case.

Note: This is not like a "please explain yourselves for the killing of millions" type of thread, I just want to get the pro-choice case...

Thankyou.
The pro-choice side either doesn't believe or refuses to accept a fetus is a human being. Any argument they have is based on that. Any pro-life argument is based on a fetus being a human being.

The pro-choice side either doesn't believe or refuses to accept a fetus is a human being. Any argument they have is based on that. Any pro-life argument is based on a fetus being a human being.
That pretty much sums it up. We cannot agree on whether or not a fetus is a human, so any further debate is useless (not that it stops us).

I still believe I can argue that a zygote is not a human, but I'm kinda getting tired of repeeating myself.

That pretty much sums it up. We cannot agree on whether or not a fetus is a human, so any further debate is useless (not that it stops us).

I still believe I can argue that a zygote is not a human, but I'm kinda getting tired of repeeating myself.
There is no absolute definition of human. Scientifically, sterile people aren't human, since one of the components of life is the ability to progenate. Human is subjective, and the beginning and end of life arbitrary. Abortion is a debate based on personal belief without scientific support.

It's beacuse we can't agree on it that I'm pro-choice. People who believe fetuses are humans can't tell people who don't believe that what to believe.

It's beacuse we can't agree on it that I'm pro-choice. People who believe fetuses are humans can't tell people who don't believe that what to believe.
Of course we can. Everyone assumes what they believe is right or they wouldn't believe. Some people truly believe black people aren't human, that doesn't mean anyone has to respect their views if they want to disagree with them rationally.

Of course we can. Everyone assumes what they believe is right or they wouldn't believe. Some people truly believe black people aren't human, that doesn't mean anyone has to respect their views if they want to disagree with them rationally.

Well at least black people actually ARE people :P

Well at least black people actually ARE people :P
Now you're starting to sound like an anti-abortionist ;)

And, um, it's beyond a reasonable doubt that they're human, so thinking anything else is irrationally irrational, so we don't really have to respect that.

And black people, unlike fetuses, can make choices for themselves so killing them or whatever is a violation of someone's civil rights.

I understand your desire to have a forum of your own, and I support that desire. I don't support abortion, but I agree that there should be a forum where pro-choicers can discuss things without pro-life inderference.

I just wanted to say that I posted on the "pro-lifers, defend yourselves" forum, and was jumped on by pro-choicers. I had I assumed that a thread so named would be used to allow pro-lifers to defend themselves without being rebuked, but I was wrong, obviously.

I just wanted to mention this little double standard...

1) It's the lesser of two evils
2) While I personally rarely approve of it, it's not my place to force these beliefs onto others
3) I don't want girls to go and get back alley abortions which can end up killing them, which would inevitably happen if they were made illegal

I understand your desire to have a forum of your own, and I support that desire. I don't support abortion, but I agree that there should be a forum where pro-choicers can discuss things without pro-life inderference.

I just wanted to say that I posted on the "pro-lifers, defend yourselves" forum, and was jumped on by pro-choicers. I had I assumed that a thread so named would be used to allow pro-lifers to defend themselves without being rebuked, but I was wrong, obviously.

I just wanted to mention this little double standard...

I see. That is double standard.

Anyway, I just want a fair and balanced look on the whole argument. Though I will confess and say I am slightly more sympathetic towards the pro-choicers.

The pro-choice side either doesn't believe or refuses to accept a fetus is a human being. Any argument they have is based on that. Any pro-life argument is based on a fetus being a human being.

Incorrect.

My stance does NOT rely on infants inside the womb 'not being human'.

My stance relies on the fact that in no other case can a person be forced against their will to donate an organ to save the life of another, even if that other is their own child, even if the child needs the organ due to the action of the parent.

No one has ever explained why this should change, and Arammanar, you are one of the people who has repeatedly avoided responding to me about the issue.

Could it be you simply can't rationalise it without admitting you're only out to punish the women for enjoying sex, and don't give a damn about the child after all?

Because someone ought to be able to decide for themselves if they want to have an abortion. My opinion and your opinion and everyone else's opinion should not prevent that person from getting said abortion if they want it. Only their opinion should bear any relevance in the matter.

it's got nothing to do with wether it's 'right' or 'wrong'
(whatever these concepts can be agreed to mean)
it's about giving people the choice
if THEY think it's wrong, then move along...

'land of the free' still mean anything??

OK, if you are pro-choice on the matter of abortion please post your arguments/justifications here.

I would ask that anti-abortionists please refrain from posting in this thread. There have been plenty of threads on the issue of abortion, I have created this one simply to hear the pro-choice case.

Note: This is not like a "please explain yourselves for the killing of millions" type of thread, I just want to get the pro-choice case...

Thankyou.
Darn, I guess I can't respond here. I'm pro-choice anti-abortionist.

OK, if you are pro-choice on the matter of abortion please post your arguments/justifications here.

I would ask that anti-abortionists please refrain from posting in this thread. There have been plenty of threads on the issue of abortion, I have created this one simply to hear the pro-choice case.

Note: This is not like a "please explain yourselves for the killing of millions" type of thread, I just want to get the pro-choice case...

Thankyou.

How about "because there's no other practical and democratic way to determine how to handle this issue?"

My stance does NOT rely on infants inside the womb 'not being human'.

My stance relies on the fact that in no other case can a person be forced against their will to donate an organ to save the life of another, even if that other is their own child, even if the child needs the organ due to the action of the parent.

No one has ever explained why this should change, and Arammanar, you are one of the people who has repeatedly avoided responding to me about the issue.

Could it be you simply can't rationalise it without admitting you're only out to punish the women for enjoying sex, and don't give a damn about the child after all?

That is a valid point and one I've heard used a lot. I suppose the counter argument to it is that to some extent people have control over whether they get pregnant or not and I suppose the feeling is they should take some responsibility for their actions.

As Eutrusca says though, perhaps the only argument needed is that there is no other practical or democratic way other than to allow choice. I lean to the pro-choice side not because I am for abortion (I can't make up my mind on that) but because there is no way to prove either way that abortion is 'right' or 'wrong' and so it must come down to the individual to decide for themselves.

Darn, I guess I can't respond here. I'm pro-choice anti-abortionist.

No you can, I wasn't being broad/clear enough. If you have got something to say about why abortion should be the woman's right to choose then by all means go ahead.

I just don't want this to turn into a pointless thread of heated arguments between the anti-abortion and pro-abortion sects. We are mostly talking about whether abortion should be every woman's right.

The pro-choice side either doesn't believe or refuses to accept a fetus is a human being. Any argument they have is based on that. Any pro-life argument is based on a fetus being a human being.

The 'Humanity' argument is not important. What is important is the double-standard with which only pregnant women are treated in regards to their own body.

Right now, If a random person needs a kidney or a pint of blood that I have, and I refuse, it is not considered murder, and I have every right to refuse. This remains the case even if it is my freind or family member. This remains the case even if it is my own child. This even remains the case if the reason for their needing it is due to my own negligence.

However, this, for some reason as yet explained by those of a 'anti-abortion' bent, does not remain the case for a woman only during those 7-10 months of pregnancy.

I have the right to refuse to donate blood to any person, for any reason. It's my blood. I also have the right to refuse organ donation, or refuse to risk my life in any way for another person even if it means they will die. And that this right is especially true when the subject of that risk can be argued to not even be alive, much less human.

A pregnat woman has those same rights. Period. It is morally objectionable to deny her those rights, as it would be morally objectionable to throw your freind on top of a grenade, even if it was to save the lives of the rest of your platoon.

The 'Humanity' argument is not important. What is important is the double-standard with which only pregnant women are treated in regards to their own body.

Right now, If a random person needs a kidney or a pint of blood that I have, and I refuse, it is not considered murder, and I have every right to refuse. This remains the case even if it is my freind or family member. This remains the case even if it is my own child. This even remains the case if the reason for their needing it is due to my own negligence.

However, this, for some reason as yet explained by those of a 'anti-abortion' bent, does not remain the case for a woman only during those 7-10 months of pregnancy.

I have the right to refuse to donate blood to any person, for any reason. It's my blood. I also have the right to refuse organ donation, or refuse to risk my life in any way for another person even if it means they will die. And that this right is especially true when the subject of that risk can be argued to not even be alive, much less human.

A pregnat woman has those same rights. Period. It is morally objectionable to deny her those rights, as it would be morally objectionable to throw your freind on top of a grenade, even if it was to save the lives of the rest of your platoon.
Your friend did not put the grenade there. A pregnant woman has essentially already donated her blood, or a kidney, and then when she wants an abortion is saying she wants it back. That's why it's murder, you're giving someone to someone to let them live, then removing it without their consent.

My stance relies on the fact that in no other case can a person be forced against their will to donate an organ to save the life of another, even if that other is their own child, even if the child needs the organ due to the action of the parent.

But she isn't donating anything. She's already donated it. She already, metaphorically, put a kidney inside of another, and then a few months later is trying to take it back. That's murder.

My own 2 cents is that I am a dude, as such I cant have an abortion and its none of my bloody business if someone else wants to have one (or not).

My own 2 cents is that I am a dude, as such I cant have an abortion and its none of my bloody business if someone else wants to have one (or not).
If the woman was murdering your uncle, would it be your business then or no? If yes, then it's just another case of fetal life/non-life.

If the woman was murdering your uncle, would it be your business then or no? If yes, then it's just another case of fetal life/non-life.
Chill dude, if my uncle was inside the womans body, then its the womans business what she does with *her* body. I got no right to be judging her.

Chill dude, if my uncle was inside the womans body, then its the womans business what she does with *her* body. I got no right to be judging her.
It doesn't matter where he is. It would still be murder would it not? Or is he temporarily no longer living/human?

It doesn't matter where he is. It would still be murder would it not? Or is he temporarily no longer living/human?

If hes a fetus inside some chicks body hes her business dude, not mine- we gonna have to agree to disagree on this one bud ;)

Why the hell would we pass a law that only affects women when congress is full of wrinkly white men?

Why the hell would we pass a law that only affects women when congress is full of wrinkly white men?
Because it affects the children and their fathers as well. Which many Congressmen are.

In the final analysis sensible pro-choice legislation allows everyone to follow their beliefs in so far as it affects their bodies/families etc. Few rational people would ever suggest forcing a pro-life woman to violate her beliefs by terminating a pregnancy, yet there is the danger that banning abortion will force those views on everybody regardless of individual opinion (and let's face it, pro-choicers aren't even a fringe minority)

Pro-choice is exactly what it says; it allows people to make their own mind up and that is what democracy is supposed to be about.

Now I'm sure someone can come up with clever arguments as to why this isn't the case; fetuses are people yet have no voice so causing their deaths is 'murder'...a lot of that presupposes that concepts like murder are somehow absolute, which isn't the case. Never forget that murder is simply a legal/moral definition too.

Your friend did not put the grenade there. A pregnant woman has essentially already donated her blood, or a kidney, and then when she wants an abortion is saying she wants it back. That's why it's murder, you're giving someone to someone to let them live, then removing it without their consent.

Neither did the woman. The last I checked it took a man (well, a male at least) to make a baby.

And no, essetially, someone else came along and stole her blood or kidney, without her consent, and as far as I am concerned, she has the same right to demand it back that I do, violently if necessary.

If the woman was murdering your uncle, would it be your business then or no? If yes, then it's just another case of fetal life/non-life.

If my uncle required physical attachment to her body, and she no longer wished to provide it, then it would not be murder, and it would be none of my business (beyond providing a vocal objection). She would still have the same right to do so that I would.

There is no absolute definition of human. Scientifically, sterile people aren't human, since one of the components of life is the ability to progenate. Human is subjective, and the beginning and end of life arbitrary. Abortion is a debate based on personal belief without scientific support.

I personally don't feel abortion is the best method. However, the argument for Pro-Choice is in pretty easy to figure out. ITS IN THE NAME. All pro-choicers are pro-choice because they feel that moral judgements are only moral when left to the individual, and therefore should never be taken away by the government.

It doesn't matter where he is. It would still be murder would it not? Or is he temporarily no longer living/human?

Nope. If I require attachment to another human being for survival, and they do not wish to provide it (for whatever reason), it is not murder for them to refuse. I do not have the right to force that attachment on anyone else. A fetus certainly doesn't have that right, either.

Nope. If I require attachment to another human being for survival, and they do not wish to provide it (for whatever reason), it is not murder for them to refuse. I do not have the right to force that attachment on anyone else. A fetus certainly doesn't have that right, either.
What if they offered you that attachment, and rescinded it? You may be dependent on their kidney if you got a transplant, should they be able to take it back at a whim? It's the same thing.

Of course we can. Everyone assumes what they believe is right or they wouldn't believe. Some people truly believe black people aren't human, that doesn't mean anyone has to respect their views if they want to disagree with them rationally.

The government cannot force these people to say that blacks are human. Freedom of choice to believe what you want. The Klu Klux Klan is a blotch on mankind, but they have their right to believe what they want without interference from the government.

There, I compared women who get an abortion to Klansmen, does that deride women who enjoy sex enough for the tastes of the pro lifers in here?

What if they offered you that attachment, and rescinded it? You may be dependent on their kidney if you got a transplant, should they be able to take it back at a whim? It's the same thing.

Abortion a whim? You obviously have never known anyone who has had one.

What if they offered you that attachment, and rescinded it? You may be dependent on their kidney if you got a transplant, should they be able to take it back at a whim? It's the same thing.

It still would not be murder, I might not like it if they did, but they still have the right to rescind that attachment. And yes, I mean that even if it were me or my child. No one has the right to force another into physical servitude, for any reason. Even if it means they may die without it. Especially not a clump of cells without a brainstem.

This kidney analogy is getting old. The donated organ in pregnancy (the womb) remains inside the body of the mother, it never becomes a part of the fetus. Therefore she never 'gives' it to anyone. It's more like a lease or a borrowing. She has the right to deny that borrowing at any point in time. So no, it's not the same thing.

There, I compared women who get an abortion to Klansmen, does that deride women who enjoy sex enough for the tastes of the pro lifers in here?

It works better if you compare vehement pro-lifers. Since they are the ones espousing forcing mothers into slavery to the fetus.

Enough of this talk about the fetus. For me anyway, it has nothing to do with the fetus. It's about a woman's body and her right to do with it as she pleases.

A fetus may or may not be human. I don't know.

Women are humans. Definitely and positively. There is no confusion here.

Human beings have rights. A bunch of cells inside a human do not.

This is why it's impossible to come to a concensus with respect to abortion. The pro-lifers and the pro-choicers are simply having completely separate conversations.

I went through catholic school for 12 years before i decided that I'm pro-choice. It's somewhat funny because everyone I knew for those 12 years was either pro-life, or kept it to themselves to keep from pissing off the religion teacher.

For one, there's the situations like rape and incest where the pregnancy really is no fault of the woman. If abortion were outlawed, what happens to these situations when she has to endure a year of pain and hardships against her will? Nobody should make her decision for her. She's in a bad enough situation as it is.

It could even be a potentially life threatening situation. What gives the baby the right to life over the life of a productive member of society?

Then, of course, there is the view of whether or not the fetus is alive before birth. It really does depend on the viewpoint of the individual. The fetus feels no pain for a good deal of time into the pregnancy, and has no memory of being in the womb.

It may seem cruel to some, but the I personally place a higher value on the life of a woman. She contributes to society now where a baby won't be able to for another 25 years.

It's just a fact that people are going to get abortions. We might as well look at the bright side and improve the world through stem cell research. I was told(I haven't checked this, so tell me if i'm wrong) that polio was cured through stem cells.

Ok. Sorry for being long winded. That's my 2 cents.

What if they offered you that attachment, and rescinded it? You may be dependent on their kidney if you got a transplant, should they be able to take it back at a whim? It's the same thing.

That is in fact legal. I can demand a kidney back while they're in the process of putting it into the other person (if I somehow get into the surgery), and if blood is being directly transfused from me into another person, I can demand the connection be broken at any point.

If I remove consent for it to be put in another person (and it's not already in them), I get it back. A woman can say 'I want no more of my blood going to the infant, sever the connection', just like I can say 'I don't want to give any more blood, sever the connection'. It's the same thing here.

And like someone else pointed out, the womb never 'enters' the infant - so the mother can remove consent of donation at any point.

I cannot deny a woman a right to choose an abortion, since I allow myself the right to choose not to have one. It's as simple as that.

In not pro-abortion by any means, but I am pro-choice. Pro-choice in nearly all matters. I don't think any government bureau knows should be allowed to regulate what are purely private matters.

In not pro-abortion by any means, but I am pro-choice. Pro-choice in nearly all matters. I don't think any government bureau knows should be allowed to regulate what are purely private matters.

Precisely. I'm against almost all abortions, but I don't see why that should mean a damn thing to anyone else.

First I want to say that I don't base my pro-choice stance on whether or not I believe a fetus is human.

I'm pro-choice because I feel that if a woman/young girl becomes pregnant and one or more of the following are true or exist in their life, they should have the option and be able to make the desicion to have an abortion.

1. The mother leads an unhealthy lifestyle. ie, Continuous drug, alcohol or prescription drug use.

2. The mother doesn't posses the means to bring a child into this world and provide for it. ie, The mother doesn't have a job and doesn't have money. *Most likely in this case the mother would have to apply for welfare or some other state assistance.

3. The father is absent. ie, The mother doesn't know who the father is or the father doesn't want anything to do with the child.

4. Rape of any kind, whether it be by family member, a stranger or date rape. I can't imagine something like this happening to me and the laws being pro-life...everytime I looked at that child I would be reminded of the tragic horror.

5. If the mother and father aren't ready to have a child (or an additional child) ie, Finances don't allow, certain family issues or life changes.

Anyways, those are just a few reasons why I'm pro-choice. Plus, I don't think anyone has the right to tell another how to live their life or what would be good for them. This is the land of the free....everyone is free to make their own desicions, do what they feel is right for them or their family, and do what they feel is right for the current time in their life. If you're pro-choice, good for you. That's what you feel is right for you. If you're pro-life, good for you too. That's what you feel is right for you.

Note: This is not like a "please explain yourselves for the killing of millions" type of thread, I just want to get the pro-choice case...

Well I'm also pro-human extinction so uh.. ya know. less parasites known as humans is a great thing. The earth can't sustain this nasty blight we create.

If you have a child they're going to consume. Chances are they'll be little bastard consumerists, they'll eat meat, they'll drive a car, they'll be authoritarians and uphold a government such as the United States of America and they'll do everything they can to follow in the footsteps of us and destroy the environment, etc etc.

There are two main arguments which define my pro-choice stance.

First, they're going to happen regardless of whether or not they are legal. If they are kept legal, they will be done in safe, medical environments by trained professionals, and destigmatized to whatever extent the local culture allows. If, however, they are outlawed, they will take place either through back-door abortion clinics, which are held to no standards of medical accountability, or in "home abortion" scenarios, which are done with such terrible "tools" as coat hangars, drain cleaner, firearms, flights of stairs, and so forth. As such, either way, the woman's life is placed in danger, and the act is heavily stigmatized and made a shameful, traumatic secret. The other part of this picture is that it would disproportionally effect the poor; those women living in rich families who wanted an abortion acould simply leave the area/country for one in which the procedure was legal, and return.

The second argument is that really, the humanity of the fetus is still in question. We don't know how to classify it, but we do know that the woman is a human. Therefore, until and unless the humanity of the fetus is scientifically proven (and likely even after that), the rights of the woman trump those of the fetus.

There are other reasons I am pro-choice, including my long-held anarchist political viewpoint and a desire to further distance myself from the religious right in this country. However, the above two are the main ones. And, as some have already pointed out, it IS pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't think I've ever met someone who was actually pro-abortion, and indeed, the vast majority of the women who are pro-choice would never get an abortion themselves. They (and I) just don't want to impose a set morality on other people.

Even the Catholic Church is pro-choice but anti-abortion. JPI ex cathedra: "...the is issue of abortion is one of spanning such a moral grey area that it must be left up to the individual conscience as guided by God's Holy Spirit"

Even the Catholic Church is pro-choice but anti-abortion. JPI ex cathedra: "...the is issue of abortion is one of spanning such a moral grey area that it must be left up to the individual conscience as guided by God's Holy Spirit"
That's news to me. I was brainwashed for three years in a Catholic middle school and I was taught that abortion doctors are murderers and deserve the death penalty.

That's news to me. I was brainwashed for three years in a Catholic middle school and I was taught that abortion doctors are murderers and deserve the death penalty.
The Church's great wisdom does not automatically filter down to its lowest common denominators.

I'm for abortion for the same reason why I don't think that it’s murder then a guy yanks his sausage and causes it to spit.

In not pro-abortion by any means, but I am pro-choice. Pro-choice in nearly all matters. I don't think any government bureau knows should be allowed to regulate what are purely private matters.

Hear Hear. I would like to add, that I don't think people need 'parents' once they become adults (at least not the 'make all your decisions for you' aspect). Not from the government, not from a political party or religion, and certainly not from random people that have nothing to do with their situation.

Incorrect.

My stance does NOT rely on infants inside the womb 'not being human'.

My stance relies on the fact that in no other case can a person be forced against their will to donate an organ to save the life of another, even if that other is their own child, even if the child needs the organ due to the action of the parent.

No one has ever explained why this should change, and Arammanar, you are one of the people who has repeatedly avoided responding to me about the issue.

Could it be you simply can't rationalise it without admitting you're only out to punish the women for enjoying sex, and don't give a damn about the child after all?
EXACTLY. i would really like just one pro-life person to STICK TO THAT BLOODY QUESTION and answer it flat out. if i hit somebody with a car, damage their internal organs, and make it ESSENTIAL for them to get a kidney transplant, i cannot be forced to give them my own kidney even if i am a perfect match and they will die without the organ...so why the hell are people trying to give fetuses rights that no human being on the planet has?! if fetuses are humans, as the anti-choicers are saying, then why should we give them superhuman rights? come on, anti-choicers...stop side-stepping into other issues, stop diverting, stop chickening out, just ANSWER THE QUESTION:

why is it that the right to determine what happens to your own organs and tissues should ONLY be taken away from women who are pregnant? why is it that a born, developed human being does not have the right to co-opt my organs and fluids, but a "potential human" (i.e. a fetus) has the right to do just that?

And black people, unlike fetuses, can make choices for themselves so killing them or whatever is a violation of someone's civil rights.

And black people, unlike newborns, can make choices for themselves so killing them or whatever is a violation of someone's civil rights.

And black people, unlike elderly people who have been declared wards, can make choices for themselves...

I understand your desire to have a forum of your own, and I support that desire. I don't support abortion, but I agree that there should be a forum where pro-choicers can discuss things without pro-life inderference.

I just wanted to say that I posted on the "pro-lifers, defend yourselves" forum, and was jumped on by pro-choicers. I had I assumed that a thread so named would be used to allow pro-lifers to defend themselves without being rebuked, but I was wrong, obviously.

I just wanted to mention this little double standard...

You only see it as a double-standard because you apparently didn't see the thread that came before it. The other thread was entitled (I believe - it's been a while) "Pro-choicers, defend yourselves" and it basically asked "Why do you believe you can murder people?" instead of being halfway rational. There was then some 60 pages of people who are pro-choice getting bashed.

And of course, people like me who are both pro-choice and pro-life as it relates to abortion get bashed more than anyone else.

Your friend did not put the grenade there.

No, but they went somewhere where there might be grenades.

A pregnant woman has essentially already donated her blood, or a kidney, and then when she wants an abortion is saying she wants it back. That's why it's murder, you're giving someone to someone to let them live, then removing it without their consent.

No, she hasn't. She has done something that she knows *might* result in the use of her organs, but has not consented to the use of her organs. Thus, it is more like going to the doctor for an operation. It is certainly possible for any surgeon to remove your kidney, but if you did not consent to have it taken, it should not be taken. Then, when the doctor takes it, you want the damn thing back.

I am pro-choice for a very simple reason. My only reason for being anti-abortion is religious - namely, I believe in a soul and I know that the fetus gets one at some point in time. However, this is a purely religious viewpoint, and not one I can or would want to force upon other human beings. Thus, while I may try to convince a woman not to have an abortion, the ultimate choice must be hers.

The scientific viewpoint is that, at least up until the nervous system is functioning, the fetus cannot even be termed an organism, much less a human life. I support the fact that, in the US, elective abortions are only allowed up until this point. After that, health reasons must be present.

Neither did the woman. The last I checked it took a man (well, a male at least) to make a baby.

And no, essetially, someone else came along and stole her blood or kidney, without her consent, and as far as I am concerned, she has the same right to demand it back that I do, violently if necessary.

There is such a thing as implied consent. If she participates in activities which may lead to her impregnation, with full knowledge of the fact that such a thing may happen, she has no grounds to claim theft of her organs. She knew the risks when she signed up.

Please note that I'm referring only to pregnancies resulting from voluntary sex.

There is such a thing as implied consent. If she participates in activities which may lead to her impregnation, with full knowledge of the fact that such a thing may happen, she has no grounds to claim theft of her organs. She knew the risks when she signed up.

Please note that I'm referring only to pregnancies resulting from voluntary sex.
"Voluntary" sex is more of a spectrum. There's a whole range of pressure and conflicts, alcohol, husband-rape (yes it happens), faulty birth control pills, ripped condoms, etc.

But, at the center of the rebuttle to that, is the fact that even if the woman knows and willfully becomes pregnant, and then changes her mind, she STILL has grounds to claim theft.

If you CHOOSE to hook someone up to your body so that they are taking some of your blood, at ANY TIME you can legally decide to cut the connection, even though it results in the death of the other party.

Should be no different for pregnancy.

There is such a thing as implied consent. If she participates in activities which may lead to her impregnation, with full knowledge of the fact that such a thing may happen, she has no grounds to claim theft of her organs. She knew the risks when she signed up.

Please note that I'm referring only to pregnancies resulting from voluntary sex.

If I go into a nightclub where I know there are criminals, does that mean I have consented to be robbed/raped/murdered?

Pregnancy is possible from sex. It is a possibility that one should consider before having sex. But consent to sex does not equate to consent to pregnancy in any way.

If I go into a nightclub where I know there are criminals, does that mean I have consented to be robbed/raped/murdered?

Pregnancy is possible from sex. It is a possibility that one should consider before having sex. But consent to sex does not equate to consent to pregnancy in any way.
You have consented to put yourself in a dangerous situation, and that says you are prepared to deal with whatever may come your way (or, if not, that you are foolish). That is the implied consent.

You have consented to put yourself in a dangerous situation, and that says you are prepared to deal with whatever may come your way (or, if not, that you are foolish). That is the implied consent.
What total bull. Thats like saying that the girl who was wearing a short skirt walking down the road was asking for it simply because she had dressed provocatively.

It astounds me how we love to attck the victims

You have consented to put yourself in a dangerous situation, and that says you are prepared to deal with whatever may come your way (or, if not, that you are foolish). That is the implied consent.

Wow, you are the last person I would have pegged as a "blame-the-victim" type.

You have consented to put yourself in a dangerous situation, and that says you are prepared to deal with whatever may come your way (or, if not, that you are foolish). That is the implied consent.

Ah, but the point is, that abortion is a way to "deal with whatever may come your way". It's kind of like the skiiing analogy. Yes, it's dangerous, whether the person knows it or not. But if they break their leg, it's not like they can't get a doctor to set it. The comparison is that abortion is like the 20lb weight they drop to set the bone. It is not an 'easy' way out.