A woman's right?

[dreama]

Women who have had abortions come from all walks of life. ... but despite their many differences, many were deceived and manipulated. Many were directly or indirectly forced into unwanted abortions. Still others were blackmailed or threatened, sometimes violently. It's no wonder that a growing number of women see abortion as a tool by which women have been abandoned and exploited.

For millions of women hurt by abortion it was never about free, fair or fully informed "choice."
It is often a demand, an ultimatum, a threat, a shell game or an unfair substitute for authentic support.

coercion is commonplace ...




The night I told him I was pregnant, he destroyed our apartment.
He was screaming at me, telling me I was a whore, slut, pig, you name it. He told me that the kid would be retarded, abnormal, and to get rid of it. NOW! The whole time he cornered me in the bedroom, throwing things and killing me with his words. ... He was so mean. ... His eyes were so black with anger. … The abortion ripped my world apart. – Mary, in Forbidden Grief



[My parents] ... told me to leave the house and forget that I was their daughter.

I left the house with no job, no money, no home and nowhere to turn, feeling utterly abandoned and alone. Still, I was certain I would not get an abortion. I wanted my child. ... my father sent several messages urging me to have an abortion. I refused. But as I began to feel more desperate, I shut down my feelings ... functioning more like a surreal observer than someone in control. ... No one explained to me the baby’s development or what the abortion would be like. ... I lay there just wishing that I could die. – Theresa Bonopartis

Most Abortions Are Unwanted

 

[jillio]

I think we're having two different arguments. I'm not trying to argue against abortion. I'm perfectly happy saying that I don't agree with it, and other people do. My issue is with how that right fits in with other laws and decisions about what we can regulate.

Actually, that would not result in a charge of "murder."

You cannot discuss life that has been in existence for a number of years as an argument for or against the potential for life. That is where you are confusing issues.

 

[jillio]

That word " abortion " is a terrible and even murder. It's an ugly choice to make.

You need to add, "in my opinion" to that statement. For many, many more, that statement is false.

And since it is nothing more than your opinion, you are free not to have an abortion. However, because it is nothing more than opinion, you are not free to force that same opinion on anyone else.

 

[jillio]

Most Abortions Are Unwanted

If you are going to use web pages to support your side, you would do much better to use credible ones, instead of emotionally manipulative ones.

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

well, Let say a woman health is at stae say she mentally unstable like retardation or paralyzed from the neck down or have deadly cancer, and should she keep the baby or abort it for health reasons? It a risk.

 

[lsfoster]

Such are the differences in gender that have existed, and will continue to exist as long as two genders exist. Roe v. Wade is one of the few rulings that have favored the female gender in the decision. When a man is capable of giving birth, Roe v. Wade will apply to him as well. At this point in time, however, because a man cannot give birth, the law is relatively gender specific.

Men decide they don't want a baby on a daily basis. That is the exact reason why we have so many children living in female headed households. They just don't have to undergo a medical procedure when they make their decision. They simply walk away.

Right, but that's exactly my point, they don't get the choice to just "walk away". If some guy got me pregnant, and I decided (by my own choice) that I wanted to have the baby, I can legally require him to pay child support for the next 18 years regardless of whether or not he wanted the baby. So where is his choice?

 

[jillio]

Right, but that's exactly my point, they don't get the choice to just "walk away". If some guy got me pregnant, and I decided (by my own choice) that I wanted to have the baby, I can legally require him to pay child support for the next 18 years regardless of whether or not he wanted the baby. So where is his choice?

He made his choice when he decided to have unprotected sex. He knew the possible consequences, and through his decision, accepted them.

 

[faire_jour]

He made his choice when he decided to have unprotected sex. He knew the possible consequences, and through his decision, accepted them.

But a woman is given the chance to decide after sex. A woman can decide to get an abortion, give the baby up for adoption, or keep it. A man doesn't have that choice.

 

[jillio]

But a woman is given the chance to decide after sex. A woman can decide to get an abortion, give the baby up for adoption, or keep it. A man doesn't have that choice.

And like I said, such are the gender differences that have existed since the beginning of man. Some things are biologically impossible for a woman, therefore she has no choice in those matters. Some things are biologically impossible for a man, therefore he has no choice in those matters.

 

[KarissaMann05]

I apologetic for what happened eariler and I didn't get in time to manage that one. Usually, I don't take a link to 'attack'/push their belief in mine/bring them down/etc and I just tend to post a link in my interest community/club. I didn't realize until this morning... I now did take it under control... Again, I'm sorry for what happened and didn't make it in time, due to my illness today (now, I'm somewhat okay-okay).

 

[jillio]

I apologetic for what happened eariler and I didn't get in time to manage that one. Usually, I don't take a link to 'attack'/push their belief in mine/bring them down/etc and I just tend to post a link in my interest community/club. I didn't realize until this morning... I now did take it under control... Again, I'm sorry for what happened and didn't make it in time, due to my illness today (now, I'm somewhat okay-okay).

I'm sorry you haven't been feeling well, Karissa.

 

[lsfoster]

He made his choice when he decided to have unprotected sex. He knew the possible consequences, and through his decision, accepted them.

Here's why I think this is a really poor argument to use in this case: "She made her choice when she decided to have unprotected sex. She knew the possible consequences, and through her decision, accepted them."

How are those any different? If you stand by one and not the other, that's a really inconsistent treatment of people. Granted, the consequences are not the same for both people involved (in one case nine months of pregnancy, and in the other 18 years of legally mandated payments), but I don't think you can just say that one of them should be held accountable and not the other.

You also stated in a previous post that:

If you disagree with prositution, don't hire one. If you disagree with dog racing, don't attend one. If you disagree with abortion, don't have one. It really is a very simple concept. If you want the right to make personal and private decisions regarding your own life, then you cannot attempt to restrict the rights of another that may choose differently that you yourself would. Restrict another's choice, and you also loose your right to choose.

That doesn't seem to match up. If you want women to be able to choose not to have anything to do with the baby they conceived, how can you advocate not giving that same choice to men?

 

[jillio]

Here's why I think this is a really poor argument to use in this case: "She made her choice when she decided to have unprotected sex. She knew the possible consequences, and through her decision, accepted them."

How are those any different? If you stand by one and not the other, that's a really inconsistent treatment of people. Granted, the consequences are not the same for both people involved (in one case nine months of pregnancy, and in the other 18 years of legally mandated payments), but I don't think you can just say that one of them should be held accountable and not the other.

You also stated in a previous post that:


That doesn't seem to match up. If you want women to be able to choose not to have anything to do with the baby they conceived, how can you advocate not giving that same choice to men?

No, they are not different, except in the fact that gender is involved. A woman who has unprotected sex knows that a possible consequence of her actions is becoming pregnant, and as such, will either have to carry the pregnancy to term or abort. All women are aware of this. It is a risk they take when they decide to have unprotected sex. It is a gender specific risk.

Likewise, a man who has unprotected sex understands that a possible risk of his actions is that his partner will conceive a child. He also understands that he will not be responsible for carrying that baby to term or deciding to abort. When he accepts that risk, he also accepts the consequence of putting that decision squarely on the woman's shoulders. He also understands that should she desire to carry that pregnancy to term, and deliver a live fetus, he will be held legally responsible for the finanacial support of that child.Again, it is a gender specific risk.

Men accept a specific set of risks for engaging in unprotected sex, and women accept a specific set of risks for engaging in unprotected sex. Until you find a way to make biology of the sexes identical, that is simply the way it is. Law must be decided based on the risks that are currently a part of that specific gender.

I can advocate for women's choice because the risks are gender specific.

Perhaps we should all worry more about children that are being conceived without the couple desiring a pregnancy, and advocate for personal responsibility for all sexes...something I do advocate for. Until the time, however that all people accept personal responsibility for protecting themselves, the laws decided for dealing with those consequences will continue to be gender specific because the risk inherent is gender specific.

You seem to forget that the principle behind Roe v Wade was the issue of privacy between a woman and her physician. Since the medical procedure is not performed on the man, he has no right to interfere with that issue of confidentiality, just as a woman has to right to interfere in the confidentiality of a man (could be her husband) who goes to his doctor to request a vascectomy.

 

[Maria]

He made his choice when he decided to have unprotected sex. He knew the possible consequences, and through his decision, accepted them.

That is your POOR quote to say. It is NOT choice. It's a man and a woman's RESPONSIBILITY to use protected methods such as birth control pill, or condom or other different way to avoid gettin' pregnant. Not just only " him ", but it is BOTH and they BOTH should discuss about it before engagin'.

 

[lsfoster]

No, they are not different, except in the fact that gender is involved. A woman who has unprotected sex knows that a possible consequence of her actions is becoming pregnant, and as such, will either have to carry the pregnancy to term or abort. All women are aware of this. It is a risk they take when they decide to have unprotected sex. It is a gender specific risk.

Likewise, a man who has unprotected sex understands that a possible risk of his actions is that his partner will conceive a child. He also understands that he will not be responsible for carrying that baby to term or deciding to abort. When he accepts that risk, he also accepts the consequence of putting that decision squarely on the woman's shoulders. He also understands that should she desire to carry that pregnancy to term, and deliver a live fetus, he will be held legally responsible for the finanacial support of that child.Again, it is a gender specific risk.

Men accept a specific set of risks for engaging in unprotected sex, and women accept a specific set of risks for engaging in unprotected sex. Until you find a way to make biology of the sexes identical, that is simply the way it is. Law must be decided based on the risks that are currently a part of that specific gender.

I can advocate for women's choice because the risks are gender specific.

Perhaps we should all worry more about children that are being conceived without the couple desiring a pregnancy, and advocate for personal responsibility for all sexes...something I do advocate for. Until the time, however that all people accept personal responsibility for protecting themselves, the laws decided for dealing with those consequences will continue to be gender specific because the risk inherent is gender specific.

You seem to forget that the principle behind Roe v Wade was the issue of privacy between a woman and her physician. Since the medical procedure is not performed on the man, he has no right to interfere with that issue of confidentiality, just as a woman has to right to interfere in the confidentiality of a man (could be her husband) who goes to his doctor to request a vascectomy.

Well that just doesn't make any sense. "the laws decided for dealing with those consequences will continue to be gender specific because the risk inherent is gender specific." Exactly. The person who is taking the biggest risk is the woman. To say that simply because she is taking a bigger risk than the man means that somehow he can have unrelated consequences imposed on him goes completely against the idea of "gender specific risks". It is specific to women. Why invent a risk for men that actually takes away the choice you're saying everyone should have?

And I don't see how I could be forgetting the principle behind Roe v. Wade, since I haven't said anything about it. I know what Roe v. Wade was about, and I know what decision they made. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. I know the principle behind Prop 8 also, and I know that it won the vote. It doesn't mean that I have to believe it is right.

But that's kind of beside the point. I'm not arguing Roe v. Wade. In that post, I wasn't even arguing about abortions. I'm arguing that you say everyone should have a choice, and that the laws aren't going to be fair because the gender of the person affects the consequences they have to deal with, but at the same time, you don't seem to have any problem taking that choice away from men. How is what you're advocating any different than banning abortions? You think a woman should have a choice not to deal the with consequences of her actions. Fine. I say give a man that same choice.

Once again, my biggest problem with all of this is consistency.

 

[jillio]

That is your POOR quote to say. It is NOT choice. It's a man and a woman's RESPONSIBILITY to use protected methods such as birth control pill, or condom or other different way to avoid gettin' pregnant. Not just only " him ", but it is BOTH and they BOTH should discuss about it before engagin'.

It most certainly is choice. If you choose to have unprotected sex, you choose to accept the consequences that go along with it. Those consequences are different for men and women. If you choose not to be responsible, then you also choose to accept the consequences of behaving in an irresponsible manner.

 

[lsfoster]

It most certainly is choice. If you choose to have unprotected sex, you choose to accept the consequences that go along with it. Those consequences are different for men and women. If you choose not to be responsible, then you also choose to accept the consequences of behaving in an irresponsible manner.

But see, one of the consequences might be getting pregnant. You don't seem to think that they should have to accept those consequences if they're a woman.

 

[jillio]

Well that just doesn't make any sense. "the laws decided for dealing with those consequences will continue to be gender specific because the risk inherent is gender specific." Exactly. The person who is taking the biggest risk is the woman. To say that simply because she is taking a bigger risk than the man means that somehow he can have unrelated consequences imposed on him goes completely against the idea of "gender specific risks". It is specific to women. Why invent a risk for men that actually takes away the choice you're saying everyone should have?

And I don't see how I could be forgetting the principle behind Roe v. Wade, since I haven't said anything about it. I know what Roe v. Wade was about, and I know what decision they made. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. I know the principle behind Prop 8 also, and I know that it won the vote. It doesn't mean that I have to believe it is right.

But that's kind of beside the point. I'm not arguing Roe v. Wade. In that post, I wasn't even arguing about abortions. I'm arguing that you say everyone should have a choice, and that the laws aren't going to be fair because the gender of the person affects the consequences they have to deal with, but at the same time, you don't seem to have any problem taking that choice away from men. How is what you're advocating any different than banning abortions? You think a woman should have a choice not to deal the with consequences of her actions. Fine. I say give a man that same choice.

Once again, my biggest problem with all of this is consistency.

The consequences are not unrelated. They are inherent. The law is very consistent. Women have the legal right to make decisions regarding their reproductive rights, and men have the legal right to make decisions regarding their reproductive rights. Those rights are different because men and women are biologically different. You are attempting to reduce biological difference to no difference. When you are able to do that effectivley, perhaps you will have a valid argument. Since you can't negate the fundamental biological differences between men and women, your point is moot.

And, since Roe v Wade is the decision that guaranteed the right to privacy between a woman and her physician, and abortion is a medical procedure, you cannot leave it out of the argument when you are discussing the laws permitting abortion.

And, if you are discussing the morality of such, the law is specific on that as well. You have the moral freedom not to choose an abortion. Others have the moral freeedom to make a different choice, if it so suits them.

 

[jillio]

But a woman is given the chance to decide after sex. A woman can decide to get an abortion, give the baby up for adoption, or keep it. A man doesn't have that choice.

And a man knows that when he engages in unprotected sex, the same as a woman knows what her consequences may be and what her alternatives for dealing with those consequences are.

 

[lsfoster]

The consequences are not unrelated. They are inherent. The law is very consistent. Women have the legal right to make decisions regarding their reproductive rights, and men have the legal right to make decisions regarding their reproductive rights. Those rights are different because men and women are biologically different. You are attempting to reduce biological difference to no difference. When you are able to do that effectivley, perhaps you will have a valid argument. Since you can't negate the fundamental biological differences between men and women, your point is moot.

And, since Roe v Wade is the decision that guaranteed the right to privacy between a woman and her physician, and abortion is a medical procedure, you cannot leave it out of the argument when you are discussing the laws permitting abortion.

And, if you are discussing the morality of such, the law is specific on that as well. You have the moral freedom not to choose an abortion. Others have the moral freeedom to make a different choice, if it so suits them.

inherent –adjective
1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute

I don't think there's a good way to say that money is inherent to sex. And I'm not reducing biological different to no difference, you are. The biological difference is that women have potential consequences from sex. Biologically. Men don't. You're saying that I shouldn't negate the differences between men and women, but you are essentially advocating taking away the consequences for women, and imposing new ones on men. That, to me, makes no sense.

And I'm not trying to argue the morality. That is just a dangerous and pointless road to walk down, I don't see why either of us would change our minds. I'm just trying to point out the inconsistency and sometimes illogical nature of the laws surrounding this.