|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:17 am
|
|
|
|
OK, so the case Roe v Wade ruled that a woman is allowed to get an abortion without the consent of the father of her child. I was recently debating with a teacher at my school (who is also an attorney) when an interesting point came up that I don't hear often. ~ OK, so according to Roe v Wade, women are allowed to have abortion ebcause it is the woman's body. Being her body, she has the final say. However, by this logic, wouldn't it be the woman's fault if she got pregnant? It's her body and she controls it. If it is her fault that she got pregnant and she gets to choose whether the baby lives or dies, why should she be the only parent that needs to be involved at that phase? It's up to her then, because it is her issue and her body, but it becomes the father's issue as well when she has to pay child support. If the father doesn't neccessarily get to be involved in the choice of the baby's life and death, then the mother should have no right to make him involved when it is cutting into her money. If she didn't want to risk having a baby, she shouldn't have sex. She could refuse to consent, and then she wouldn't get pregnant. And if she did, that would be rape and it wouldn't be her fault. (Thhe whole 'it's her body, so it's her fault' thing would fit except for extreme circumstances, such as rape and molestation.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:04 pm
|
|
|
|
prideofthepeaches What do you mean, not reasonable? They don't have to report the incident, or even say whose sperm it is that they have in them. They just need to get to some doctor or clinic within 24 hours and get the routine done, it's that simple. No need to wait until the egg has been fertilized, just do it right then. Like I said, simple.
No, what I'm saying is removing the semen isn't as easy the woman simply going to an abortion clinic. For example, if its a child thats raped the child obviously wouldnt be able, especially if its a family member who raaped the child, to be able to go to an abortion clinic. In situations where a person is abducted or if they're rapist is in complete control they aren't given that oppurtunity.
And what about when the woman is drugged and not aware that she was raped?
For teenagers who may have made a mistake, for example if the condom broke or in the rare instances where the pill doesn't work. What then?
Obviously you arent concidering all of the possibilities, or you're just looking over them.
As for the 'its your body its your fault' thing I believe thats unreasonable. People will have sex. To believe any different is laughable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:59 pm
|
|
|
|
If a child happens to be born from a drugged rape (which is highly uncommon), it's not like the child will have a terrible life, even if they get adopted, which is not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. Sure, there's some abusive adopters, but it really is uncommon. Besides, if that's really a concern, there are reforms that can be made and precautions that can be taken to reduce that possibility. Also, I do believe that it's more important who someone is than who they come from... don't you?
You also brought up incestous rape. This does, in fact, make up less than one percent of abortions. So how can that small number be justification for the great majority that are simply for the purpose of adults' birth control? And if they are unable to visit a clinic, then... that seems to negate that argument, as the girl can't get herself an abortion anyway. neutral
As for your "people have sex" statement, people should be prepared to accept the consequences of having sex in the first place. The central idea behind sex is reproduction, which actually involves giving birth. So why take the risk if they don't want to give birth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:53 pm
|
|
|
|
prideofthepeaches If a child happens to be born from a drugged rape (which is highly uncommon), it's not like the child will have a terrible life, even if they get adopted, which is not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. Sure, there's some abusive adopters, but it really is uncommon. Besides, if that's really a concern, there are reforms that can be made and precautions that can be taken to reduce that possibility. Also, I do believe that it's more important who someone is than who they come from... don't you? You also brought up incestous rape. This does, in fact, make up less than one percent of abortions. So how can that small number be justification for the great majority that are simply for the purpose of adults' birth control? And if they are unable to visit a clinic, then... that seems to negate that argument, as the girl can't get herself an abortion anyway. neutral As for your "people have sex" statement, people should be prepared to accept the consequences of having sex in the first place. The central idea behind sex is reproduction, which actually involves giving birth. So why take the risk if they don't want to give birth?
Excuse me, I didnt mean to say the child wouldnt have the oppurtunity to go to an abortion clinic, but that they may not get the oppurtunity to remove the sperm.
I used incestous rape as an example of when the victim doesnt have the oppurtunity to get the sperm removed. Did you not say that rape is not an excuse when the sperm can be removed within 24 hours? The victim may eventually be able to go to a clinic, but to expect everyone to have that oppurtunity isnt really fair.
As for the sex comment, plenty of people don't even concider pregnancy when they think of sex. The majority of adults have sex long before marriag, which I believe is perfectly natural. People will have sex, often times without concidering the consequences of what happens if that condom breaks. I'm not saying the parents shouldnt be held responsible, its just they shouldnt be condemned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|