9 reasons abortion MUST remain legal.

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Pippy!!!!
I understand it all too well. It's the reason why 7 years ago I sacrificed my vas deferens.
I wonder; maybe you can give me your opinion; wnen my daughter was born, my ex-wife didn't want her placed on her chest to bond with her. My daughter bonded with me. No, they didn't place her on my chest, but after I cut the cord, she was given to me to take her to the table where she was cleaned up. She held my finger all through the time she was being cleaned up, and it was my voice the one she first heard.
You think this is why she's closer to me than she is to her mother?

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
Right church, wrong pew. Ink, there's no shortage of people procreating. It's reached epidemic levels. What's missing is the care for those that ARE already here. So many little ones go to bed hungry - that's assuming they even have beds.
You seem to have a hard time believing that couples have sex without the least intention of "procreating". Yet so many do. In fact the majority. Not to get personal, but if all the times you've had sex - did you do so to get pregnant? Or more likely, it was the last thing on your mind? Unless... okay seemingly infertile couples are goal oriented. That's quite a bit different and much less common.(Albeit, it's an increasing problem for some and for reasons I do not understand.)

shovelhead72 wrote:

<quoted text> Frankly, if there are going to be laws prohibiting a woman from getting an abortion, there SHOULD be laws mandating the man get her written permission, signed by her, and witnessed by an officer of the court, before he may impregnate her. Penalties, including monetary restitution, for breaking this law would be equitable as well, and involve imprisonment and / or sterilization for those who are repeat offenders.

hwyangel wrote:

<quoted text>
Rape is illegal. In fact in America we have a zero tolerance for rape. A woman only need call 911 and give a name or description and the police are obligated to arrest him. If she has been raped and chooses not to exercise her legal right she puts other women in danger.

Judged:

1

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't find the connection between what I posted and what you answered.

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Now that would take care of the problem of women getting pregnant when they don't want to. It is an assault of sorts and the woman should be protected by law.

shovelhead72 wrote:

<quoted text>Especially if she has no legal recourse (namely abortion) for any pregnancy she conceives against her will (namely, from protected sex, when that protection fails.)

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Even if she does as it involves an inconvenience at the very least.

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
Ink, I'm not sure why so many dismiss pregnancy as just a temporary inconvenience. It's a miserable experience for many and the list of reasons why are endless... including, but not limited to loss of income (financial), but also health related. If she does not want it - out it will come - by means fair or foul.

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Even if she does as it involves an inconvenience at the very least.

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Cite the case, or statute that puts that legal responsibility on men.
And please, do not confuse a man's responsibility for support of his kid(s) with responsibility for his decision to procreate, because a man does not have a choice in procreation, other than abstenance.
When a woman has sex, and has taken reasonable precautions to avoid pregnancy, she has a reasonable belief the encounter will not result in pregnancy. And if it does, he still has no decision on the underlying matter; she alone does. And this is true, even if the couple is married.
It is just her body being affected by the pregnancy. His is not, unless you count having to put up with the foray of hormonal changes which she, more likely than not, will take out on him.

shovelhead72 wrote:

<quoted text>Ink, I feel you're just being contentious here - why do 'pro-life' folks continue to hammer on this 'inconvenience' bit, as if the decision to abort is equivalent to replacing a pair of ruined nylons, or misplacing an earring? The vast majority of women DO NOT abort simply because they don't want to be pregnant that day - it's a decision carefully weighed against all the obstacles bearing a child inherently poses to THE REST OF A WOMANS LIFE. She'll never again be 'her own person', for once that child is born, she will for ever after be HIS or HER mother. Belonging to another person, giving oneself completely over to the needs of that someone else, is a HUGE responsibility, and most women who seek an abortion realize that it's a responsibility they're not presently prepared to accept. That is not 'inconvenience'; it is reason, logic, and self-awareness. And if a woman knows she's not ready to be a mother, who are we to second-guess her, affecting not only her life, but the life of the living BREATHING child she would then be obligated to bear?

hwyangel wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously sex education isn't working if people can still pull the stupid card.

hwyangel wrote:

Sex leads to conception . When two consenting adults have sex knowing that sex leads to conception, how can they not be responsible for their decision? Men have been beat over the head for centuries with "I didn't make this baby by myself" and "it takes two". So let me say that again for you, "you did not make this baby by yourself" and "it takes two".

shovelhead72 wrote:

<quoted text>Does this mean you have no rejoinder to the assertion that you were completely incorrect?

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
Red! Do you have any idea why Ink is posting about making impregnation something not legal? I could ask her directly - but if I thought my posts were off the wall yesterday, hers are trumping mine.(She saw my ante and raised me.)
You seem to have insight where Ink is concerned. Frankly, I'm stumped and ready to fold.

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Back to step one. Women want to have sex but they don't want to get pregnant, right? Well why should men be allowed to get them pregnant if they don't want a baby? What else can a man do to a woman that she doesn't want. This could be a civil rights case.

Judged:

1

1

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
Red! Do you have any idea why Ink is posting about making impregnation something not legal? I could ask her directly - but if I thought my posts were off the wall yesterday, hers are trumping mine.(She saw my ante and raised me.)
You seem to have insight where Ink is concerned. Frankly, I'm stumped and ready to fold.

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's break this down.
1) Women want to have sex - some do, some don't, but okay.
2) Women don't want to get pregnant - some do, some don't.
3) Men want to have sex - some do, some don't, but okay.
4) Men don't necessarily want to father a child - some do.
So, what I'm seeing is that men and women enjoy sex for sex's sake and not all the participants are interested in parenthood. Conception is not always guaranteed and in fact the odds are against it most of the time. Although it does only take once.
How do you propose to remove an activity that is pleasurable for the majority of the population that typically has little or no repercussions?