Abortion is immoral. Period.

This is true now, but I suspect it is going to change in the next few years.

Assuming that a woman's control over her own bodily function is outlawed, what's to stop the law from charging a woman with reckless disregard for the wellbeing of a child should she decide to smoke cigarettes while she is pregnant?

There are all sorts of “fun” ways to cause a miscarriage. If you can, ask your grandmothers.

Why haven't you responded to what I am saying, that women get pressured into abortions, 'choosing choice,' as well as sexual intercourse by men? Why won't you admit that restricting abortion would take that pressure off women?

A few years ago there was a lot published about how women are under pressure to engage in sexual intercourse. Even just the fact that men won't want to date you if you're a 'prude' means that women are pressured into being sex-positive and pro-choice because if they don't, men will pass them up to find a woman who is.

If men realized they cannot expect women to consent to abortion, then they have to enter into a relationship either open to the possibility of pregnancy and having a child OR they must be completely intent on abstaining from intercourse. And it wouldn't matter which woman so they would have to focus on other reasons to have a relationship besides sex partnership. Wouldn't that liberate women to interact with men on other levels besides the willingness to engage in intercourse and to submit to birth control and abortion?

The other good thing would be that if men really did want sex, they would have to first come to terms with the prospect of fatherhood before acting on their desire. So now instead of men pressuring women to have sex and have abortions, they are selling themselves as fathers; and if a woman isn't interested in the man as a father for her children, she can just say that she's not ready for having kids yet and then, without drama, they both move on to look for other people to date.

There's a lot going on in your post.

Yes, SOME women do get pressured into having sex. So in those terms, it's like you're saying that the women who choose to have sex under certain pressure means that procreation is the ONLY reason they do it, to trap a man into unwilling fatherhood. That may or may not be true. I can't speak for all women but I don't think that's the majority of the case.

But you're also negating the women that have an active libido and WANT to have sex. In which case, procreation is the furthest from any body's mind. Precautions with birth control and condoms can mitigate pregnancy and transmittable diseases. What you're saying is parenthood is the first thought for why people have sex, and I reject that notion.

So do I.

Onan on, onan on, onan on.

Keep killing future visionaries and those who would find the cure for cancer.

Bill'**** the nail on the head.

Why haven't you responded to my question?

Like neptuneblue said, some not all women get pressured into sex.

Restricting abortion would not take that pressure off women. You're conflating abortion, the right to abortion and sexual intercourse. You are making leaps of logic.



Your argument is based on a lot of assumptions. Abortion isn't the only means of birth control. It isn't only men that opt for birth control. Women also voluntarily engage in sex for purposes other than procreation.

You then jump from these assumptions to a proposal to limit sexual activity to procreational purposes.

One person here has argued about the humanity behind the anti-abortion argument and that this argument should be respected. There is no humanity behind your anti-abortion argument. In fact, your argument inhumanely dismisses the humanistic aspect of sexuality. I suspect yours is the basis and typical of the anti-abortion movement. I reject your argument.

When I was young, I thought that good birth-control prevents the need for abortion without limiting sexual intercourse. When you really want something, you diminish in your mind the small chance of it going wrong. But as I got older I realized that things, including sexual intercourse, occur in patterns. The safer you think you are engaging in intercourse, the freeer you feel to do it, and the more you do it, the more lottery tickets for pregnancy you are effectively buying. If you buy enough lottery tickets, you will eventually win, and with intercourse and pregnancy, 'winning' means pregnancy.

That is the reason abortion exists, i.e. because birth control can never be 100% effective. So if you are with a partner who doesn't want to have an abortion, you either have to be prepared to have a child on the off chance that she gets pregnant, or you have to give up intercourse. You can minimize the risk of pregnancy and maybe she'll never get pregnant, but in the event that she does, you absolutely have to be prepared for that because parenthood is a serious thing.

So while I appreciate what you're saying, that intercourse has other purposes than procreation, there are only two choices where pregnancy is concerned, accept parenthood or accept abortion. Since you cannot force a partner who is against abortion to accept it, you have to accept parenthood if you want to have a sexual relationship with that person. This is also true for a woman whose partner doesn't accept abortion. I.e. she can't just tell him she never got pregnant while secretly having abortions, at least not without deeply disrespecting him as a sex partner.

Now, you say if a person, male or female, doesn't want to abort pregnancies, they can look for a partner who feels the same way and leave everyone else with the choice to abort. Here is where you run into the problem of women feeling pressure to 'choose choice.' Why? Because the pro-choice culture is popular due to the addictive nature of sexual pleasure when it is divorced from the risk of pregnancy. So the pro-sex culture grew/grows as a result of birth control, and it becomes more and more difficult for people who don't accept abortion to find partners. This puts women under pressure to 'choose choice,' i.e. to increase their possibility of finding a relationship. Surely you can see that this is a very negative aspect of abortion and birth control, akin to creating a culture of rape in the sense that Andrea Dworkin and some other feminists wrote about it, can you not?

Pregnancy is a natural byproduct of sexual intercourse. They are two sides of the same coin. Trying to separate them also separates people from their natural sexuality, which connects romantic love with love for children. Women taking hormones and surgically removing fetal tissue when it forms are forms of violence against women's bodies. To call it a woman's choice to oppress and mutilate her own natural bodily functioning in order to submit to an artificial (re)construction of sexuality that serves primarily a hedonistic vision of intercourse that has traditionally commodified women as prostitutes for the pleasure of the men they are forced to depend on for economic well-being is perverse.

You keep coming back to the same assumptions and leaps of logic from which you base your conclusions. Your conclusions are fallacious.

I assume that means you are not going to respond to them by reflecting on the reality of what I am describing.

You've merely restated this post of yours that I responded to in this post of mine.

You, on the other hand, have yet to answer this question that I posed to you.

One additional comment I'll make is that you completely ignore the option of adoption when you make your false dichotomy about, there being "only two choices where pregnancy is concerned, accept parenthood or accept abortion."

so faaaaaaaaaaar down the line on what sex has been/is about in my life

jaysus murphy

women like sex

it's a very very good fun thing

sex is about pleasure, joy and hopefully some laughter

women are pressured?

Of course women like sex. Everyone likes sex because we are living organisms designed with a sex drive for the sake of reproduction.

The issue is whether women are really liberated by Roe v. Wade, which didn't legalize abortion (because it was already legal). What RvW did was to eliminate the requirement of a rape-report, which would shift the blame to the man. In short, women were given full responsibility and moral culpability for abortion, and thus men were absolved of it.

That gave men a sense of entitlement to expect women to 'choose choice,' and those who didn't would be considered prudes. Many women are not prudes but they don't want to submit to abortion, many also don't want to take hormones or other artificial birth control. These women are often pressured by men toward these methods, which are worse than abstinence and the rhythm method for their bodies and sexual enjoyment, because (many) men want sex to revolve around their desires and they want to shrug away abortion as something meaningless.

I think RoevWade did a bad thing by prohibiting states from holding men accountable for irresponsible sexual behavior. Women are able to manage their sexuality in a way that avoids pregnancy if they aren't dealing with male pressure to engage in risky behavior at risky times of the month. If a woman gets pregnant against her will, it is likely because she was in fear of some sort of retaliation or losing her lover if she refused intercourse. As such, it seems reasonable to me that women can report rape in the event they are seeking abortion.

Abortion should be illegal simply because pregnancy is something everyone tries to avoid if they aren't in the market for children. If abortion were something that is naturally legal, then no one would feel any apprehension about getting pregnant whatsoever, because they could just get an abortion. That's not how it works. Unwanted pregnancy is a byproduct of irresponsible behavior, and it causes harm on many levels not limited to the fetus, who is getting pulled out its natural growth medium like a worm pulled out of the soil and poked with a hook. It may not be the same thing as murdering a human with a fully-developed nervous system, but it is wrong to protect abortion as if there was nothing harmful about it whatsoever.