Abortion is immoral. Period.

Maybe we just have to accept that the sexual urge is too strong for most people to expect them to avoid consequences like pregnancy and abortion. But if that's the case, why do we expect strong men to be able to overcome the same urge to prevent sexual assault? Why can't restraint be expected for everyone, not just predators?

You're comparing a passionate act between two people to a violent act perpetrated upon a victim?

No, I'm comparing the ability to resist the sexual urge and refrain from acting on it in two situations defined very differently legally.

I'm saying that pregnancy and abortion are worth avoiding by abstaining from intercourse. But then you could argue that the sexual urge is too strong to abstain. So I'm saying if that's the case, then why isn't it too strong for predators to abstain from sexual assault? I.e. why can we expect some people to control their sexual urges for some reasons but not expect others to control theirs for others?

Think of it another way: you have pro-choice people claiming that women will die in botched backroom abortions if abortion is illegal. In other words, they're saying that if abortion is illegal, women will choose it anyway and risk their lives doing so, rather than abstain from intercourse.

Now what if you turned that argument around and said that some men are willing to go to jail and risk their lives rather than abstain from rape and that if you make sexual assault and harassment, etc. illegal then more men will just end up going to jail and losing their professional standing because they won't and maybe can't refrain from acting on their sexual urges.

Do you see the problem? If men can be expected to abstain from sex to prevent rape, then women (and men) can also be expected to abstain from sex to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

You're a very disturbed person. If you cannot tell the difference between a loving relationship that has a sexual component VERSUS a crime of violence, then you need more help than this forum can provide.

******* trolls suck.

That's rude. You're expecting me to deny that a fetus is a victim of assault when aborted. What right do you have to expect me to deny my beliefs about fetal victimhood?

I am not condoning violence in either case. You are the one who is getting angry that I dare to compare someone who gets an abortion with a sexual predator. Why right do you have to tell me what is assault and what isn't?

If I called you 'disturbed' for your views on abortion, you would feel offended wouldn't you?

You're one sick individual. Seek counceling.

It seems that you're arguing for the illegalization of abortion to prevent consensual, non-procreant sex. If that's the case, then why not cut to the chase and argue for the illegalization of consensual, non-procreant sex?

How can you prove whether people are having intercourse to procreate or not? With abortion, there is genetic material to establish who the father is.

I think it used to be a problem that scapegoats would be blamed for rape to protect men who were the actual culprits, but nowadays with DNA testing, you could prevent that from happening.

You don't know me, let alone understand me. You are just lashing out at me because you don't like the way I think.

So abortion is your proof of consensual, non-procreant sex. Would you illegalize the use of contraceptives and adoption to prevent consensual, non-procreant sex?

Why are asking me my views on 'non-procreant sex?' Are you implying that abortion has to be legal to protect 'non-procreant intercourse?' Isn't that like saying vehicular manslaughter has to be legal to protect driving?

Personally, I think when you keep risky activities like driving and 'non-procreant' sex legal, you are inviting their effects/consequences, but it is a different issue.

What you seem to be doing now is defending the legitimacy of 'non-procreant sex,' but are you arguing that the pain of dealing with unwanted pregnancy and/or abortion isn't a serious enough effect to warrant abstinence?

Do you think that having 'non-procreant intercourse' is worth going through unwanted pregnancy and/or abortion? I understand it feels good, but does it feel THAT good? I mean, it is really 'to die (or kill) for?'

So you want to prosecute women for an accidental pregnancy? For starters, you need to hire a GAL to represent the fetus. Since a woman isn't going to pay for the prosecution's case, that falls on the taxpayors. Then, proceed to Trial, in which case, abortion is legal and the charges will be dropped.

A waste of resources, time and energy.

It seems that that's the argument you're making.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, then the matter will go back to the states, the way it was before Roe v Wade. In Texas, where 'Jane Roe' was denied an abortion, abortion was legal with a police report of rape. Roe had reported rape but later admitted she was lying. In any case, she ended up not having the abortion and later she regretted having her case used to legalize abortion.

Now that Dna testing can protect men from being used as scapegoats to protect other men, you could have laws against abortion that would hold men accountable for causing the pregnancy.

So now you're asking what if the people involved get pregnant by accident, should that be a crime? Sex outside of wedlock used to be a crime, I think. Someone recently told me that there's a Turkish law that you have to wait six months for a divorce in case the woman is pregnant.

The traditional assumption with waiting until marriage for sex is that you are prepared for pregnancy to happen if you get married. Nowadays it is recognized that rape can occur within marriage, so a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, whose husband still gets her to have intercourse anyway, has been raped/coerced and so she could defer the liability for abortion to him that way. That would lead me to question how a man can prove that sex was consensual without getting some kind of documentation as proof, but that is another issue.

So, yes, if abortion is illegal and there is no claim/report of rape, then the woman would be taking sole responsibility for the abortion. I'm sure some cases will occur where women argue some form of insanity, just as there have been men who have tried to use insanity as a defense in cases of sexual assault.

That doesn't mean that accidental pregnancy would be illegal, though, although I guess anything can be outlawed if a legislature and executive agree to it and the courts don't overturn the law. There may be some constitutional reason pregnancy is protected against legal restrictions, though. That would be an interesting supreme court case if a state made a law against accidental pregnancy and it went to the supreme court. It could happen if, say, some state decides to limit the number of children eligible for public support, the way the Chinese government does, for example. In that case, the mother would probably sue the state for rejecting her support claim and then the court would have to decide if the fact the pregnancy was accidental would matter. I don't think it would, though, because that would imply somehow that getting pregnant by accident was better than getting pregnant intentionally, which wouldn't make sense. It's still a good question whether the constitution would allow governments to set limits to how many of a mother's children are eligible for support.

I think you try very hard to discredit men from taking responsibility for fatherhood. Maybe you watch too much Maury or think Jerry Springer is real.

Your book smart views do not account for human nature. You've set back women's rights 40 years but you've thrown men's rights back to the stone age.

If you knew Divorce law, you'd understand why a divorce takes place AFTER the birth of a child, to establish paternity and child support. But you don't know these things.

I'm tired of doing your research for you. You spew opinion but don't back any thing up with facts.

So, find out why both men and women have chosen to forego a legal marriage and still have children. Find out what happens when marital rape occurs and the judicial process of prosecution of the perpetrator and protection of the victim. Know and understand why female infanticide occurs in China. Research why women cannot even get a divorce in the Philippines. Talk to a sexual abuse survivor and ask if they would like to be prosecuted for an unplanned pregnancy.

See, you want to write a college thesis for us but you don't understand one damned thing you've written, It's time you grew up, matured your thoughts and quit preaching like you're a 16 yr old virgin. Unless, in fact, you are.

Why does female infanticide occur in China? And if we just made the abortion of female babies legal and accessible... would it solve the problem?

I thought this was a particularly odd example for you to use in a thread about abortion (abortion is a perfectly efficient way to perform gender selection).

Do your own research Max.

You made the statement, you are the primary source. I am doing my research by asking you to explain the apparent contradiction in your statement.

If women want to ensure that they have only boys, do they have the the right to choose gender selection abortions where they check the gender of the baby in the womb and end the pregnancy if it is a girl?

You made the statement.

Do your own research, Max.

I tried to do my own research. I googled "What the heck is Neptune talking about?". All I got were real estate listings and a Jimi Hendrix album.