26 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, those are anomalies , once again using the extreme cases for general occurrences . 

  We aren't  talking about abortions on medical grounds where the woman could be harmed if she went ahead with the pregnancy 

   We are talking about general normal pregnancies where there is no risk to the woman or unborn baby 

No we are not.

 

We are discussing a woman’s right to abortion.

 

I have explained precisely why all conditions of pregnancy must be considered and precisely the risks that arise if the full spectrum of pregnancy outcomes are not considered.

In the US as a man I don't have the right to walk up to a woman and say "here's some money, let's have sex".

 

However, any woman should have the right to decide unilaterally to flush her own (and the disenfranchised father's) unborn life down the toilet.

 

So I'd say well-deserved. Let the fems have a taste of their own medicine.

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No we are not.

 

We are discussing a woman’s right to abortion.

 

I have explained precisely why all conditions of pregnancy must be considered and precisely the risks that arise if the full spectrum of pregnancy outcomes are not considered.

I haven't been following he case too closely ,

Have abortions on medical grounds been banned ?

I though the topic was females who got pregnant and just didn't want the baby and so aborted it .

  I didn't realise that Females who have medical conditions that could harm with her or the baby have been banned from having abortions .

   If a Doctor gives an opinion that the pregnancy  could be harmful to the Mother , then yes the abortion should be allowed . 

  I didnt realise that abortions on medical grounds have been banned 

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I haven't been following he case too closely ,

Have abortions on medical grounds been banned ?

I though the topic was females who got pregnant and just didn't want the baby and so aborted it .

  I didn't realise that Females who have medical conditions that could harm with her or the baby have been banned from having abortions .

   If a Doctor gives an opinion that the pregnancy  could be harmful to the Mother , then yes the abortion should be allowed . 

  I didnt realise that abortions on medical grounds have been banned 

I suggest you do a bit more reading.

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I haven't been following he case too closely ,

Have abortions on medical grounds been banned ?

I though the topic was females who got pregnant and just didn't want the baby and so aborted it .

  I didn't realise that Females who have medical conditions that could harm with her or the baby have been banned from having abortions .

   If a Doctor gives an opinion that the pregnancy  could be harmful to the Mother , then yes the abortion should be allowed . 

  I didnt realise that abortions on medical grounds have been banned 

And therein lies the problem.   Medical grounds is not well-defined.  Generally, it is stated that a pregnancy can be terminated if it endangers the life of the mother.  That, depending on the court that might get involved, might be a very high bar to overcome.   It may well not include serious damage to the mother, including her inability to have more children.   

 

I suspect many, if not most, doctors are not going to risk jail time and expensive court battles over the definition of 'endangered'.   I am almost positive most of the hospitals that are run by large medical conglomerates will not allow them on their premises.   They would probably pay less for refusing and having a woman die and a one-time payout than the massive cost of fighting it out in court.   

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suggest you do a bit more reading.

If a doctor has given an opinion that it would be better for an abortion on medical grounds, I don't think that the law should intervene and over rule the medical opinion and force the endangered Woman to continue with the pregnancy 

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If a doctor has given an opinion that it would be better for an abortion on medical grounds, I don't think that the law should intervene and over rule the medical opinion and force the endangered Woman to continue with the pregnancy 

The operative word is 'opinion'.   Terminating a pregnancy is time sensitive and unfortunately, it is going to require more evidence than an 'opinion'.   Most facilities like large hospitals are going to have an ethics committee to review any decisions.  That's rather cumbersome.  How much risk is enough to satisfy some unknown, untested legal requirement.   

 

4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Nothing to do with anyone's gender , one person shouldnt have the right to end another persons life

Funny this when most of the States who are anti abortion are also pro death sentance...not quite sure how your statement sits with that?

1 minute ago, smutcakes said:

Funny this when most of the States who are anti abortion are also pro death sentance...not quite sure how your statement sits with that?

Me either, that would take a lot of contemplating and thinking about 

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Because it display's sheer ignorance of the issues surrounding pregnancy and is a totally un-nuanced view of a complex subject. Furthermore it is at odds with what every social scientist in the country will tell you.

 

The fact is that it's impossible for women to always avoid pregnancy on the basis that they don't want to get pregnant. The reasons have been repeatedly pointed out to you and you haven't budged or acknowledged any of the arguments put to you. You stick to an extreme woman hating agenda, deeply rooted in extremist misogyny when compared to the mainstream view.

Ozi dont take he bait. He is trolling you....

5 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Nothing to do with anyone's gender , one person shouldnt have the right to end another persons life

A fetus is not a person.  That's the law.   

22 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If a doctor has given an opinion that it would be better for an abortion on medical grounds, I don't think that the law should intervene and over rule the medical opinion and force the endangered Woman to continue with the pregnancy 

You don’t think?!

There in lies the problem. Removing the right to abortion subjects women’s choices to what other people think.

 

We need only read this thread to understand precisely what kind of ‘thinking’ goes on.

 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You don’t think?!

There in lies the problem. Removing the right to abortion subjects women’s choices to what other people think.

 

We need only read this thread to understand precisely what kind of ‘thinking’ goes on.

 

I didn't realise that Woman are no longer allowed to have abortions on medical grounds , I do disagree with laws overturning Doctors opinions 

15 minutes ago, Credo said:

A fetus is not a person.  That's the law.   

I didnt say it was . I used the word "life" .

The "person" whom I was referring  to , was someone other than the living unborn baby , but an abortion would end that unborn babies life 

29 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Funny this when most of the States who are anti abortion are also pro death sentance...not quite sure how your statement sits with that?

Try this .

The people who are anti abortion and pro death sentence have an opinion that one person should have the right to take another's life, either by abortion or murder .

  Then if the state rules that a persons crimes are so terrible, (usually multiple murderers) then they accept whatever punishment the state decides the crimes warrant  .

   The death penalty is usually  only given when the offender has taken  numerous other peoples lifes 

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You do you.

 

But that doesn't give you or any man to FORCE any woman to bear a child she doesn't want to bear.

Not implying it does, and you apparently don't read my posts, as I've stated numerous  times, 'their body, their choice'.

 

Shame that I don't get the same courtesy.

 

I can be both, not a fan of abortion, and  fan of personal choice.

 

People on AN really do have some major reading comprehension issues.  It's really starting to get annoying ... ????

7 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

What does that have to do with a court compelling a man to work impinging on his bodily autonomy?  Really think about it this time.

 

Let's try a bit more of an example.

 

Mr Smith has a one night stand with Ms Jones.  Ms Jones becomes pregnant.  Mr Smith is the father.  Ms Jones chooses to carry the baby to term, give birth and keep the baby.  Mr Smith does not want her to, he does not want to be a father, he does not want to have a baby with Ms. Jones. 

 

Ms Jones has the baby.  She asks Mr Smith if he will help with financial support.  Mr Smith says he will not.  Ms Jones sues Mr Smith for child support.  Ms Jones wins and now Mr Smith has to pay 33% of his income to Ms Jones every Month for 18 years. 

 

Now, 33% of the resulting money from Mr Smith's labour is being taken from him, therefore 33% of Mr Smith's physical effort is no longer his own to use however he wants and no longer provides any financial reward.  Even though Mr Smith wants this 33% of his physical labour to be for himself it is now being taken from him.  His bodily autonomy in relation to 33% of his physical effort (work) is being impinged upon for the next 18 years.  He has no control over this 33% of his physical effort, it is done for someone else, compelled by law.

 

How does "but women work too" have any effect on this?

To apply the logic of the "blame the woman" crowd:

 

Why wasn't the man practicing birth control?  Why didn't he wear a condom?  Why didn't he get a vasectomy?

 

If the law were much better at forcing men to take responsibility for their actions, men would be more responsible.

 

Unfortunately there will still be many irresponsible men and women who won't consider the consequences of their actions until those consequences are staring them in the face.  These are the people least qualified to be parents.  Safe, legal abortions should be an option for women in this situation.

 

There also remains the problem of pregnancies resulting from rape.

6 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Nothing to do with anyone's gender , one person shouldnt have the right to end another persons life

Which is why abortions should be illegal (expect under extreme circumstances) after the fetus becomes viable, around the beginning of the third trimester.

 

Before that time it should be legal.

6 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It would end up being a person, if it wasnt killed .

If you go to a supermarket and buy dinner , you aren't actually buying "dinner" , you are buying the ingredients which will become dinner shortly afterwards

I'm sure all women consider that when considering an abortion.  However the fact remains that the fetus is not a person and an abortion is not murder.

6 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

But you are still denying a future person their life .

 

So does every women who denies a man unprotected sex.

4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You alone  came to that conclusion that it must be "Religion" , "most" people didn't come to that conclusion .

   Its a person choice as to whether she gets pregnant or not , that is her choice to make  , once she's decided to get pregnant she needs follow through and give birth . 

   If She doesn't want to get have  a child and be pregnant , then don't get pregnant and have a child   .

   Getting pregnant and then not having a Child shouldn't be an option .

Its the woman's choice as to whether she gets pregnant or not 

 

That argument has been beaten to death.  Rape happens.  Contraception fails.  Immature people make bad choices. 

 

Birth control is the preferred option, but there needs to be a plan B.

2 hours ago, JackGats said:

In the US as a man I don't have the right to walk up to a woman and say "here's some money, let's have sex".

 

However, any woman should have the right to decide unilaterally to flush her own (and the disenfranchised father's) unborn life down the toilet.

 

So I'd say well-deserved. Let the fems have a taste of their own medicine.

Your false analogy says a great deal about you, and none of it is good.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

So does every women who denies a man unprotected sex.

No , the life begins when the sperm fertilises the egg 

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'm sure all women consider that when considering an abortion.  However the fact remains that the fetus is not a person and an abortion is not murder.

But a fetus is a life and an abortion puts an end to that life 

How many of the anti abortion men on here have ever had unprotected sex with a gal? Ever had a condom break? If you did were you fully prepared to marry her and /or support a resultant baby if she became pregnant for the next 18 years or so?

 

If not then shut  up with all the anti abortion talk and let the girl decide what to do with what YOU deposited into her body.

5 minutes ago, pomchop said:

How many of the anti abortion men on here have ever had unprotected sex with a gal? Ever had a condom break? If you did were you fully prepared to marry her and /or support a resultant baby if she became pregnant for the next 18 years or so?

 

If not then shut  up with all the anti abortion talk and let the girl decide what to do with what YOU deposited into her body.

I Always take precautions to avoid pregnancy when a pregnancy wasn't wanted and if a pregnancy did occurs , I would have been willing to stand by and fully support the woman and baby .

   It seems that many guys just want to have condom free sex and if she did get pregnant, abortion is the solution 

16 minutes ago, pomchop said:

How many of the anti abortion men on here have ever had unprotected sex with a gal? Ever had a condom break? If you did were you fully prepared to marry her and /or support a resultant baby if she became pregnant for the next 18 years or so?

 

If not then shut  up with all the anti abortion talk and let the girl decide what to do with what YOU deposited into her body.

I've never used a condom, and anyone I had a relationship with used birth control, or I wouldn't be in  relationship with them.

 

One night stands, don't know, don't care, and lucky if we remember each other's name the next day.  Most never to be seen again.

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No , the life begins when the sperm fertilises the egg 

I was replying to your "future person" post.  There is potential for life, a future person, whenever there is the possibility of sex between a man and a woman.  You seem to think this potential is worth defending.

 

Also, the egg is alive both before and after fertilization.

 

 

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

But a fetus is a life and an abortion puts an end to that life 

A bacteria is also a life.  We're are predominantly concerned with human life, which begins at the time of fetal viability during the third trimester.

36 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I've never used a condom, and anyone I had a relationship with used birth control, or I wouldn't be in  relationship with them.

 

One night stands, don't know, don't care, and lucky if we remember each other's name the next day.  Most never to be seen again.

But of course if one or more of those one night stands told you she was pregnant you would happily devote the rest of your life to supporting your child.  Right?

 

BTW:  If none of those relationships using birth control never resulted in an unintended pregnancy you are either very lucky, didn't have a lot of sex, or are "shooting blanks".