Abortion prevention: don’t forget about the men

[Today’s guest post by Chandler Klebs is part of our paid blogging program.]

Consider this situation: A man chooses to have sex with a woman who he
knows will go for an abortion if she gets pregnant. She does get
pregnant. She goes to an abortionist, who performs the abortion. Which of
the three people killed the baby? The father, mother, or abortionist?

It should be obvious that all three people played a part in the
abortion. So no matter what your answer, you are partially correct.

The father chose to do the one thing that could result in a pregnancy
the mother did not want. The mother chose to abort rather than seeking out alternatives. The abortionist was the final step
in causing the death of the baby.

Keeping all of that in mind, if you could go back and talk
to one of the people—the father, mother, or abortionist—and convince them to become pro-life, which one would you choose?

Again, there’s no one right answer, but I would pick the father. Talking to the abortionist could have a major impact if he’s the only abortionist in town and has no one to replace him, but otherwise, the mother will just go elsewhere for the abortion. Of course talking to the mother is good because if her mind changes, the child
will live. But will she have the support of the father? He had expected the mother to have an abortion even before they had sex, which implies
that he has no interest in taking care of the child.

Talking to the father makes sense because he has the power to change
his ways and stop creating children who will be killed. He also has
the ability to support the mother in taking care of the children he is
responsible for, making the mother less likely
to want to abort. Many women abort due to fear of being a single
mother.

Outreach to women in crisis pregnancy situations is great, but we need to make sure we’re reaching the men too, rather than placing all of the weight on the women. The idea that men are irrelevant to the
abortion debate is incredibly misguided.

281 thoughts on “Abortion prevention: don’t forget about the men”

  1. I think this has a big intersection with rape culture, and more broadly, the stigma around people who prepare to make sexual decisions. I really hope it becomes the norm that "What chance of pregnancy are we running and how would we handle that?" is a conversation that happens before sex.

    Reply
  2. Reproductive coercion
    m.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Reproductive-and-Sexual-Coercion?IsMobileSet=true

    Reply
  3. The more we start seeing people of all developmental stages as people, as real human lives, the more it is that people having potentially-reproductive sex need to consider that yes, they are running a chance of creating an entirely new person, which is a real paradigm shift for many people. It needs to be as much of a paradigm shift for men as for women.

    Reply
  4. I think you misunderstood the article. The point is that a man should refrain from having sex with a pro-choice woman. No sex = no unplanned pregnancy = no abortion. This is the very OPPOSITE of a man using her body. He should stay away from her.

    Reply
  5. Did you even read the article? A man should not have sex with a pro-choice woman. That's the gist of the article. No sex = no pregnancy.

    Reply
  6. I think it's less about the woman being pro-choice/pro-life but about whether she is willing and able to take care of a child for nine months or not.

    Reply
  7. If a man is anti-choice I agree he should not have sex with a pro-choice woman. However MANY men are pro-choice and I doubt you are going to be able to change their minds.

    Reply
  8. Well, he could use a condom or make sure that the woman is using some form of birth control (otherwise the man could be liable to paying child support for 18 years).

    Are you suggesting that prior to having sex, the man should ask the woman "what do you think about abortion rights"?

    Reply
  9. Excellent focus. Abortion is not a "women's" issue, it's a human's issue. A man who has sex with a woman, and gets her pregnant, is just as liable for the safety and health of his child as she is.

    Reply
  10. I don't agree with the blanket statement of "rape culture" but there is definitely a sub section of men who take no responsibility for their actions. Ideally, women wouldn't reward and reinforce these people with sex, but we don't live in an ideal world. Abortion is more the symptom of a society that doesn't take responsibility for its actions, and its supporters seem to think that's great. So they've literally justified murder to avoid adult responsibility.

    Reply
  11. I don't think in a society where abortions are readily available that fathers should have to pay for child support. If the woman can sign off on a zygote a man should be able to, as well.

    Reply
  12. I'm actually curious if a man could remove an IUD without a woman noticing… They are not located in the cervix they are wedged into the uterus. I just had a really funny image of a guy playing Operation in his dialated partners cervix. Don't touch the edges!

    Reply
  13. And there are men like my husband, who at age 60 STILL believes it's the woman's right to carry or not carry an unexpected pregnancy. And he's been a responsible daddy for years.

    Reply
  14. What about fathers who want the baby, who
    would even offer to stay with or marry or help the mother and baby, or
    if she does'nt want it would even offer to accept custody of the kid if
    she does'nt want to{of course she'd have to carry it to
    term}. Men/fathers should have more rights and say in this. At least in
    cases where the pregnancy is an "accident" of both the mothers and
    fathers dooing. Fathers have few to no rights in abortion or otherwise
    really. So, this articles suggestion that all 3 people are responsible,
    but that the father should be talked too and corrected{implying he is
    MORE responsible} and only expecting men/fathers to be part of the
    debate and issue when and where they are not taking responsibility and
    need too, and not mentioning that many fathers lose their kids because
    the mother and doctor{the only people who REALLY have a say in the
    choice} choose to abort a child the father actually wants and wants to
    take responsibility for. Making this article subtly misandric.

    Reply
  15. I am sorry but no, simply because a man ejaculates this does not give him ownership of a woman's body. She does all the work, all he donates is a tiny sperm.

    Reply
  16. Killing someone, or idly allowing someone to be killed does not make you a person. In fact it does quite the opposite.

    Reply
  17. Because you've chosen to ideologically denigrate them to a clump of cells. You used to be a clump of cells yourself. Surgicals are a crime against those who cannot speak for themselves. The morally repugnant allow and profit from elective dismemberment taking place. You are nothing but a shill to the abortion industry, and you are selling death. In hundreds of years people will look back and think "I can't believe people electively aborted" just like we think "I can't believe the Spartans threw babies off cliffs."

    Reply
  18. Without her noticing? Probably not. But yes, they do come out. That's why a woman using one checks for placement every month after her period.

    Reply
  19. A zygote really is just a clump of cells – a clump of DNA surrounded by a cytoplasm.

    And when the majority of abortions occur the embryo doesn't even have a functional brain.

    Can't dehumanize a genetic blueprint, let alone a mindless animal body, cupcake.

    Reply
  20. In all of human history that hasn't happened. Historically and presently, humans have struggled with unwanted reproduction. This has been done by contraception, abortion and infanticide. Where the first two are unavailable, the last option becomes inevitable.

    Reply
  21. stemedical.de/uploads/pics/zygote_.jpg

    Dehumanize this. Tell me about the tears shed if it can't implant. Tell me how this microscopic zygote dying is akin to throwing an infant off a cliff.

    You really aren't nearly hysterical enough. Try to turn it up to 11.

    Reply
  22. This is what a typical abortion looks like:

    media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

    And if it's non-sentient, it doesn't matter HOW it's removed.

    I bet you'd still oppose abortion if every single abortion was performed by c-section, right-0?

    Reply
  23. You will find no one on this page arguing against birth control. But thanks for lumping in abortion with birth control. I thought "and ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure." Especially when the cure is the termination of your own progeny.

    Reply
  24. sometimes the compassionate thing to do is not bring a child into the world

    you need to think outside the box, and realize that breeding just for the sake of breeding will do more harm than good

    not every baby needs to be born

    Reply
  25. Oh, I have more practise than you can even imagine. So has Lady Black.

    Your arguments are not rational, they are pure appeals to emotion.

    I suggest you read the SPl archives, and work on improving those debate skills, kiddo.

    Reply
  26. Abortion is birth control, and abortion is a medical treatment. Until every pregnancy is wanted, and all pregnancies go without complication, there will always be a need for it. How about medication abortions? No "dismemberment" involved, just an induced miscarriage.

    Reply
  27. Oh really? Cause my gyn didn't say that was necessary. She also cut the strings too short to check. I only know it's still in there because my husband cuts his dick up on it every now and then. Lols

    Reply
  28. The problem is that our crystal ball is malfunctioning, and nobody can say for sure in advance whether they are willing AND able to carry a pregnancy to term.

    Reply
  29. No. That's my response to a load of manure. I'm so sorry to hear your gyno doesn't operate according to accepted medical standards. Your IUD can come out with your period, and checking placement is recommended if you don't want a really big surprise, like no longer being protected from unwanted pregnancy. Also, nobody cuts their penis on an IUD string.

    Reply
  30. I think you should look that up with a simple Google search… wait I still have the email from my gyn:

    Jess,

    Your fiancé is feeling the strings, which can be a sharp, poking sensation depending on what position you are having sex in. This is likely what caused the small cut. But I promise you, that the poking sensation will go away once the strings soften.

    Reply
  31. But, you know you can keep saying everything I say is a lie without actually doing any research to back it up cause that makes you appear really smart especially to the people you're debating with.

    Reply
  32. Well now, I have read up on that subject and here's what I know. The Paragard IUD has a soft string. The Mirena IUD has a stronger string and the string needs to be cut long enough to curl around the cervix. One particular reference says if your partner can feel the string poking him, your gynecologist hasn't inserted many Mirena IUDs, or is an idiot. This comes from (bada-boom!) CUTTING THE STRING TOO SHORT, and is NOT normal, or correct placing of the device. My advice to you is to return to your idiot gynecologist to fix his/her mistake, or better yet…. find a competent doctor.

    Reply
  33. I can't do that because she quit the practice to teach people how to perform abortions. I'm not kidding. Her name is Kohar Der Simonian and you can look her up if you wish. Hope you like "Idiot gynecologist"s teaching tomorrow's abortionists!

    Reply
  34. Just goes to prove the old saying "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." That doesn't change the fact that your doctor doesn't know what she's doing.

    Reply
  35. Isn't that scary to you at all that she's being entrusted with the future of women's health if you think she's so incompetent?

    Reply
  36. Good for her.

    This man is also a hero:

    patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/08/i-do-abortions-because-i-am-a-christian/

    Dr. Parker makes the trip to Mississippi from his home in Chicago twice a month. He’s Harvard educated and gave up a career as college professor and obstetrician to become an abortion provider. The realization that this would be his civil rights struggle is what he calls his “come to Jesus” moment, and he became an abortion provider on the day that Dr. George Tiller was murdered in his church.

    Reply
  37. Actually it's correlation. If she teaches them bad methods due to her "incompetence" which you claim, then she's somewhat responsible for her students being unprepared and the resulting deaths that follow.

    Reply
  38. Then why would you want to be taught by a respected doctor? Of course it follows that the quality of her experience and education will dictate her students level of education. She's done abortion demonstrations on pears as analogs SHOWING THEM HOW TO DO IT! Why would you think they would deviate from what they're taught?

    Reply
  39. Part of adult life is taking responsibility for one's actions. That doesn't mean giving birth. Mom always said people who don't want children ought to do the world a favor and not have them. Mom was wise. If you are unwilling or unable to raise a child, do the world a big favor and don't give birth.

    Reply
  40. Only if teacher and student exist in a vacuum. Otherwise, oh, just for example, textbooks, medical journal articles and more competent teachers.

    Reply
  41. I know a lady who loves being pregnant. She shat out two kids and basically abandoned them so that she could party and play on her ATV. Her parents and ex-bf are raising the children, who are having developmental delays because they never get any attention.

    Selfish people shouldn't have kids, period. Giving birth is not proof of selflessness, not by any stretch.

    Reply
  42. The point is they aren't having a more competent person teaching them. You have to ignore this very salient point and include other tangential variables to even have an argument. You can't fathom that A begets B begets C. You are ignoring cause and effect of circumstances. Something you could really benefit to learn from.

    Reply
  43. What I have learned as a student myself: the instructor isn't always right. Having a bad instructor is definitely NOT ideal. However, the student isn't released from hi/r responsibility to question and get to the bottom of the issue, and research independently of the instructor. Having a bad instructor need not lead to bad doctors. YOUR doctor is the result of someone being told something and accepting it at face value, and not looking into it further. You are using this person as an appeal to authority that is a false authority. I have NEVER HEARD of a doctor who doesn't advise the patient to check IUD placement every few days the first month, and after each period monthly. Nor have I heard of any doctor purposely cutting the string too short for the patient to check and in the process, injuring the patient's partner. That "string softening up" is pure nonsense. The Mirena strings are like fishing line. They never soften up. Thus they need to be cut long enough to curl up around the cervix, out of the way. Apparently, there are some really BAD doctors out there.

    Reply
  44. Ex OB/GYN LUL remember I said she quit to teach people how to perform SAFE abortions around the WORLD!

    bixbycenter.ucsf.edu/fs/bios/dersimonian-kohar.html

    Reply
  45. "It should be obvious that all three people played a part in the abortion. So no matter what your answer, you are partially correct."

    Except for those of us who said all three because we saw where this was going. We are entirely, not just partially correct.

    Reply
  46. That is entirely the point of the article. A man can prevent her from having such a choice by simply not having sex with her.

    Reply
  47. Yes but a man who is pro-choice is not going to not have sex with a woman. It is not likely that you will change the mind of a man who is pro-choice.

    Reply
  48. Actually, I do believe there is a link between birth control and abortion. For many people, they are synonyms. That is why I prefer to know exactly what "birth control" is defined as.

    Reply
  49. Glad you get it. I am hoping this will make the men realize that they are relevant to this issue. I don't see the responsibility of men talked about enough.

    Reply
  50. I have changed the minds of men before on the issue. Usually it just takes educating them on the biology of human development in the womb, but sometimes it takes going into the philosophy of the abortion issue.

    Reply
  51. It's not, but I understand where you are coming from. My sympathies go out to the men who did all they legally could to save their child, but failed nonetheless.

    However, what this article is saying is that if men know a woman to be abortion-minded, they should take it on themselves to not sleep with her, since the consequences would be to kill his child.

    Realistically, I think if a man did not know that a woman would be predisposed to abort, and they conceive, and he does all in his power to protect that child, and fails, I do not think he is primarily, or even secondarily responsible for the death of that child. But that doesn't make him completely blameless. It is up to him to understand the woman he is with, and if he cannot ascertain that she would keep the pregnancy should he get her pregnant, he should either not have sex with her, or use a condom.

    Nowhere does it say the man is more responsible.

    Reply
  52. I doubt humanity will ever come to a consensus on when a "person" starts. To me, a fetus is like a blank MS Word document. It occupies around 21KB of space, so its something more than nothing. A second blank MS Word document will also occupy around 21KB of space, yet is not bitwise identical to the first one. I guess there is some unique metadata contained in even an empty file, so its kinda like unique DNA, and that metadata also identifies this file as an MS Word document. Yet besides that unique DNA, there is no actual content (but something more than "nothing"), and deleting that empty file to me seems fairly inconsequential. In the same way, a fetus is "human" no doubt, but it is devoid of content, but it is something more than "nothing". There is limitless potential (for good or bad) to that fetus, but if aborted, a new fetus later on has the same limitless potential. To me, a fetus is practicaly replaceable, and I can't make myself feel any other way. A caveat though, is that I also believe a late term fetus does start to gain content even in the womb, and I think a ban on late term abortions is reasonable. Where I draw the line, I don't know, but I think 15~20 weeks is realistic.

    So in summary, I think a fetus is indeed more than "nothing", but in a practical sense, devoid of any real content until a certain grey time. Before this time, I think I would consider a woman's choice to be of more practical value than the fetus, and abortion should stay legal. After this time, while I would still side with choice, I think outlawing late-term abortions would be acceptable to me.

    Reply
  53. When I talk about it connecting to rape culture, I mean that it's not the norm for men to make sure that women know the chance of pregnancy they're running and are consenting to it before initiating sex with them. If you'd prefer I say "lack of consent culture" instead of "rape culture", that's fine with me.

    Reply
  54. You are advocating for the non existence of those people post fact. And you can't see why your side is slipping in popularity?

    Reply
  55. I most certainly not anti-choice, and I firmly believe the only person qualified to make any choice here is the woman who is pregnant. That being said, I find aborting a fetus after it starts really responding to the outside world fairly troubling. I remember interacting with my own kid when he was still inside my wife at 25 weeks or so. What other people choose to do is none of my business, but I find myself somewhat sympathetic to the pro-life view for late-term abortions.

    Life is indeed complicated, and I think there is no one-size-fits-all gold standard of morality.

    Reply
  56. Think of it more like the completed works of Shakespeare in a word document, but nobody has hit CTRL S
    yet. All the genetic information is contained therein, but it is still not guaranteed completion.

    Reply
  57. And sucking a fetus out with a vacuum tube is taking responsibility? I wonder what other atrocities throughout history were considered the responsibility of the "empowered."

    Reply
  58. Have you actual humans in the real world? Probably only a handful of Shakespeares out there, but mostly such sub-masterpieces as Seung-Hui's "Richard McBeef". Not all fetuses are precious little miracles, unfortunately.

    And I think the empty Word document is more apt as I think nurture often times far outweighs the nature. Besides, if the exact genetic information in that fetus is so precious, how about a scenario in the not so distant future where you just clone the DNA and save it? Next time a couple is pregnant, maybe do some bioengineering and have twins, one from the aborted DNA?

    Maybe you believe that because the PROBABILITY{this particular arrangement of DNA} is so vanishingly small, this fetus is infinitely precious. Me, I just think its another roll of a random number generator. Doesn't take too much effort to roll another particular arrangement of DNA where Probability{another particular arrangement of DNA} is also vanishingly small. So what?

    Reply
  59. I know you're not anti-chioce. I agree with you in spirit, for realz. In theory, I have zero problem with a restriction at 24 weeks, which is viability. The problem is, real life IS complicated, and I would rather have doctors worrying about their patients and not the law. No more Savita's!

    And we have met before, you are awesome-sauce.

    Reply
  60. Prior to having sex a man and a woman should be on the same page about how to deal with possible consequences of their actions. Hopefully, they are both responsible people and would agree that if an unexpected pregnancy happened they would do the right thing and CARE for their unborn child. If they are not on the same page about how to deal with an unexpected pregnancy they should not be having sex.

    Reply
  61. That is a great comparison. Just as people try to preserve their written documents by saving the files and making backups, they can apply that same logic to living things as well which are impossible to replace if they are lost.

    Reply
  62. I can partially agree with the pro-choice because I understand the need of someone to feel in control of their body. I do wish it were possible to grant humans this control by changing the laws of nature so that reproduction is either gone or similar to that of birds where someone else can sit on the egg if the mother does not want to. This I admit is wishful thinking, but it is a nice dream. Since it doesn't work that way, I think everything should be done to make sure that women aren't pregnant against their will or forced into aborting against their will. Sadly this is often the case. Men have the power to prevent many of these tragedies.

    Reply
  63. I do wish it were possible to grant humans this control by changing the laws of nature

    We override nature all the time, always have and always will.

    Reply
  64. Which is why it is good that we use whichever method is most relevant to the person we are talking to. We have our different ways, but I think we both want the same thing.

    Reply
  65. I'm glad that you feel that way about late term pregnancies, because I feel there is very little separating a late term fetus and a newborn. Gestation-ally the newborn is still considered fetal in a lot of ways. Humans are unique in that our newborns cannot walk and have to be encouraged to latch for feeding, they can't seek a nipple on their own devices. The price we pay for having larger brains is that our gestation is incomplete compared to other mammals when we are born. I have read reports that are pro-infanticide citing the similarities between infants and fetuses. People who use dependency to argue person-hood will lose their argument unless they consider infants to not be people.

    Reply
  66. Impossible to replace… um I don't really think so. A few week old embryo is easy to replace. Just have another one! It might not be EXACTLY the same embryo, but who cares? The first one is "unique" and "special" in just the way a random draw of 0.12144152308234251439301 from a random number generator is "unique" and "special". The probability of getting EXACTLY the same number from your generator is vanishingly small, but I would argue that just because the probability of something occurring is vanishingly small in no way makes it special.

    Reply
  67. I think you missed my point. I don't see living things as just a random number. I see them more as an entire computer with amazing potential of what they can do.

    What about you, can you be replaced? If so, does that mean that it is okay to kill you?

    Reply
  68. Consider the following situation. A woman wants to use birth control, but the pro-lifers won't let her, because they have sad feelies about fertilized eggs. She then gets pregnant, and has an abortion. Who is responsible for the abortion?

    The idea that pro-lifers are not themselves responsible for a lot of abortions is incredibly misguided.

    Reply
  69. Consider the following situation, which was actually written about in a science fiction book. A serial killer (Oliver Guest) with a Ph.D. in several sciences goes around killing 14 year old girls who live in what he considers to be 'bad circumstances', takes a tissue sample from his murder victims, then clones them, brings the fetus to term in some artificial wombs, and raises the resultant infants under what he considers to be 'proper circumstances'.

    According to your pro-life philosophy, in which a 'person' is defined by nothing more than being 'living being' with 'human DNA' and the presence of a functioning mind is utterly irrelevent, can you explain exactly on what grounds this would be wrong? The 'unique living human DNA' that you all gush on about has been preserved (as your pro-life ethics demand), and still continues on as a human being, one with a far better 'chance for a happy and productive life' that you also like to gush on about. Since you dismiss the presence or absence of a functioning brain as being irrelevent to human value, I'm curious how much handwaving you'll engage in regarding this.

    Reply
  70. They shouldn't have a problem with it, if they truly believe that zygotes are:

    Rational

    The same entity

    Of course, they will ignore this comment, because its 'inconvenient'.

    Reply
  71. Since you've handwaved away the brain, and ascribed rationality (entire computer with amazing potential of what it can do) to DNA, would you care to prove the point by undergoing a prefrontal lobotomy?

    Reply
  72. ** I feel there is very little separating a late term fetus and a newborn.**

    Except of course, the 'little' matters you have handwaved away, such as the fact that the fetus is still parasitical on a specific person, the severe damage and possibility of death caused by birth, etc.

    I 'feel' that it would be a good idea to shove my baseball bat up your ass, and that you would be just fine if I did so. However, what I 'feel' doesn't define reality any more than what you 'feel'.

    Reply
  73. ** A man can prevent her from having such a choice by simply not having sex with her.**

    I find it increasingly ludicrous that the supposed pro-lifers (who are ONLY concerned about pre-natal life) on the one hand loudly insist that their position is not based on 'punishment for sex'. Yet what word do I see in every other comment by the pro-lifers? Hint, it starts with an 's' and ends with an 'x' and has one vowel in the middle.

    Reply
  74. Not only is there no 'someone' but refusing to donate your body parts to others is NOT 'killing' them. They are dying of their own inherent unsustainable state.

    Reply
  75. **Surgicals are a crime against those who cannot speak for themselves**

    Can't? And why not? Because they have no voicebox like deaf-mutes? Or because they have no brain, and consequently no thoughts to speak, and you are trying to handwave something nonsentient into a cute little mute newborn baby.

    Reply
  76. How about telling me how he would throw a 5 year old into a burning furnace, if, by doing so he would somehow allow 10 of those to implant which otherwise would not have, and feel holy and proud of himself afterwards.

    Reply
  77. It's really none of the man's business, any more than it's the woman's business what vitamins or medications the man might take for his prostate.

    If you think an embryo is a 'child', can I claim that a toddler is an 'adult' and bring a two year to work as a hooker at the Mustang Ranch in Nevada? Or are you the only one who gets to engage in inaccurate language?

    And a rapist and extortionist like you has no business either using the word 'responsible' or trying to pass off the fact that your attempted extortion scheme with anchorbaby backfired on you as being some sort of great example of 'responsibility'. If you had any sort of 'responsibility' you would not engage in such extortion schemes.

    Reply
  78. **. Discussing birth control methods before sex seems like a no brainer.**

    Yes, but that isn't the goal of myintx and pro-lifers. They don't WANT birth control used. They either want people NOT to have sex, or want them punished for doing so. And in myintx's particular case, she wants to create an inflated fiat value for embryos in order so that she can use them as hostages in her extortion schemes.

    Reply
  79. I can guarantee that you will go nowhere with this strategy. I appreciate you reminding men that contraception is as much their responsibility as it is the lady's. But don't expect that men will do anything about abortion when the need arises. There is nothing they can do other than be more responsible about birth control.

    Reply
  80. I fail to see what "concerns" you have against birth control. However, what I actually hear you saying is that you are opposed or indifferent toward the use of contraceptives. "I would never pay for it" is what you said. That being said, you could hardly blame a woman for aborting an unwanted pregnancy, is light of your own irresponsible attitude toward preventing unwanted pregnancy.

    Reply
  81. Keeping all of that in mind, if you could go back and talk to one of the people—the father, mother, or abortionist—and convince them to become pro-life, which one would you choose?

    ………..
    Your premise sucks the big badoodie. I am PRO LIFE so naturally I am PRO CHOICE.
    Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Women have blood in the fertility game. YOU DO NOT. You are trifling.

    Reply
  82. Germaine Greer says it best IMO:
    "Too many women are forced to abort by poverty, by their menfolk, by their parents … A choice is only possible if there are genuine alternatives."

    Reply
  83. Murderporn is not responsible. It is not sane. It is not caring. Thinking you can make this kind of remark and be seen as sane and caring is the chief delusion of the forced birth cultist.

    Reply
  84. Drama Queen.

    Anthropologically, Homo sapiens has three strategies
    for dealing with unwanted reproduction (births): contraception, abortion and
    infanticide. All three are practiced in every culture worldwide historically
    and currently.

    Those who restrict contraception and abortion make infanticide, child abandonment/abuse and maternal mortality inevitable. We have many in vitro examples of this but the one that troubles me the most at the moment is this example:
    dailymail.co.uk/new…

    There is nothing moral about your position if your
    position is controlling women's reproductive choices by law or by
    shaming/blaming. Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are
    the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Women have blood in the
    game. YOU do not. Abortion and contraception are human rights.

    Obviously I have thought
    a great deal more about this than you have. YOU do not occupy the moral high
    ground.

    Reply
  85. According to our Family Courts a child is entitled to the support of both progenitors once born.

    The court does not care about the relationship of the progenitors and should not care.

    You might have an argument if out social safety net was as good as it is in European nations like Germany.

    And if you want all babies born by compelling women to bear them by law, you absolutely have no argument vis a vis child support.

    Reply
  86. Abortion is legal.
    Murder is illegal.
    That which is legal cannot also be illegal.
    Therefore abortion is not murder.
    It is worth noting that abortion was not murder when it was illegal. It does not meet the legal requirements for a charge of murder.
    Refute me if you can.
    Flagged and down voted for egregious insult to pro choice men and women. I am so tired of this hoary old lie.

    Reply
  87. "The court does not care about the relationship of the progenitors and should not care."

    Actually, regardless of what one's position on the abortion issue is, it doesn't appear to make sense to force rape victims (including victims of statutory rape) to pay child support if the rapist somehow acquires custody of their child (and Yes, this has previously occurred).

    "You might have an argument if out social safety net was as good in the US as it is in European nations like Germany."

    Do any European countries have any sort of unilateral child support opt-outs for males?

    "And if you want all babies born by compelling women to bear them by law, you absolutely have no argument vis a vis child support."

    I am tempted to agree with this.

    Reply
  88. If one accepts the premise that abortion is morally justifiable, then Yes, abortion is accepting responsibility. Likewise, if one accepts the premise that infanticide is morally justifiable in the event of a shortage of adoptive parents, then infanticide would likewise be accepting responsibility.

    Reply
  89. I *do* agree with you, though, that if a male is politically anti-abortion, then unless he is 100% guaranteed to be sterile without any risk of failure/surprises in regards to this, he should not sleep with any fertile or potentially fertile females who are open to the idea of getting an abortion.

    Reply
  90. I know that in 31 states, once a rapist has paid for his crime, he is entitled to child visitation. That is one of the reasons I would abort a rape pregnancy in a New York minute. Does surprise me that the court would give custody to a convicted rapist. If you have a link to such a situation, I would be interested to read it.

    I do not know if Europe has opt outs. i do know that there is a stronger social safety net.

    Tempted to agree? FO.

    Reply
  91. "I know that in 31 states, once a rapist has paid for his crime, he is entitled to child visitation. That is one of the reasons I would abort a rape pregnancy in a New York minute."

    Yeah, I would probably support changing the law in regards to this in these 31 states. I don't think that rapists should have any rights to their child, other than perhaps for people who are guilty of misdemeanor statutory rape.

    "Does surprise me that the court would give custody to a convicted rapist. If you have a link to such a situation, I would be interested to read it."

    These might be two such cases, though in regards to statutory rape:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

    articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf

    "I do not know if Europe has opt outs. I do know that there is a stronger social safety net."

    Thank you for this info. Also, Yes, for the record, I already knew about the strong safety net in some/many European countries.

    "Tempted to agree? FO."

    What exactly does FO mean?

    Reply
  92. Assorted handwaving:

    **1. So have the baby removed** Can you explain the method used to remove it that you can guarantee will be no more costly or dangerous to the mother than an abortion?

    **A viable baby no longer needs the mother to survive;**

    I notice you're trying to sneak in a couple of assumptions here, one being the usual equating of a fetus with a 'baby'. The other now being that you want to force a woman to 'wait a few short months'.

    **neo-natal care has taken over that role**

    Care to explain who is going to pay for this very expensive care? The preemie fairy?

    Reply
  93. "Tempted to agree? FO."

    For the record, if there is any misunderstanding here, I said that I am tempted to agree that, other than for victims of rape, there should be *no* child support opt-out for males in the event of an abortion ban.

    I did not state that I am tempted to support an abortion ban; again, I myself am currently politically ambivalent on the abortion issue. Thus, I do not see why exactly I deserved to have you tell me to Fvck Off or something along those lines.

    Reply
  94. I understand your perspective here; that said, it might be a good idea to keep in mind that, up to a certain age, even human infants have equal or lesser intelligence than some sentient non-human animals have.

    Reply
  95. As Dorothy Roberts writes in Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty, “[t]he essence of Black women’s experience during slavery was the brutal denial of autonomy over reproduction.” Female slaves’ ability to produce more slaves was central to the economic interests of slaveowners and, once the importation of slaves was banned, to the perpetuation of the institution of slavery. A woman’s reproductive capacity figured into her price on the market and was as valuable as labor in the fields. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man on the farm.”

    Slaveowners beat women who did not reproduce or sold them, separating them from their families. Some engaged in slave-breeding, forcing slaves considered “prime stock” to mate in order to produce particularly valuable new slaves for labor or sale. Evidence exists that slaves resisted slaveowners’ demands that they reproduce by using herbal and other makeshift contraceptive and abortive methods. Slaveowners were free to rape slaves with impunity and the children who resulted increased their wealth. A slave women’s child was not her own, but the property of her master. Even prior to conception, a slaveowner held a property interest in a woman’s future children that could be bequeathed by will.

    Slavery separated black women from their future children at the moment of conception, treating the interests of the fetus as separate and conflicting with that of the mother. Though this conception of the fetus as having distinct interests to be protected from the mother is a familiar part of our discourse and legal framework today, this division did not exist for white women at the time. Professor Roberts describes one method of whipping pregnant women that illustrates this early conception of the maternal-fetal conflict. The mother would be forced to lay with her stomach in a hole dug in the ground so the mother could be beaten while the fetus was protected. “It is the most striking metaphor I know for the evils of policies that seek to protect the fetus while disregarding the humanity of the mother,” she writes.

    Reply
  96. So, to clarify–you think that I expressed support for an abortion ban in my previous post, correct?

    If so, then Yes, you did entirely misunderstand me and I hope to receive an apology from you for being told to Fvck Off.

    Reply
  97. There were no inaccuracies in my language. "Unborn child" is a valid term. It's a term used in many state laws to describe the human being that can be killed by an evil person during the course of a crime against a pregnant woman.

    It's your language that is made up. Keep it up. You're just making your side look desperate.

    Reply
  98. No, more real truth. Now go back to planning your extortion schemes of real people using embryos as hostages and patting yourself on the back about how 'responsible' you are.

    Reply
  99. IF there is any comparison between abortion and slavery it's a selfish woman treating her unborn child like property that can be discarded like trash – just like selfish slave owners used to treat their slaves – like property that can be discarded if they not wanted or or convenient. Pretty accurate comparison.

    Reply
  100. Actually no, slaves could not be discarded like trash. The penalty for killing a black person was the same as for killing a white.

    Reply
  101. **"Unborn child" is a valid term.**

    No, it's a contradiction of terms, like 'living dead'. If you think it's valid, can I refer to a three year old as a 'juvenile adult' and get them a job as a hooker in the Mustang ranch?

    **You're just making your side look desperate.**

    And insisting that a one celled egg is a 'person' because it enables you to carry out your extortion schemes, of course, does not make your side look desperate.

    Reply
  102. definitions.uslegal.com/u/unborn-child/

    If "unborn child" wasn't a valid term it wouldn't be used in so many state laws!

    not sure what extortion schemes you're babbling about… you're making up carp again. lame

    Reply
  103. That's not true at all. Every man who gets a woman pregnant when the circumstances are not ideal is faced with the question of whether or not to get an abortion. I don't have the stats handy, but I have read that a good portion (perhaps most) of abortions would have been avoided if the guy would have stuck around to help raise the child.

    Reply
  104. **If "unborn child" wasn't a valid term it wouldn't be used in so many state laws!**

    So… since so many state laws once said that blacks weren't human, according to you that's true. The term is medically incorrect no matter how many sad feelies politicians want to cater to by putting it into laws.

    **not sure what extortion schemes you're babbling about… you're making up carp again. lame**

    Since you're pretending to be stupid, I'll remind you. Your little 'accidental' on purpose anchorbaby which you wanted to use to extort money from babdaddy is an extortion scheme.

    Reply
  105. I don't see a big push going on to repeal the state laws that use the term unborn child… many people wanted the laws changed that said slaves weren't full people… and many people want the laws changed that say unborn children don't have rights. Where's the campaigning to overturn fetal homicide laws that use the term "unborn child"? There isn't any because you know it's a valid term. Just like the term "child in utero".

    You can quite with the made up anchorbaby b.s. It's really making you look bad. Like you're grasping at straws because you lost the debate. It's pathetic.

    Reply
  106. As a side note, this is a bit off-topic, but here is an advice for *pro-choice* males: Just because a female says that she will get an abortion if she gets pregnant does not necessarily mean that she will actually get one in such a situation. After all, people can change their minds, including on this issue.

    Reply
  107. " I really hope it becomes the norm that "What chance of pregnancy are we running and how would we handle that?" is a conversation that happens before sex."

    I certainly agree with you in this regard, though males should also be prepared for the possibility that the females that they sleep with will change their minds on this if/after they get pregnant.

    Reply
  108. I agree, thedoorisajar. That's why I think men shouldn't have to pay child support. He merely deposits the tiny sperm, and shouldn't be held accountable if the woman decides to turn that into a baby.

    Reply
  109. If both parents consent to parenthood, then yes, they both should be responsible for the child once it is born.

    If the woman steals the man's sperm, or chooses to gestate without his consent, he should be off the hook.

    Reply
  110. Repeatedly claiming that an embryo is a 'child', or getting politicians (who provably know little or nothing about science) to write such terminology into 'law' does not make it so. Nor does your repeated claim that I am 'grasping at straws' make that true, either.

    Reply
  111. Well, I see the initial fusion of egg and sperm and the unique and most improbable sequence of the resulting DNA to be as close an analogy to "random number generation"
    as possible in the biological realm. For the early embryo and fetus which as of
    yet has no brain and is nothing much more than a rapidly multiplying clump of
    cells that is pretty much following an automatic program without any sentience, I
    honestly have no clue why people would be opposed to aborting a fetus at this stage.

    Can I be replaced? In the grand scheme of things, yes. I don't think
    I'm particularly special at all, but I mean something to my family. Can
    my family be replaced? Yes, in the grand scheme of things. But I place value in sentience and the human experience, not really in a particular arrangement of nucleotides at the beginning of conception.

    As to whether I should be killed, I have lived life as an independent human being
    for quite a few years now, and have innate and conscious life goals, as well as a
    wife and kid. I think terminating my life and terminating a early fetus are quite
    different things. BTW, I am opposed to late term abortions because I think fetuses
    past a certain stage are beginning to have human experiences, and are more than
    just a random initial condition. However, I do not think abortion of even late term
    fetuses should be illegal, even though I find aborting them personally and emotionally
    troubling.

    Reply
  112. If the laws were invalid, an evil pro-abort somewhere would have had them overturned. They're always claiming they are against those laws anyway.

    Reply
  113. Here's the deal, Myintx.

    First of all, the fact that something is written into a law, by a politician who is either ignorant of the matter, or simply trying to get votes (or both) does not make it true. Neither does the fact that a lot of other people WANT it to be true make it true, either.

    Secondly, it seems to me that you're trying to play the usual pro-lifer equivocation fallacy with the word 'child', which can have more than one meaning. Case in point, my mother might tell someone that she has three 'children'. As of today, her youngest 'child' is 35 years old. A 35 year old man might be his mother's 'child', but he is not a 'child' in a physical or developmental sense. Ditto for an embryo, in a technical sense it might be referred to as the 'child' of the mother, but it is NOT a 'child' in a physical or developmental sense any more than a 35 year old adult man is. The pretense of the pro-lifers that it is, due to the word 'child' having more than one definition displays that they have the mentality of 6 year olds.

    Reply
  114. On your first point, the best example I can think of for that is the horrible Supreme Court decision known as Roe V Wade.

    "Unborn child" IS a valid legal term ( definitions.uslegal.com/u/unborn-child/). Too bad it makes you think about the human being you support killing.

    Nice way to insult your mother You're a horrible human being. Then again, you support the senseless killing of unborn children, so that fact was known long ago.

    Reply
  115. **"Unborn child" IS a valid legal term **

    Irrelevent whether it is a valid 'legal' term or not. It is not valid when applied in a biological or developemental sense. Do you honestly think I am so stupid that if you try the exact same equivocation fallacy using different words, I might fall for it this time?

    **Too bad it makes you think about the human being you support killing.**

    The death of something that happens to have human DNA, but no brain, is not something that bothers me to any great degree. That's because, unlike you, I actually place a value on the human brain, rather than reducing it's value to zero.

    Explain to me exactly how I insulted my mother, btw? I really fail to understand how using her as an example in a grammar lesson to explain how a woman might use the word 'children' – such as my mother telling someone that she had three 'children' does not necessarily equate to the 'children' referred to in such an example necessarily being 'children' in a biological or developemental sense. The youngest of the 'children' in the example I gave is a 35 year old man, and a 35 year old man is NOT a child in a biological or developemental sense. Neither is an embryo. Your statement about 'killing unborn children' as applied to abortion makes even less sense than if you referred to the murder of a 35 year old man as 'killing adult children'. The first has not become a 'child' yet in a developemental sense, and the second is past that stage.

    Too bad if pointing out this equivocation fallacy upsets you and your sad feelies about embryoes, but it is most certainly NOT an insult about my mother. Only an idiot would think so. Are you an idiot? Or are you just engaged in the usual pro-life ad-hominem fallacies?

    Reply
  116. An unborn child IS a human being. Pro-aborts do their best, but FAIL, to dehumanize the unborn child in a lame attempt to justify killing.

    Reply
  117. Pro-lifers do their best, but FAIL to dehumanize actual people by attempting to claim they are no more valuable than a speck with less brain than a paramecium. Stop babbling the term 'human beiing' as if it's some sort of holy word that brings down magical rights like light pouring out of heaven. You've been told that before and I'm not impressed by your stupidity in continually repeating it. I have a degree in biology sweetiepie. I'm aware of what species an embryo belongs to. Being a member of the human species does not grant rights unless there is also a human brain present. Nor are there any 'rights' (either with or without a brain) to the bodies of other people. Not if you 'need' it. Not for a 'few short months'. Or any other period of time.

    Go back to your extortion schemes and claiming that they somehow constitute 'responsibility' on your part.

    Reply
  118. Oh please. If there was a condition where a person when brain dead and the doctor said they would most likely have a functioning brain within 9 months you know that the family wouldn't be allowed to pull the plug (unless the person put down in writing to pull the plug). If you really had a degree in biology you would know that if not killed or miscarried, an unborn child will most likely develop a brain – it's all part of the LIFE CYCLE of a human being – a lifecycle that isn't complete until well after birth. Killing an unborn child – at 10 weeks or 30 weeks has the same result – a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life. If you support killing one, you might as well support killing the other.

    Again, you're dehumanizing a human being in a lame attempt to justify killing him or her. ALL innocent human beings should have an equal right to life.

    Reply
  119. First of all, dumbass, people who are bonafide brain dead do not 'recover'. Not in 9 months. Not in 9 years. You display your ignorance by proposing such a thing. Secondly, people do recover from comas, but that is a distinct state from being brain dead. Since for among other reasons, a person in a coma still has brain function. Thirdly, rights do not exist either before, or after, the existence of the brain. That includes the right to life, and it ALSO includes the right to develop a brain. Fourthly, there is no right – to life – or to anything else, that gives you the right to own someone else's body. Not because you have sad feelies, and not because you want to run extortion schemes.

    **a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.** There is no 'human being' in the mental sense of the word in existence at the time.

    Reply
  120. **a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.**

    If she truly believed that, she'd be campaigning for mandatory bone marrow donations to give 5 year olds stricken with leukemia a chance to LIVE

    Reply
  121. No, myintx's supposed 'great concern' for 'human beings' to be given a 'chance' for life strangely coincides ONLY with what can be used to inconvenience, control, and extort OTHER people, but never her precious self. Case in point, the other posters here have told me that Myintx has claimed that the entire process of pregnancy and birth are no more difficult and painful than sitting on a couch and eating a bag of Doritos.

    Now, you would THINK, given the supposed ease myintx claims for pregnancy and birth, that myintx, being so very loudly CONCERNED about the 'tiny innocent vulnerable defenseless' frozen embryos in an IVF facility, would volunteer for such an EASY (so she claims) thing as 9 months of pregnancy and giving birth in order to give one of those frozen embryos (which otherwise will eventually degrade to the point of death from being frozen or else be discarded) a CHANCE! For its VERY LIFE!!

    But NO! When asked if she would volunteer herself for something so EASY, in order to save the VERY LIFE of those 'tiny vulnerable innocent human beings', Myintx said that she would NOT! Not because pregnancy and birth are really very painful and threatening to life and health, no, they are still really EASY (according to Myintx), but because it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the parents of the embryos (rather than herself) to bring each and every last one of them to term.

    So, what am I to think of this? Given that Myintx claims that pregnancy and birth are as easy as sitting on a couch and eating a bag of doritos, yet she would not do such an easy thing to save the VERY LIFE of a frozen embryo, because it's the parent's responsibility, I can only surmise that if she saw a baby drowning in 3 feet of cold water, she most certainly would let it drown, since firstly going up to your waist in cold water is by far less pleasant than eating a bag of doritos, and after all, it would be the PARENT'S responsibility to do so, not hers.

    Reply
  122. I never said brain dead people would recover.. see the word IF in my post above? Yes, you saw it.. you just had no valid rebuttal so you started with the name calling.

    All innocent human beings SHOULD have a right to life. Unborn children are human beings and should have a right to life. But pro-aborts fight against those rights so they can keep killing inconvenient or unwanted unborn children. Truly sickening that there are people on this planet that think of 'me, me, me, me, me, OH and me!' and would kill their own offspring simply because their offspring was unwanted.

    Reply
  123. **Truly sickening that there are people on this planet that think of 'me, me, me, me, me, OH and me!' and would kill their own offspring simply because their offspring was unwanted.**

    Yes, the planet is full of truly sickening people. Like you, for instance, who would have an 'oops' baby on purpose in order to use as a hostage in your attempted extortion and enslavement of babydaddy and only thought of 'me, me, me OH and me' when you decided to pull such an extortion scheme.

    **All innocent human beings SHOULD have a right to life.**

    Rights don't exist without a brain. That means a FUNCTIONING brain.

    **Unborn children are human beings and should have a right to life.**

    See above. Also, the right to life does not convey the right to the ownership of someone else's body against their will. If someone needs someone else's body to survive, too fucking bad. They are worm bait. End of story. Now go back to your doritos and extortion schemes.

    Reply
  124. I would like to add that the women are not always the selfish ones. Sometimes they are forced into an abortion by the father or by their parents.

    In any case, someone is treating the child like trash or there would be no abortion.

    Reply
  125. You don't get it at all. There is no reason to waste money on contraceptives because there is no reason to be having sex when you don't want children. I consider my avoidance of sex to be the most responsible thing I can do and I wish other men saw it the same way.

    Reply
  126. I have written on my blog about my arguments against contraception.

    chandlerklebs.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/arguments-against-contraception/

    Reply
  127. There is no reason to waste money on contraceptives because there is no reason to be having sex when you don't want children.

    *laughing*

    Now that I am done..citation please.

    Reply
  128. Certainly there are reasons to be having sex when you don't want children. You are abnormal. The asexual must not be permitted to make rules for those of normal sexual orientations.

    Reply
  129. I was there. I was 7 years old in 1950. Daily life was a horror show for women. There were MALE and FEMALE want ads and male and female jobs. The first question asked in a job interview was 'What if you get pregnant? And that single question could deny you a clerk's job because men were more 'reliable.' There was no daycare. No checking accounts of mortgages for women without a male permission. On and on and on …

    Reply
  130. dailykos.com/story/2011/1/22/938057/-What-we-do-with-our-bodies-is-none-of-your-____ing-business

    SEXUAL ETHICS 101 – a conversation in the comments to the above article.

    I thought the exchange of opinions noteworthy. I reproduce it here with appropriate editing to make the conversation more clear:

    Cherry:
    Discuss it with the State. Not me. The State does not care about the quality of the relationship between the man and the woman. The concern is the child. The standard is that a child is entitled to the support of both progenitors.

    Kestrel:
    Aren't you here to discuss things? I am.

    Reiterating:
    The conventional wisdom appears to be that a man should have no say in whether or not a woman bears his child (that she may unilaterally decide to abort his child even if he wants the child to be born), but also that a man should be compelled to pay child support if she bears his child against his wishes.

    Please explain how this is not, fundamentally, a dichotomy.

    Cherry:
    Men have choices.
    If men want to control their own reproduction, they can do the following things:

    Use contraception or get vasectomy.
    Practice abstinence.
    Screw other men.
    Have a talk with the woman you are about to screw about what her plans are for unexpected pregnancy. If you don't like the answer, don't screw her.

    Once a man has left his swimmers behind in her, all his chances to affect reproduction (choices) are gone.
    That is not unfair. That is biology.

    Kestrel:
    I guess men should never take a woman at her word when she tells him before sex that she's on the pill or has had her tubes tied.
    Good to know, thanks.

    Cherry:
    No, they never should.
    For four reasons:

    Contraceptives fail.
    Once pregnant, a woman may decide to gestate. Pregnant for women is emotionally very different than nonpregnant.
    Some women are evil.
    And last, but not least, men (just like women) are totally responsible for their bodies and reproductive capacity.

    Kestrel:
    You won me over with #3. Now you know the position from which I speak.

    (Not that some MEN aren't evil as well….)

    I still say, however, that if a woman can decide to abort my child against my will, then conversely, if she decides to bear my child against my will, I should be able to walk into a courthouse and divest myself of all rights and responsibilities with the stroke of a pen and a seal from a notary public.

    Cherry:
    Thank you for pushing me to discuss this. I am in your debt. You are free to advocate your position, which is where we started. In Europe where all kinds of support exists for women and their children, your position is probably arguable with a fair chance of success.

    The birth of a child, for most human beings, is a life changing and attitude changing event. Do you have children? Some men could give a shit forever. And some men who could not have given a shit fall in love when they see the face of their child.

    Kestrel:
    Three boys, two different mothers. Ages 23, 12, and 11.

    Cherry:
    So why are you fighting me on this, Dad?

    Kestrel:
    On principle by and large and in the main. For the rest of it, well, I'll make sure you get an advance copy of my autobiography. Autographed.
    btw 12 year old is eating popcorn right now as 11 year old reloads his full auto Nerf Dart gun….that GRANDPA got him. I can be subjected to a burst at any time.
    Thanks, Pop.

    Cherry:
    Lovely. Family love. God bless you.

    Reply
  131. A reason for having sex, you mean? Because people are wired to enjoy having sex. For humans, it's a social activity. Abstinence is certainly a valid choice, for those who wish to engage in such a lifestyle choice. That's far different than claiming people "have no reason for" having sex unless they want children.

    Reply
  132. That is not what I am saying, though that would be true if reality was proven to be entirely deterministic. I know that our choices are limited though.

    Reply
  133. That isn't how it works. That isn't how insurance works, and it damn sure isn't how taxes work. If you do either, have insurance or pay taxes, you are paying for someone else's contraception. Just as others are paying for your medical needs. The insurance company invests the money. They do not put it in a jar labeled "Chandler Klebs – do not use for paying for contraception under any circumstances."

    Reply
  134. I know that. That is why I am angry. I wasn't given a "choice" to not pay taxes or to decide where the money goes. This is the root of my activism. If it were not for taxes, I would have probably not have said anything about abortion or birth control.

    Reply
  135. Who says they can? Rape is never justified. The ONLY justification a woman needs for an abortion is that she doesn't want to be pregnant. She needn't justify that to ANYONE.

    Reply
  136. Yeah? Cry me a freaking river. I wasn't given any choice not to pay taxes or to decide where the money goes either. That isn't how taxes work.

    Reply
  137. Science says that an unborn child is a human being.

    Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and
    obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania:

    “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is
    present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life…. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages of development in the womb represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human
    being. This is human life at every stage.”

    Reply
  138. What are you even TALKING about? "Anyone else" isn't living inside my body. If they were, then yes, I don't need to justify that to anyone. I can just say NO.

    Reply
  139. Myintx, we've been through these particular babbles on your part before.

    **Science says that an unborn child is a human being.**

    It has human DNA? And your point is what? Being a living organism with human DNA does not and cannot grant rights at a point in time prior to the existence of those physical, mental and situational traits which grant rights any more than being a catterpillar means that the catterpillar can fly because it has butterfly DNA, prior to a point in time when it has wings.

    **“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception**

    Then he should probably get his money back from whatever medical college he attended, because the egg is a living human cell as well, regardless of how inconvenient that fact might be to your anti-sex agenda.

    Reply
  140. An unborn child is a human being… In the days of slavery, being black meant you weren't considered a full person.. guess what? LAWS WERE CHANGED. Laws should be changed to give a human being – at all stages of development – a basic right to life. If a human being has to coexist with his or her mother after viability, it can be done before viability as well.

    An egg by itself is NOT a human being. AN unborn child IS a human being – from fertilization.

    Reply
  141. The point is that killing someone before they are born is no different than killing them after birth.

    Currently in the USA, abortion is legal but other forms of murder are not yet. Do you want all murder legal? That is exactly what pro-choice logic will lead to.

    Reply
  142. Abortion is not a form of murder. And YES having an abortion is FAR different than killing someone after they are born. You are trying to erase the woman, but you aren't succeeding.

    Reply
  143. Whatever that is? Sexual attraction is fairly self-explanatory to most people. And incidentally attraction has nothing to do with rape, which is never justified.

    Reply
  144. **An unborn child is a human being… In the days of slavery, being black meant you weren't considered a full person.. guess what?**

    The fact that a black with an actual brain is a full person regardless of the color of their skin is not proof of a fertilized egg with no brain also being a full person, any more than the fact that a 30 year old black person can survive outside the womb is proof that a fertilized egg can survive outside the womb.

    **Laws should be changed to give a human being – at all stages of development – a basic right to life.**

    'should be changed'? For what reason. Other than your sad feelies.

    'At all stages of developement' – except the unfertilized egg which you have excluded for no clear reason.

    'right to life' – doesn't equate to a blank check claim on others for sustaining your life if you are unable to do so on your own.

    **An egg by itself is NOT a human being.**

    Then what is it? A dog? You keep avoiding an answer to that question.

    ** AN unborn child IS a human being – from fertilization.**

    The term 'human being' is not a magical mantra that causes rights to descend from the sky in a golden light, without any further physical, mental, and situational qualifications. I've explained this to you before, and you are simply making yourself look like a fool by repeating the same babblings.

    Reply
  145. You are advocating for the non existence of those people post fact.

    I don't even know where you're getting this assumption from.

    Reply
  146. Human beings have basic rights. Unborn human beings should too – because they are human beings.

    An egg is human, but not a human being. Simple science.

    Human beings should not kill other human beings simply because they are inconvenient or unwanted. It's selfish and it's wrong.

    Reply
  147. **Human beings have basic rights. **

    No, something does not have rights simply because it is a 'human being' any more than a catterpillar can fly because it is a 'monarch butterfly'.

    **An egg is human, but not a human being.**

    Then where does the 'human being' come from? You pro-lifers claim that something doesn't suddenly just 'become' a 'human being', that it has to be a 'human being' all along. Now you want to make exceptions, and claim that the egg suddenly 'becomes' a 'human being'.

    And there's more involved in being a 'human being' than happening to have 46 chromosomes. A 'human being' is a mind. The human body is a house which is eventually inhabited by a mind. Your claim that taking a drug that prevents an egg from implanting is the same as killing a newborn baby is like claiming that knocking down a partly constructed, but as yet empty house is the same as burning down a completed house while the owner is inside.

    **Human beings should not kill other human beings simply because they are inconvenient or unwanted. It's selfish and it's wrong.**

    Refusing to sustain life is not the same thing as killing. It may or may not be selfish. That's not your concern. I happen to regard your assorted acts of rape and extortion as 'selfish and wrong'. Why don't you go back to your rapes, extortions, and doritos and keep your nose out of other people's lives?

    Reply
  148. "Refusing to sustain life is not the same thing as killing." I'll remember that next time a pro-abort brings up the lame kidney donation analogy.

    If a woman poisons her unborn child, she is killing her unborn child. If an abortionist takes instruments of death and dismembers a woman's unborn child, that is killing.

    Some animals are smarter than some humans – so, animals are not humans. Your 'humans are their minds' b s is just that – b s.

    In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held
    hearings where they discussed when human life begins. Internationally-known geneticists and biologists spoke.

    The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

    “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

    Besides, I've never seen a poll on the reasons for abortions that had "it's not a human being" on it. Most women use other reasons to kill their unborn child. "Cannot afford a child" is a common reason. If those women had real help, perhaps they could find a way to afford their child.

    Reply
  149. So… you are claiming here that if the woman simply refuses to sustain the life of the embryo, and either removes it intact – at any stage – or clamps off an artery leading to her uterus, rather than poisoning or dismembering it, that would be acceptable to you?

    ** If those women had real help, perhaps they could find a way to afford their child**

    I believe we've already dealt with that, according to you, toddlers hanging onto people's legs are their responsibility, but starving children somehow do not have any claim on myintx's money that they need 'for their very lives'. That being the case, we can dispense with the 'afford a child' bit, can't we?

    Reply
  150. That is not changing a law of nature. Both of those things depend on the law that sex causes pregnancy. If that law could be changed, then no one would be using birth control or having abortions.

    Reply
  151. Re 'personhood of the unborn':

    "Before I ( God ) formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were

    born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
    Jeremiah 1:5.

    "For You ( God ) created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mothers womb. I praise you

    because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonferful I know that full well. My

    frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw

    my unformed body ; all the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be. How precious to me are Your thoughts, God!

    Were I to count them they would
    outnumber the grains of sand – when I awake I am still with you…"
    Psalm 139:13-20.

    Reply
  152. "Human beings have basic rights. Unborn human beings should too – because they are human beings."

    A human fetus is not a human being. A human fetus is genetically not the same as a human being. It has a different phenotype and therefore is not the same as a human baby. For example until the fetal brain, heart, respiratory and digestive systems transform into the human form, there is no human life. There are structural differences between a human fetus and a human baby. If a fetus is a baby, then a sperm and egg are also human babies, just at an earlier stage of development. Just as the zygote needs the uterus, the sperm needs the egg.

    "An egg is human, but not a human being. Simple science."

    A fetus is a human fetus, but not a human baby. Simple science. There are structural and cognitive differences.

    "Human beings should not kill other human beings simply because they are inconvenient or unwanted. It's selfish and it's wrong."

    I agree, pro lifers have a choice, they may save innocent born humans or they may let them die and save fake humans. Pro lifers make the intentional choice to let humans die.
    There are 1.8 born humans, 1.4 unwanted fetuses and 10 wanted fetuses that die each second. If pro lifers spend 1 second saving an unwanted fetus then in that second 10 wanted fetuses and 1.8 born humans die. Pro lifers do not save life, they make the intentional choice to let proved life die in an effort to save fake life. They kill life they do not save life.

    Reply
  153. Erwin, you have a choice, you can save real live babies or you can intentionally let them die in an effort to save a fetus. Your choice is to ignore the commandment to save babies, children and the poor and instead you let them die.

    Reply
  154. "Refusing to sustain life is not the same thing as killing." I'll remember that next time a pro-abort brings up the lame kidney donation analogy.

    If a woman poisons her unborn child, she is killing her unborn child. If an abortionist takes instruments of death and dismembers a woman's unborn child, that is killing.

    Some animals are smarter than some humans – so, animals are not humans. Your 'humans are their minds' b s is just that – b s.

    In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held
    hearings where they discussed when human life begins. Internationally-known geneticists and biologists spoke.

    The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

    {{{“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”}}}}
    All scientist agree that life is continuous and likely began 3.5 billion years ago. Human life began about 250k years ago and has been continuous from that time forward. What you sources are saying is not what you believe they are saying. They have chosen an arbitrary point in time as an agreed point to start life. It is not when the life of a human starts in all circumstances. For example 70 percent of all zygotes do not produce human life. And 60 percent of those that die are not genetically capable of developing into humans and are therefore not human life.

    "Besides, I've never seen a poll on the reasons for abortions that had "it's not a human being" on it."

    That is because most people are not aware that most conceptions do not live.

    "Most women use other reasons to kill their unborn child."

    Scientifically speaking, until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype there is no unborn child. No person on earth can prove that any zef will produce a human baby. 30 percent of zygotes will produce a baby and even at birth only 99 percent of fetuses will produce a baby.

    {{{"Cannot afford a child" is a common reason. If those women had real help, perhaps they could find a way to afford their child.}}}

    1.8 born humans, 1.4 unwanted fetuses and 10 wanted fetuses die each second. So you have a choice, if you spend 1 second attempting to force the birth of an unwanted fetus, then in that second 10 wanted fetuses and 1.8 real babies will die. Your choice is to let the wanted life die so that you can control the woman with an unwanted fetus. You let nearly 12 humans die so you can impose your will. That is insane.

    Reply
  155. Recap:
    "If you did it ( or did not do it ) to the LEAST of these My brethren …" ref Matthew 25:40,45.

    "Better to have a millstone tied around your neck and cast into the sea.." ref Luke 17:2.

    Considering ,
    "It's a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hebrews 10:31.

    For,

    "I Am the God of … not the ( spiritually walking ) dead but of the ( spiritually ) living." ref Matthew 22:32; Colossians 2:13, 3:1-10.

    "…Depart from Me, you who work iniquity." ref Matthew 7:23.

    "…And such were some of you"
    ref 1Corinthians 6:9-11,

    …But God…
    ref Ephesians 2:1-10;

    "He every man that has this hope in him purifies himself, just as He is pure." 1John 3:3.

    Reply
  156. You remain with the choice to save babies or to let them die. So far your choice is to let babies die. Why not change your ways and join me in doing God's commandments and save innocent babies?

    Reply
  157. Your choice to murder innocent babies to save fetuses is an example of killing the "least of these". Why not stop your murders and join me in saving life, as the Bible commands.

    Reply
  158. We are talking about you murdering innocent babies, not about immoral sexual activities. Sex comes before pregnancy. They are different issues.

    Reply
  159. Honestly,
    I really do not know what 'you' are talking about most of the time, and doubt very much if you do yourself, much less anyone else.

    Your arguments make assumptions of others motives and actions and construct straw men of opposing

    views, which you then proceed to attack. Basically, you're talking to yourself, and doubt if anyone else is

    really listening, much less understanding what you are trying to say:
    Illogical diatribe, rants and raves, at the most, to say the least.

    Reply
  160. "Honestly,
    I really do not know what 'you' are talking about most of the time, and doubt very much if you do yourself, much less anyone else."

    If you are going to use the word "honestly", try to be honest.

    "Your arguments make assumptions of others motives and actions and construct straw men of opposing views, which you then proceed to attack."

    You are lying, give an example of a straw man argument I use.

    "Basically, you're talking to yourself, and I doubt if anyone else is really listening, much less understanding what you are trying to say: Illogical diatribe, rants and raves, at the most, to say the least."

    You have offered nothing but an ad hominem fallacy— because you have no other argument. Your whole post is a waste of time. If you have something to say, say it.

    This is what is clear. You have a choice, there are innocent babies dying and fetuses dying. You choose to let the babies die and save the fetuses. That is insane. For Christ's sake, stop letting the babies die. Join me in saving life.

    Reply
  161. Re 'straw man & ad hominem attacks, likewise':

    'Murdering pro-lifers','all pro lifers choose to let innocent babies die',

    'you are a proved murderer of innocent babies', 'so being pro life

    does not save life , it causes death' – an oxymoron., 'you must murder a real baby in to force the birth of a fetus'
    ( which then is 'a real baby, no?) circular , oxy-moronic reasoning, if you can even call that reasoning at all? Not!
    Need more?

    '..,yet you let the babies die.', 'you kill innocent babies to save fetuses… you will continue to be a murderer', ect., ect. ect…on and on and on;

    Your diatribe of rants and raves carries on and on and on and on, non stop, with no end in sight!

    To sum it all up: ref Isaiah 5:20-21.

    Reply
  162. Again with straw man, oxymoronic reasoning? I thought that was just addressed? Enough already!

    Re what's 'in the Bible':

    "The theif comes only to kill, steal and destroy. I ( Jesus Christ ) came

    that they ( including the unborn ) may have life, and more abundantly." John 10:10.

    Reply
  163. Again, there is nothing in the Bible that allows you to murder babies to save fetuses. You have a choice, you may save innocent born babies, as the Bible commands, or you can go against God's word and murder babies to save the fetuses.

    Reply
  164. An argument from silence isn't a validation, but an assumption on

    your part, and not too flattering to you, condidering how it makes you look; 'without a leg to stand on.'

    Reply
  165. So, then, rape should be left up to God to decide whether it is good or evil. It follows the same principle as making abortion illegal, after all. Considering that God endorsed rape in the bible rape must be a good thing, eh? He certainly never espoused an anti-abortion stance just like His son Jesus. Therefore, your attempts to make abortion bad are your OWN attempts to determine what is right or wrong. Not everyone is Christian. It's unfortunate, but the Christian left, of which I am a member, is far more compassionate than you Christian rightists.

    Reply
  166. Nope, I just said that JESUS never said anything about abortion, which is what we were discussing, no? Or like a typical anti do you tend to forget what you write after you write it? Besides, the fact that Jesus never spoke on it, even though it was already occurring by the time he was born, yet he spoke on every other subject that was pertinent to his times, certainly says a LOT. The BIBLE, itself, only ever speaks from a Pro-ABORTION, not Pro-CHOICE OR Pro-'Life' stance. So sorry.

    Reply
  167. The 'Christian Left' the 'Right' to embrace the 'Wrong',

    " To do what was right in their own eyes."
    ref Proverbs 21:2; Judges 17:6, 21:25.

    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25.

    As in the death of the conceived unborn and spiritual and eternal death of the unrepentive/unforgiven perpetrators of such.

    Reply
  168. According to gallup, In 1995 it was 56%. Now it's 46% (pretty much even with pro-life -within the margin of error). Where we get the biggest boost is that 64% of people want abortion generally illegal after the first trimester. That means most people have a fundamental disagreement with Roe V Wade.

    Reply
  169. An unborn child IS a human being. There is no scientific way that a newborn preemie at 22 weeks on life support can be a human being but an unborn child at 23 weeks cannot be.

    Reply
  170. Nope.
    Slightly more than half of the U.S. public (54%) thinks abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a level that has held fairly stable since the mid-1990s. About four-in-ten Americans say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, a level that also has been fairly stable since the mid-1990s.
    pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/abortion/

    PRINCETON, NJ — Forty years after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Roe v. Wade, significantly more Americans want the landmark abortion decision kept in place rather than overturned, 53% to 29%. Another 18% have no opinion, the highest level of uncertainty Gallup has recorded on this question in trends dating to 1989.
    gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx

    Reply
  171. Lots of people don't even know Roe V Wade was about abortion much less that it allows killing up until viability (about 24 weeks). Any generic poll question that asks if people want Roe to stay doesn't mean jack if it doesnt specifically mention Roe allows abortion until viability.

    The gallup poll specifically asked about abortion bans after 12 weeks and a majority (64%) said they wanted abortion generally illegal after 12 weeks. Meaning a majority of people have a fundamental disagreement with Roe V Wade.

    States can protect unborn children after viability if they want to. They should be allowed to protect unborn children before viability as well.

    Reply
  172. gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx – Scroll down to the bottom to see that 64% want abortion generally illegal in the 2nd trimester. This is a much more accurate question then the generic "do you support abortion" or "do you support Roe V Wade" questions that do not mention that Roe allows killing at 12 or 20 weeks.

    Reply
  173. Scroll down to the bottom of the survey ( gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). What percentage of people polled said abortion should be illegal in the second three months of pregnancy?

    Reply

Leave a Comment