"Women are Hosts"

[Bells]

Bells. while it may seem to you I am simply being belligerent, I am not trying to deliberately manipulate the culpability for my benefit. The issue of "they" versus "she" is a tricky one, and I'm trying to distinguish between the two thoughtfully.

"They" both willingly engaged in sex, which could lead to pregnancy. The issue responsibility does fall on both of them.

But, it is not his rights to his body that are jeopardized. So yes, what did she think was going to happen when she engaged in an act that could jeopardize her right to her body?

She was having sex, just like he was.

The point you seem to keep ignoring is that she bears the weight of the result of said pregnancy. So it is her body that will be permanently affected by it. It is her life that will be forever changed because of it. It is her body that is at risk. And thus, it should be her choice to decide if she wishes to continue with the pregnancy or terminate.

Unless of course you are now advocating a position whereby sex should only occur with the specific intent of procreation?

It is certainly her quandary and hers alone.

The question simply becomes: if another life is decided (by principle, not by law) to be a person, then she has put her right in conflict by engaging in sex.

It can't just be dismissed by rationalizing, "I have decided, retroactively, that I do not want to accept the consequences of my actions. I will abort the fetus."

Why not?

Why shouldn't she be allowed to say that 'I am pregnant, and I wish to terminate the pregnancy' because of any variety of circumstances that may be present that would warrant her desire to terminate said pregnancy?

And the life growing inside her.

Do you want to ban anti-biotics too?

That life growing inside her can be aborted naturally at any time. Tell me, do you think women should face criminal investigations if they miscarry? You know, since there was a life growing inside her and all and you seem to think that that life's interest should outweigh the rights and life of the mother in regards to her rights to her own body. Since you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that a woman's body is not her own at the moment of conception, do you think women should be required to undergo monthly pregnancy tests, because there could be a life growing inside her?

I need to ask, at what point do you think women should have full rights over their body? Do you think such a right exists at all for women once they become fertile and start menstruating?

What do you think should happen in cases of rape, sexual coercion, rape? Does "the life growing inside her" become less important in those cases? Or is your issue with a woman having a say and rights over her own body only when she has consensual sex, what with all of your "what was she thinking???" attitude?

Because it seems to me, your issue here is that women consent to sex, and thus, risk pregnancy and then in her wantonly ways, changes her mind and elects to abort. How did you describe it? Ah yes, her "get out of jail free card"?

You may not realise it, but you seem to be slut shaming women who have sex and then decide to have an abortion if they get pregnant from said sex. That if she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex kind of thing you have going on there.

I am asking:

When she decided to have sex, knowing it could result in the dependency of another life, did she own the responsibility for that?

Well obviously.

When she decides whether to abort or continue with the pregnancy, she is owning the responsibility for having sex.

You do understand this, yes?

Sure, and she also owns her body when taking her three young children to the zoo.
But she does not have the right to do with her body whatever she wants if it endangers her living children.
Because she has agreed to care for them. When she acted to get pregnant.

The only question I'm asking is: when should they become a responsibility, instead just an inconvenience?

Actually, she agreed to care for them when she acted to continue with the pregnancy.

They become a responsibility when you reach the point that it is no longer safe or viable to abort or when they are born.

As above. If she carries on to give both to children, she does have some restrictions on the she can do with herself. She has chosen those responsibilities. She can't just give them up when her children turn five.

You mean she has responsibilities after they have exited her womb and are no longer inside her body?

And just by the by..

Have you never seen orphanages and foster children whose parents do give them up from any age?

Whether the term is 'waive' or 'forfeit', a parent has taken responsibilities that restrict their freedoms.

I am simply questioning when those responsibilties to that life should kick in.

When they come out and are no longer taking up residence in the mother's body.

No. I would prefer she be a grown up when she decided to have sex. She is saying "I am risking pregnancy here. Am I prepared to follow through on that responsibility?"

Or is she saying "Nah. If it happens I can always get an abortion." Surely, access to an aborion is not a get out of jail free card for the predictable consequences of sex?

I don't know a single woman who says 'nah, if I get pregnant, I can always get an abortion'.

Not a one.

Your issue seems to be with women who have sex for pleasure and not for procreation purposes and then if they find they are pregnant, decide to abort. As I said before, it's a manner of slut shaming women, because she "decided to have sex" and *gasp*, got pregnant and had an abortion. You have turned her into someone irresponsible for having sex for reasons other than procreation.

Are you Catholic?

Perfect. And would she think about this before or after the act that instigates it?

She would think about this when her period is late or she feels somewhat unwell and goes to the doctors and her doctor tells her she's pregnant.

Tell me, do you think "babies" each time you have sex?

Parents take on responsibilities. Yes, even at the expense of their health. That's what deciding to get pregnant means.

Not every woman "decides" to get pregnant.

Does not mean that just because they didn't decide to get pregnant, and they get pregnant, that they should forfeit all of their rights to their bodies.

See how that works?

 

[Bells]

Bell, you insert your own agenda into other people's mouths. Argue in good faith.

It would help if you did not spend pages going on and on about women having sex and the whole "what was she thinking" and the sneering about women who elect to have abortions.

It would also help if you addressed the fact that unplanned pregnancies occur for various reasons, some are also the result of rape, sexual coercion, incest. It would certainly help if you clarified why your issues with abortion and the "life" she is terminating only seems to be with women who have consensual sex, yet you remain silent on issues of rape, incest, sexual coercion, for example. Is it because if you value the "life" created from these instances of "sex" is valued less than if the woman chooses to have sex?

That's what I don't understand with your pro-life arguments. You are only focusing on women who choose to have sex, and arguing about their lack of responsibility and about the "life" they are destroying for reasons of convenience. But what of rape and incest victims, for example? That "life" they are aborting is valued less to you?

It's the hypocrisy that kills me, Dave and it is why I said that you simply cannot address those cases because it would show the double standards and that you might be forced to admit that women are human beings with fundamental rights over their bodies, because those fundamental human rights do not end or disappear if a woman chooses to have sex.

Any person (man OR woman) who engages in sex and are grown ups, must grapple with the consequences (worse of women, granted).
The only shame here is in not wearing one's grownup pants.

When did sex become only an act of consequence-free recreation?

When people found out that sex was enjoyable and pleasurable and not a 'spread your legs and think of England' because one had to make babies to carry on the family name.

And women who elect to abort their pregnancies are wearing their grown up pants because they have decided to not give birth to a baby they do not want and may not be able to care for, or they might be ill and decide to terminate to allow them to seek treatment. There are a variety of reasons for women to have abortions, Dave.

What do you have to say about the issue of taking responsibility beforehand rather than simply sweeping the problem away in the light of day?

I say that sometimes, for example, contraception fails and when that happens, women should have the right to decide what is the best outcome for them and if that means termination, then so be it. That it is her decision and hers alone, as it is her body and her life that will be affected and at risk, no one else's and that people should mind their own business as it is a private and personal matter.

Yes, there are limits to what one can do with one's body when there are other factors in-play, such as a dependent life.

In a contrived example: If a woman has a babe-in-arms who is actually latched at the breast, she cannot go scuba-diving. It would jeopardize the baby's life.

Sure, she can temporarily mitigate that by handing off the baby. But the point is made: a person who has another life in their care is limited. That right is not sacrosanct.
If it bothers you to say that she has waived her right to scuba dive while in the process of breastfeeding, I can't help that.

She does have responsibility of another life that will hamper her desire to do what she will, when she will, with her body.

I am simply raising the issue of when that responsibility for that life kicks in.

The example you cite has a baby that is outside of her body.

You understand the difference between the two, yes?

 

[Jeeves]

When is that decision to be made? Week 0, week 20, week 39, or does it even matter?

Whenever it's made. No, it doesn't matter when.
Some people decide to be parents, then wait 10, 15 years and take all kinds of crazy, expensive treatments before they conceive, or else adopt a child.
Some decide to be parents after discovering an unintended pregnancy.
Some have no intention of becoming parents until they inherit a child from a deceased or incapacitated relative.
When they decide, and knowingly, willingly take the responsibility is when they become parents.

 

[Bells]

When is that decision to be made? Week 0, week 20, week 39, or does it even matter?

From a legal and medical standpoint, it is at the point where doctors are unable to abort. Usually around the 32 week mark. They will only abort a week or two after that, in cases of forced pregnancies, child pregnancies where the girl was unable to access an abortion before hand and continuing with the pregnancy endangers her life, where the foetus is dying or has just been discovered to have severe abnormalities that would make it incompatible with life, for example. I have a friend who aborted after the 32 week mark, because the latest scans showed severe abnormalities and that their baby was dying and her life was in danger. She ran the gamut of obscene accusations of being a murderer and being spat on, when she went in to terminate the pregnancy, being forced to labor at home and give birth to a baby that died.

Contrary to what many believe, they don't perform abortions at 39 weeks or as some have stupidly argued in the past, during child birth. You know, for obvious reasons. But heaven forbid we actually discuss this issue like sane people without ridiculous and obscene hypothetical's, like the "39" week question.

 

[Capracus]

Contrary to what many believe, they don't perform abortions at 39 weeks or as some have stupidly argued in the past, during child birth. You know, for obvious reasons. But heaven forbid we actually discuss this issue like sane people without ridiculous and obscene hypothetical's, like the "39" week question.

I can’t imagine that there are many ethically challenged doctors that would perform a 39 week abortion. But should such an amoral doctor be allowed to if a woman decides at that point not to be a mother?

 

[Michael 345]

Question

Is a baby born of

THREE parents any different from those from TWO parents?

ie does the 3rd parent get a look in?

 

[Bells]

I can’t imagine that there are many ethically challenged doctors that would perform a 39 week abortion. But should such an amoral doctor be allowed to if a woman decides at that point not to be a mother?

Oh hey, look, ridiculous hypothetical. How strange and unusual that this comes from you, Capracus...

Taken to channeling Trump and his comments about 'ripping the baby out at 9 months'?

The realities of late term abortions. More to the point, what doctors actually do and why:

Women may also need to delay an abortion in order to save up the money to pay for the procedure, which can cost around $500 for early abortions and $1,500 for late-term abortions, according to Planned Parenthood. Some states also impose waiting periods before a woman can have an abortion, or require parental consent for an abortion if the woman is a minor, which creates further delays, Planned Parenthood says.

A woman may also require a late-term abortion if her health or life is threatened by continuing her pregnancy, according to Planned Parenthood. Conditions that could lead to a late-term abortion include infections, heart failure, uncontrolled diabetes, serious kidney disease and severe depression, according to Planned Parenthood.

Problems with the health of the fetus, including severe birth defects, can also lead to late-term abortions. "After 24 weeks, birth defects that lead to abortion are very severe and typically considered incompatible with life," Dr. Jen Gunter, an obstetrician and gynecologist based in San Francisco, wrote on her blog after last night's debate. ("Incompatible with life" means the baby would not survive after birth.)

In these circumstances, practitioners can either induce labor (which means the baby is delivered, and may die from the birth defects shortly afterward) or perform a modified abortion. Oftentimes, when a late-term abortion is performed for serious birth defects, it is because inducing labor would be hazardous for the woman, Gunter wrote.

The further along a woman is in her pregnancy, the more likely a doctor is to induce labor, rather than perform an abortion, but some practitioners may be able to perform an abortion up to 34 weeks, Gunter said.

But at 38 to 39 weeks of pregnancy, if it's clear that the fetus will not survive long after birth, a modified abortion is no longer an option. A health care provider induces labor, and this "is simply called a delivery," Gunter said.​

Emphasis mine.

So can you please stop bringing up these weird and frankly somewhat sick hypothetical's and scenarios when the issue of abortion comes up? Because I have lost count the amount of times you have sprung up into these discussions, with the exact same argument of 38+ week abortions and the rest of what you always come up with about when women ask for an abortion.

 

[iceaura]

I have explicitly raised the issue of when a fetus should be considered a person about a dozen times in the last hundred posts or so. It has been my primary argument.

You haven't, actually. Go on back and take a look. You've been generally talking about the supposed irresponsibility of some presumably careless and shortsighted recreational promiscuity, that kind of stuff - how people need to put on their grownup pants and agree with you that having sex with someone means giving up their right to evict people from inside their own bodies.

You aren't arguing about the personhood of the embryo at all. You're arguing about the irresponsibility of women who have sex without agreeing in advance to bear children from it, and continually narrowing your reference to more and more careless, slipshod, heedlessly promiscuous women. It's the will of these hypothetical woman that draws your attention, not some violation of personhood of a five week embryo.
Like this:

The implication of your comment is essentially that people (any people) who find themselves in situations they don't like - because they didn't think about the consequences beforehand - are not automatically resolved of the responsibility for them.

So clearly you aren't talking about all the women who did think about the consequences beforehand, and made sure they could get an abortion if need be - right?

I have said before that I think it is critical to hash out the principle of the matter

In principle, any woman who wants to have sex but not bear children should be ready to get an abortion if need be. Is that what you meant?

 

[Capracus]

So can you please stop bringing up these weird and frankly somewhat sick hypothetical's and scenarios when the issue of abortion comes up? Because I have lost count the amount of times you have sprung up into these discussions, with the exact same argument of 38+ week abortions and the rest of what you always come up with about when women ask for an abortion.

I've no need to repeat any brain teasing hypotheticals, we'll let reality speak for itself. There are desperate women willing to terminate pregnancies at any stage of gestation, and there are facilitators willing to oblige them.

Sarah Catt, Woman Who Self-Aborted Child Within A Week Of Due Date, Jailed For 8 Years

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...by-due-date-jailed-eight-years_n_1889691.html

Should Sarah Catt have the right to decline motherhood at 39 weeks?

 

[iceaura]

Should Sarah Catt have the right to decline motherhood at 39 weeks?

Yep. And remove anyone from inside her body at any time.
But not kill the baby.

 

[wellwisher]

I believe in the woman's right to an abortion, but the tax payer should not have to pay. Rather it should be up to the woman to back up her choice with her own money. The right to have an abortion, should work like the right to be bear arms. Tax payers are not forced to buy guns for anyone who wishes to practice the right to own a gun. We don't ship tax payer bought guns to the inner cities so poor people can practice their right to own a gun. A right assumes a level of maturity, whereby to exercise the right, one needs to be responsible, self reliant or helped via charity. Or do you think the right to bear arms should involve tax payers buying guns for irresponsible people to simulate tax payer funded abortion?

 

[Capracus]

Yep. And remove anyone from inside her body at any time.
But not kill the baby.

So you’re saying that at some point during pregnancy a fetus acquires a right to life? Would that also extend to a right to optimal health?

Or do you think the right to bear arms should involve tax payers buying guns for irresponsible people to simulate tax payer funded abortion?

Increased access to abortion moderates excessive population growth, and reduces social problems associated with compromised family dynamics.

We already have enough guns in the US to arm every man, woman, and child in the country. What would be the social benefit to allow even greater access to firearms to our citizenry?

 

[Michael 345]

We already have enough guns in the US to arm every man, woman, and child in the country. What would be the social benefit to allow even greater access to firearms to our citizenry?

Bad joke but heard in many countries

The attitude of America towards guns is to give every individual the right to commit retrospective abortion

Sick I know but it is out there

 

[Jeeves]

"motherhood as a punishment for naughty behaviour are not very good bases for a nurturing relationship"

Granted. As a practical matter.

I have said before that I think it is critical to hash out the principle of the matter. This would better inform practical solutions.

You have made your position on that single, very limited issue, quite clear.
I think i have, as well.
I'm ready to move on to any or all of the practical issues that have been raised by others.

 

[DaveC426913]

The point you seem to keep ignoring is that she bears the weight of the result of said pregnancy. So it is her body that will be permanently affected by it. It is her life that will be forever changed because of it. It is her body that is at risk.

I am not ignoring it. I am saying it's not necessarily the only card on the table.
You're doing fine asserting the rights of the woman, I don't need to clarify that. I am asserting the other factors.

And thus, it should be her choice to decide if she wishes to continue with the pregnancy or terminate.

Why shouldn't she be allowed to say that 'I am pregnant, and I wish to terminate the pregnancy' because of any variety of circumstances that may be present that would warrant her desire to terminate said pregnancy?

So you are advocating abortion as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Do you want to ban anti-biotics too?

Excellent. Growing fetuses are merely bacteria.

Tell me, do you think women should face criminal investigations if they miscarry?

No.

You know, since there was a life growing inside her and all and you seem to think that that life's interest should outweigh the rights and life of the mother in regards to her rights to her own body.

Your initial stance was "she can do whatever she wants with her body."

The issue of endangerment to her life is a different issue, and should be weighed accordingly.

Since you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that a woman's body is not her own at the moment of conception,

I have not made any such argument. In fact, I have explicitly said I do not think conception is the appropriate moment.
I have raised the Pro-lifer stance for discussion, but none one here, including me, advocates it.

do you think women should be required to undergo monthly pregnancy tests, because there could be a life growing inside her?

Nope. just like we don't need child services dropping in every month to see if you're feeding your toddler. See how issues don't have to be black and white?

I need to ask, at what point do you think women should have full rights over their body? Do you think such a right exists at all for women once they become fertile and start menstruating?

You need to ask because you need to place me in a box that you can label.
Better to address what I am saying than what you right on the outside of the box.

What do you think should happen in cases of rape, sexual coercion, rape? Does "the life growing inside her" become less important in those cases? Or is your issue with a woman having a say and rights over her own body only when she has consensual sex, what with all of your "what was she thinking???" attitude?

Needlessly argumentative. You know perfectly well, that "what was she thinking" does not apply to non-consensual sex. I have been a inserting "consensual sex" in virtually every post.

Because it seems to me, your issue here is

Here's the windup...

that women consent to sex, and thus, risk pregnancy and then in her wantonly ways, changes her mind and elects to abort. How did you describe it? Ah yes, her "get out of jail free card"?
You may not realise it, but you seem to be slut shaming women who have sex and then decide to have an abortion if they get pregnant from said sex. That if she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex kind of thing you have going on there.

...and there's the pitch.

Address my actual words, not the ones you put in my mouth.

When she decides whether to abort or continue with the pregnancy, she is owning the responsibility for having sex.
You do understand this, yes?

Could the same thing be argued for a baby one month after birth? "I take responsibility by deciding to end it."

Have you never seen orphanages and foster children whose parents do give them up from any age?

Yep. And if there were a way that she could give up an unborn fetus without ending its life, that would make a good point.

I don't know a single woman who says 'nah, if I get pregnant, I can always get an abortion'.

I don't either. Which is to my point.
It seems that you are implying this is an OK thing.

Your issue seems to be

Here's the pitch...

with women who have sex for pleasure and not for procreation purposes and then if they find they are pregnant, decide to abort. As I said before, it's a manner of slut shaming women, because she "decided to have sex" and *gasp*, got pregnant and had an abortion. You have turned her into someone irresponsible for having sex for reasons other than procreation.

...and its another spitball.

If you made an argument based on what I've actually said, without the melodrama, do you think it would still carry weight?


You have made several references to feeling shamed. Do you want to talk?

Tell me, do you think "babies" each time you have sex?

Is this an excuse? "I didn't think of it."

Not every woman "decides" to get pregnant.

True.

But pretending there's no gray area where an unborn child might have rights is not the way to resolve the debate.

Does not mean ... that they should forfeit all of their rights to their bodies.

No one (certainly not me) said they should.

I guess that means we're in agreement. Women do not forfeit ALL rights to their bodies.

 

[Jeeves]

So you are advocating abortion as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

There it is, the principle. Parenthood as a life sentence for a few careless minutes vs. getting away with some carefree minutes.

I believe in the woman's right to an abortion, but the tax payer should not have to pay.

The tax payer would prefer to pick up the tab for 9 months' prenatal care, hospital delivery, post-natal care, vaccinations, 16 years of pediatric medicine, from colic through meningitis, tonsillectomy, 3 severe influenzas, a couple of hockey injuries (white boy), a police bullet (black boy) and maybe leukemia. That's one stooopid tax-payer!

 

[DaveC426913]

There it is, the principle. Parenthood as a life sentence for three careless minutes vs. getting away with three careless minutes.

The principle is whether a fetus of some development should be considered to have personhood.

The problem is that lots of people would like to think their lives is carefree and consequence free.

 

[Jeeves]

The principle is whether a fetus of some development should be considered to have personhood.

No. The common rule of thumb is: after birth, a baby is entitled to protection, but is not a person. A child of 0-16 or 18 years is a ward of its parents or the state or some institution - not a person in its own right. When it can live on its own - make decisions, earn its keep, get arrested, drive, open a bank account - it's a person with rights and responsibilities.
A number of zones in there are various shades of gray and are negotiated case by case, according to circumstances and legal jurisdictions.

The problem is that lots of people would like to think their lives is carefree and consequence free.

They used to be called "young men". Now they include some women. Their existence seems to trouble you.
Why?
If a mistake can be rectified with minimal effort and expense, why make a big issue of it?
Have we not enough bad decisions, at all levels of human endeavour, whose consequences are more costly, more difficult to repair?

 

[Bells]

I've no need to repeat any brain teasing hypotheticals, we'll let reality speak for itself. There are desperate women willing to terminate pregnancies at any stage of gestation, and there are facilitators willing to oblige them.

Sarah Catt, Woman Who Self-Aborted Child Within A Week Of Due Date, Jailed For 8 Years

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...by-due-date-jailed-eight-years_n_1889691.html

Should Sarah Catt have the right to decline motherhood at 39 weeks?

Whether she has the right or not, she clearly chose to abort.

But your byline about Sarah Catt, also leaves out some important factors.

1) Sarah Catt had tried to procure a legal abortion on a couple of occasions, but being past the 24 week mark, was denied access to one.

2) Sarah Catt delivered a deceased child. Whether it was the drugs she took to induce labor killed the child, no one knows as she refuses to reveal where its remains are buried.

3) Is it my place to deny her her rights? No. At the end of the day, the only person who knows what happened is Sarah Catt. She was the one who was in that desperate situation with zero help. Had she been allowed to procure an abortion much earlier, it would never have gotten to the point where she had to induce her own labour at home as a final act of desperation.

That was the reality of her situation.

Perhaps you are expecting some self righteous 'ah mah gawd! She killed a baby!' reaction from me. Sorry, you aren't going to get it. What she did was clearly illegal, but at the end of the day, it is her body and had she been allowed to procure an abortion at a much earlier date, it wouldn't have had to happen like this. But we should be mindful that when help isn't available to women when they need it, especially women who are as disturbed as Sarah Catt clearly was at the time in her desperation, this is when awful and dangerous things happen.

If anything, you have only re-affirmed the need for legal and safe late term abortions, so that women like Sarah Catt do not find themselves in a position of being alone, and having to consume dangerous drugs to induce labour at home, where god knows what could have happened to her.

 

[Bells]

I am not ignoring it. I am saying it's not necessarily the only card on the table.
You're doing fine asserting the rights of the woman, I don't need to clarify that. I am asserting the other factors.

Oh you have made yourself quite clear. Your repeated comments about her consenting to sex, while knowing the risk, and the manner in which you made those comments.. Believe me, you are quite clear.

I will say though how you can claim to be pro-choice is kind of beyond me.

There is no "but" or any other card on the table, Dave. She either has fundamental human rights to her body or she does not. There is no but.

So you are advocating abortion as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Is that what I said?

No. I said that whatever circumstance that warrants an abortion, that is her choice and decision and hers alone. It's none of my business as it is not my body or my life that is affected. In short, it is not my place to tell another woman what she should be doing with her body.

You seem to be focusing a lot on this 'get out of jail free card', which frankly makes no sense, because you deny that you are shaming women who have sex and then get pregnant, because "consequences!!" and you go on and on about how she is irresponsible for doing so, and the constant "get out of jail free card".. I mean, is this how you value a woman's fundamental human rights to her own body? Judge and shame her for having sex and then accuse her of simply relying on abortion as a "get out of jail free card", as though it is something flippant.. You seem intent on painting the woman as being irresponsible with your wording, Dave. What I was pointing out is that there are various circumstances that can and do lead women to requiring an abortion. You are so intent on focusing on how women are sooooo irresponsible for having sex "what did she think would happen????" (that was you, remember?), that you completely disregard what those circumstances are.

Which is frankly astonishing that you then claim to be 'pro-choice'.

Excellent. Growing fetuses are merely bacteria.

Pregnancy is parasitic in nature to the mother. It strips the mother of everything and if she does not keep up with a healthy diet, increase her consumption of things like folate, iron, calcium, she can end up with osteoporosis at a fairly early age, not to mention being anemic. She can develop gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, because of the pressure the pregnancy can place on her body. If it was not the same species as the mother, it could very well be deemed a parasite.

What do you think happens during a pregnancy, Dave?

As a woman who has had two children, both of whom were wanted and very much desired and fought for, I can assure you, it was like growing two parasites in my body as they stripped me of everything, meaning that when they were born, I required huge blood transfusions, iron tablets, iron shots, calcium tablets, along with a plethora of other issues that arose during and after both pregnancies.

But you know, way to go taking my comments out of context.

My point, is that if you are so keen to preserve "life" in bodies, then in reality, you should also be against using antibiotics. Just sayin'..

No

Why not? She's ended a life, even if inadvertently. Because you are carrying on about terminating a life in this thread, but miscarriage does not warrant any action?

Your initial stance was "she can do whatever she wants with her body."

The issue of endangerment to her life is a different issue, and should be weighed accordingly.

My stance is that it is her body and not my place or anyone else's place, to tell her what to do with it. It is her body, her life and her decision. It is private and personal matter, between her and her doctor. It is not my place or society's to judge her as being irresponsible for wanting to procure an abortion.

Understand now?

Or do you want to twist that little pretzel some more?

I have not made any such argument. In fact, I have explicitly said I do not think conception is the appropriate moment.
I have raised the Pro-lifer stance for discussion, but none one here, including me, advocates it.

Oh so when you prattle on about "what did she think would happen???" and going on about how irresponsible she is to have sex because of the risk that she would be ending another life, I take it you think that "life" comes into it down the track of the pregnancy?

You see, your argument is disjointed. I don't think you actually realise how you are coming across in this thread.

Because you have literally argued that when she has sex, she pretty much forfeits her rights to her body because of the 'life' she may have created by having sex.

So, let me ask, at what point does that "life" begin? If it's not at conception, at what point in the pregnancy should she forfeit her rights to her body? Because earlier, you seemed to argue that that pretty much happened from when she had sex and risked pregnancy. Now you are saying it's not at the point of conception? Do you have a red line as to when? Or have you changed your mind?

Nope. just like we don't need child services dropping in every month to see if you're feeding your toddler. See how issues don't have to be black and white?

But you argued that women forfeited their rights by having sex, because of the risk of pregnancy.

Are you changing your mind now?

You need to ask because you need to place me in a box that you can label.
Better to address what I am saying than what you right on the outside of the box.

Hmmm

One can easily argue that (in the consensual case), the woman willingly forfeited sole right to her body when she engaged in an activity that could result in a pregnancy.

Are these not your words?

It can be argued that a woman who engages in (consensual) sex wilfully waives sole rights to her body.

If she knows the consequences of her actions, and chooses to partake anyway, she is taking the risk with foreknowledge. Her rights are not being taken away; she is consenting to waive some of her rights.

Like any other action, consequences are often understood but not considered. Oft times, people (both men and women) think that sex is merely recreational, and they ignore the fact that, people being fecund by nature, the act comes with it the risk of conception.

A very good time to decide you don't want to have a baby, would be prior to engaging in the act that makes them.

JamesR applied this to men, but it applies even moreso to women, to whom the consequences are significantly greater.

People who engage in sex (men or women) know that there can be consequences.
What if someone stopped them on the steps and said "Have you considered that you may get pregnant? Are you prepared now to take that responsibility tomorrow?"

What will their answer be?

And do they need someone else to ask them that which they can easily ask themselves?

Are you suggesting that men or women who have sex need not concern themselves with the natural consequences?

I mean, that was just from one page.

But you are correct. Your words indicate that women forfeit their rights to their body when they engage in consensual sex, because according to you, when she does that, then she waives sole rights to her body.

Ya, because how you put it is sooooooo much better and not puritanical or shaming women for having consensual sex for reasons other than procreation, at all..