• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From conception to viability <30% chance

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

:doh it's not me or other men telling women about pregnancy. It's medical science. The human body was designed to bear children and in most cases it can do so without any long-term harm or danger to the mother. This ridiculous lie about pro-lifers wanting to sentence women to death is the strawman of all strawmans. It's a blatant lie and an appeal to irrational hysteria. Nobody is putting the child's life ahead of the mother's. We're simply putting it on the same level as the mother. It's a shame you find that so repulsive.

Secondly, stop making this about gender. Most women in the world are against abortion. In the US, men and women have similar views on abortion. In some cases women are actually more likely to be pro-life than men are. You can see that here, here and here. So no - it's not men who are standing in your way. Stop playing the vagina card. Even if we did leave it down to women only, you'd lose on a global scale and have just as many barriers locally.
Plus, we all know you are happy to take a man's advice if he agrees with you on this issue, so don't pretend like you are repulsed at men having a say. It's total trash and you know it.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm objecting to conservative Christian males telling women how pregnancy is quick, easy and simple, not medical science. BTW it's not the human body that was designed to bear children. It's the female body and making choice illegal is most certainly making an embryo more important than the women.

But you are right real men aren't preventing women from controlling their lives it's emotionally insecure conservative males boosting their egos by dominating women's reproductive lives.
 
Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say


This paper suggests that there's only about a 30% chance that a fertilized egg properly takes and makes it to a more stable developmental phase some 6 weeks later. After that, survivability increases greatly, even though some severe problems can still come up.

With this in mind, does a claim that a fertilized egg is a human or a citizen hold much weight? Would the religious fundamentalists still hold to the sanctity of conception? Is it sufficient to make it a crime to interfere as early as the first few weeks?

We have morning after pills that will work I think up to 72 hours after conception. If we also had a cheap and responsive test to know if conception had happened in that time, and we paired it with the morning after pill to basically replace a majority of today's abortion, would the pro-life movement accept it as a compromise?

It seems the best and most popular arguments and complaints against abortion focus on late stage frivolous abortions and a well developed potentially viable child.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

1.) the claim a fertilized egg is "a" human noun has never held weight . . medical scientist including embryologist do not have a consensus on saying a fertilized egg is a human. That info has been posted here many times. Not until fetus stage is there at least a general consensus.
2.) as for my personal views though, that information has always been very importation to me as to why i value the born woman over the ZEF and not the other way around. I have said many times i just cant treat the woman as a lesser and violate her rights for an unknown, for an entity that may very well abort itself.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

You can't kill someone by your own hand and then claim it was God's plan. That's not how it works. Legally and religiously, the term "act of God" referred to something that happened uncontrollably or randomly.

My God was renowned for washing the feet of societies poorest and most desolate people, as well as carrying sick and incapable on his back. I do the same. I see value in a soul regardless of the clothes they wear, their car, their money, their job title, their gender, their size, or even their health or physical development.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can say, "My God was renowned for washing the feet of societies poorest and most desolate people, as well as carrying sick and incapable on his back. I do the same.I see value in a soul regardless." yet previously on the opt-out of child support thread say:

#904: If women can't support a family on their own, they will need to factor that into their decision when to keep or abort the baby
#907. Condoms limit friction, feeling, and the overall enjoyment of sex for men. In other words, they suck the fun out of having sex.
#1217. She doesn't abort, in which case she has a child to support. So how is that his problem? If she can't afford to support the child she shouldn't have had it.

So which are you smarmy and altruist or sexist and selfish?
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

I disagree I sincerely believe that abortions are a part of God’s plan.

He has committed far more abortions than woman have. About two thirds of all feterlized human eggs are spontaneously aborted within the first few weeks of firtization. Most before they they even had a chance of implanting or within the first week of implantation.

Another 15 to 20 percent of pregnancies spontaneously abort ( miscarry ) after the woman is aware she is pregnant.

********

I sincerely believe that zygotes/embryos/fetuses that are miscarried or aborted are just the shells that a soul enters into at birth.
About two thirds of zygotes ( fertilized eggs ) are never implanted or self abort about the first week after implanting.
It does not matter that they had "unique" DNA.
They passed right though the body.


I had two miscarriages. my second one was a very deformed fetus.
If I had not had those two miscarriages my two youngest might never have been born
because my husband and I had wanted and planned for 4 children.

God sometimes works in very mysterious ways.
Sometimes things are not meant to be.
We have no idea if sometimes abortions are a part of God's plan
just as miscarriages may sometimes be a part of God's plan.


I had two miscarriages between my 2 ed and 3rd child.
The first miscarriage was early on. I was about 5 to 6 weeks gestation.
If I had carried to term the due date would have been in March.
During my 4th pregnancy I went into premature labor when I was about 5 months gestation.
I was looking forward to a healthy baby.

My doctor was out of town so when I went into early labor we ended up at the ER.
They took a pregnancy test and told me I was no longer pregnant.
The doctor covering for my doctor did not want to come in that day so they shot me full of med's to try to stop the labor.
They took me to the maternity ward with other woman who had given birth to healthy babies.
When I was transferring from the gurney to the bed the fetus was expelled and I accidentally saw it and how deformed it was.

My doctor told me that the fetus was so deformed that even if I had carried it longer it never would have been viable .
If it had been a healthy pregnancy and I had carried it to term my due date would have been in November.

A little more than year later I learned I was pregnant again.
I was very worried I might miscarry again.
I had been irregular so the doctor sent me for an ultrasound to monitor how far along I was and if everything looked normal.
I was told my due date was the end of January.
I had some false labor mid January ,went to the hospital and I was sent back home.
I had false labor again the end of January but it stopped so the doctor ordered meds to induce the labor.
The contractions were coming too hard and too fast. They were worried about the baby so
they stopped it.
My doctor ordered fetal activity tests 2 times a week for the next 4 weeks.
To make a long story shorter our "Miracle" child was born March 2 ed.
Two and half years later our youngest was born in November.

March and November ... God chose the same months my miscarried ones were due.

You can convince yourself all you want. Most sects of Christianity have a pretty clear stance on abortion, and your definition of God's plan is simply wrong. If you speed down a highway drunk and die, it was not God's plan. If you commit a mass murder of 51 people in cold blood, it was not God's plan - it was yours.

If your child dies naturally in the womb, it was God's plan. If God gives you a viable child in the womb which you take upon yourself to kill because of your personal preference, you did the wrong thing.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

You can convince yourself all you want. Most sects of Christianity have a pretty clear stance on abortion, and your definition of God's plan is simply wrong. If you speed down a highway drunk and die, it was not God's plan. If you commit a mass murder of 51 people in cold blood, it was not God's plan - it was yours.

If your child dies naturally in the womb, it was God's plan. If God gives you a viable child in the womb which you take upon yourself to kill because of your personal preference, you did the wrong thing.

Come back and talk to us when you are pregnant.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

You can convince yourself all you want. Most sects of Christianity have a pretty clear stance on abortion, and your definition of God's plan is simply wrong. If you speed down a highway drunk and die, it was not God's plan. If you commit a mass murder of 51 people in cold blood, it was not God's plan - it was yours.

If your child dies naturally in the womb, it was God's plan. If God gives you a viable child in the womb which you take upon yourself to kill because of your personal preference, you did the wrong thing.

I disagree.

The vast majority of the Jewish faith and a large segment of Protestant religions sincerely believe that abortion is a moral decision left to the woman and her family.

In fact The Justices took our religious liberty and conscience into concideration when deciding Roe.

From Part IX of Roe :

There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [Footnote 56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith.[/B*] [Footnote 57]
It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [Footnote 58]

 
Last edited:
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

You can't kill someone by your own hand and then claim it was God's plan. That's not how it works...

....

You cannot declare your religious teaching /tenant as fact and you cannot require other Christian religions to follow your church’s teaching /tenets.

From the following :


Unwanted pregnancies cause poverty and release unprepared children into a world that increasingly refuses to sustain them. But that “practical” argument is not why women can have morally good abortions. We can have morally good abortions because we are human beings, with God-given rights to human agency, just like men.

Women are moral agents. Women are capable of making soulful, moral decisions about their own bodies. Assuming that a woman cannot decide for herself if and when to bear a child demeans women. Mandatory childbearing makes the woman a hostage to the will of others — those unfamiliar with her story, her life experience and her needs, and may have disastrous consequences for the children. Medical choices, like terminating a pregnancy, are medically available. Other life sustaining medical procedures are not considered immoral. Why the complaint against abortion?

Our faith tradition teaches soul competency, a Baptist principle that is violated in restricting the right to choose an abortion. Our forebears suffered greatly, even to the point of death, to express their conviction that no one stands between the individual and God.
...


Our faith tradition teaches freedom for religion and freedom from religion. As powerful as the U.S. Constitution must have seemed at its inception, Baptists were not satisfied that it would protect their most deeply held principles. “We, as a society,” they wrote President Washington, “feared that the liberty of conscience, dearer to us than property or life, was not sufficiently secured.” The pressure they brought helped in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, in which the very first amendment defines two critical tenets of our society: the separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion. To privilege one spiritual belief over another violates religious freedom. Theocratic legislation is neither Baptist nor, fundamentally, American.

Our foundation of Baptist principles and our Christian call to advocate for justice provide a powerful theological grounding for our unwavering support for a woman’s individual freedom to choose whether and how to bear children. ...

Consenting adults are free to have sex that is not procreative. The state should not dictate reproductive decisions, either in favor of or in opposition to carrying a child to term.

As Christians, as Baptists, we wearily say, the right to choose a medical procedure is also a woman’s right. It has to do fundamentally with the freedom of our souls to practice our religion and morality in our own ways.


Read more:

Most Women Under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument | HuffPost
 
Last edited:
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

No, I'm pretty sure I'm objecting to conservative Christian males telling women how pregnancy is quick, easy and simple, not medical science. BTW it's not the human body that was designed to bear children. It's the female body and making choice illegal is most certainly making an embryo more important than the women.

But you are right real men aren't preventing women from controlling their lives it's emotionally insecure conservative males boosting their egos by dominating women's reproductive lives.

Ergh, if you feel the need to carry on like a child you're not worth the bandwidth. You've chosen to completely ignore evidence to the contrary of what you claim. Just as many women agree with "Conservative men" than the women who disagree. The position of Conservative men is not one of ignorance or desire to suppress women since plenty of women feel the exact same way.

You also ignore the fact that it takes two genders to create a child. A man has to give up his body and what's inside it for that child, so you don't get to simply pass a man's involvement.

Don't flatter yourself. Nobody cares about your vagina, I promise.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

You cannot declare your religious teaching /tenant as fact and you cannot require other Christian religions to follow your church’s teaching /tenets.

From the following :





Read more:

Most Women Under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument | HuffPost

Wow, strawmans and euphemisms everywhere.

Nobody is enforcing "mandatory pregnancies", nor are we stripping women of the "freedom to choose". If the State wants to artificially inseminate you or force you at gunpoint to have unprotected sex, you have my full support and I will gladly quote that trash piece as a viable point. Until then, you don't get to say that your rights are being impeded because you don't get unlimited choices or unbounded opportunities to opt out. You legally have two choices even though you only need one.

You can refrain from sex, or you can use birth control. Men only get these 2 choices and do not get an opportunity to opt out afterwards. If men can live with only having 2 choices, so can you, since I thought "women can do everything men can!!" according to the feminazis. Prove it.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Wow, strawmans and euphemisms everywhere.

Nobody is enforcing "mandatory pregnancies", nor are we stripping women of the "freedom to choose".

Some Conservative right wing religions are trying to force women to continue unwanted pregnancies and that is/would be stripping away her soul competency.

From the article:

Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. Therefore, current legislation restricting women’s reproductive choice also restricts moral choice.

To restrict a woman’s choice is to refuse her soul freedom.

Most Women Under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument | HuffPost
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Ergh, if you feel the need to carry on like a child you're not worth the bandwidth.
And your posts are mature? Like these? #904: If women can't support a family on their own, they will need to factor that into their decision when to keep or abort the baby
#907. Condoms limit friction, feeling, and the overall enjoyment of sex for men. In other words, they suck the fun out of having sex.
#1217. She doesn't abort, in which case she has a child to support. So how is that his problem? If she can't afford to support the child she shouldn't have had it.

[QUOTE[ A man has to give up his body and what's inside it for that child, so you don't get to simply pass a man's involvement.[/QUOTE]

LOL. Now that's really mature.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Some Conservative right wing religions are trying to force women to continue unwanted pregnancies and that is/would be stripping away her soul competency.

From the article:



Most Women Under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument | HuffPost

No - some women and men from various different backgrounds, faiths, and moral positions are trying to protect the sanctity of human life.

Men are already forced to continue unwanted fatherhood. What makes you think the world is so unfair if women have to continue unplanned motherhood? Is it too much to ask for women to do the same as men and not receive special treatment? If you have sex, you've chosen to get pregnant. Are humans really the only species that doesn't understand this?
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

And your posts are mature? Like these?

#904: If women can't support a family on their own, they will need to factor that into their decision when to keep or abort the baby

What exactly is wrong with this statement? It's a responsible piece of advice. If you can't afford to support a child, you shouldn't have it. Which part is so unfathomable to you?

#907. Condoms limit friction, feeling, and the overall enjoyment of sex for men. In other words, they suck the fun out of having sex.

You would've learned this in biology or sex ed, or from almost any social interaction as an adult. Barring that, the idea is also quite prominent in movies and TV shows. Again - I'm not sure what you find so inconceivable here?

#1217. She doesn't abort, in which case she has a child to support. So how is that his problem? If she can't afford to support the child she shouldn't have had it.

Again - you seem to be disliking a call to personal responsibility or smart financial planning. Do you oppose women considering their finances when deciding whether or not to have a baby? Seems to me like that would be the number 1 factor for any responsible adult.

A man has to give up his body and what's inside it for that child, so you don't get to simply pass a man's involvement.

Children as young as 8 are learning this in school or from their parents. We've always taught kids how babies are made. You're an adult (supposedly) and you still seem to find the idea discomforting. How is this even possible?
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

No - some women and men from various different backgrounds, faiths, and moral positions are trying to protect the sanctity of human life.

Men are already forced to continue unwanted fatherhood. What makes you think the world is so unfair if women have to continue unplanned motherhood? Is it too much to ask for women to do the same as men and not receive special treatment? If you have sex, you've chosen to get pregnant. Are humans really the only species that doesn't understand this?

Just stop with your straw man that some men are forced by state govermnts to pay child support if a woman continues an unplanned pregnancy therefore a woman should not be allowed bodily autonomy and soul competency or Religious Liberty.

When using birth control the man and women are saying no to an unplanned pregnancy.

Having sex is not choosing to become pregnant.
Driving a car is not choosing to killed in an auto accident.

In the United States we not only have bodily autonomy, we have the right to privacy regarding procreation and we Religious Liberty regarding Reproductive rights.

From the Religious Coaliation for Reproductive Choice:

Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.

The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
 
Last edited:
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Wow, strawmans and euphemisms everywhere.

Nobody is enforcing "mandatory pregnancies", nor are we stripping women of the "freedom to choose". If the State wants to artificially inseminate you or force you at gunpoint to have unprotected sex, you have my full support and I will gladly quote that trash piece as a viable point. Until then, you don't get to say that your rights are being impeded because you don't get unlimited choices or unbounded opportunities to opt out. You legally have two choices even though you only need one.

You can refrain from sex, or you can use birth control. Men only get these 2 choices and do not get an opportunity to opt out afterwards. If men can live with only having 2 choices, so can you, since I thought "women can do everything men can!!" according to the feminazis. Prove it.

Men do not get pregnant. Their bodies will never suffer the ravages of gestation and childbirth. The woman gets the choice to abort or not because it's *her* body being put at risk/great discomfort and pain.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

What exactly is wrong with this statement? It's a responsible piece of advice. If you can't afford to support a child, you shouldn't have it. Which part is so unfathomable to you?

You would've learned this in biology or sex ed, or from almost any social interaction as an adult. Barring that, the idea is also quite prominent in movies and TV shows. Again - I'm not sure what you find so inconceivable here?

Again - you seem to be disliking a call to personal responsibility or smart financial planning. Do you oppose women considering their finances when deciding whether or not to have a baby? Seems to me like that would be the number 1 factor for any responsible adult.

Children as young as 8 are learning this in school or from their parents. We've always taught kids how babies are made. You're an adult (supposedly) and you still seem to find the idea discomforting. How is this even possible?


And you think, in light of your statements that:
men shouldn't have to use personal contraception because it diminishes their pleasure, and
women shouldn't have sex if they can't support a child and
men shouldn't have to support a child they fathered if they don't want to, but
women should only be allowed to abort in cases of rape, incest or risk of death

that your quotes at #36 are those of a mature person?
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Just stop with your straw man that some men are forced by state govermnts to pay child support if a woman continues an unplanned pregnancy therefore a woman should not be allowed bodily autonomy and soul competency or Religious Liberty.

When using birth control the man and women are saying no to an unplanned pregnancy.

Having sex is not choosing to become pregnant.
Driving a car is not choosing to killed in an auto accident.

In the United States we not only have bodily autonomy, we have the right to privacy regarding procreation and we Religious Liberty regarding Reproductive rights.

From the Religious Coaliation for Reproductive Choice:



The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

How is it a straw-man? You said yourself that you're pro-choice, in that you want women to have as many choices and unlimited time periods as possible to opt out. Yet at the same time, you don't support men having anywhere near that many choices. Men get 2 choices and that's it. Women get more and want even more. You're not pro-choice, you're simply pro-women and anti-men.

Your driving analogy is just silly. Driving was created for transportation, not dying in accidents. Sex was created for procreation, not leisure. More accurately, it's like saying driving over the speed limit with a blindfold on caused an "unwanted accident" but you think you should be spared of the fines and consequences because you had your seat belt one. You don't get a free path out of the consequences in any other activity just because you practiced some degree of safety. You're still liable. Pregnancy should be no different.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

And you think, in light of your statements that:
men shouldn't have to use personal contraception because it diminishes their pleasure, and
women shouldn't have sex if they can't support a child and
men shouldn't have to support a child they fathered if they don't want to, but
women should only be allowed to abort in cases of rape, incest or risk of death

that your quotes at #36 are those of a mature person?

Swap around the words "men" and "women" in your rant and you have an exact replica of the pro-choice position you're currently on.

Women don't have to use contraception. They don't have to mother a child they created. If men can't support a child, the only certain way to avoid becoming financially ruined is to surpress their sexual urges - something we learned from the gay community is (apparently) an unspeakable violation of human rights.

I guess the same rules don't apply to us straight men.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Swap around the words "men" and "women" in your rant and you have an exact replica of the pro-choice position you're currently on.

Women don't have to use contraception. They don't have to mother a child they created. If men can't support a child, the only certain way to avoid becoming financially ruined is to surpress their sexual urges - something we learned from the gay community is (apparently) an unspeakable violation of human rights.

I guess the same rules don't apply to us straight men.

Swap the words men and women in the rant? OK. Let's see what we get.

women shouldn't have to use personal contraception because it diminishes their pleasure, (you won't be able to change that one: women spent 50 years getting legal contraceptives, and they have way better sense than to sacrifice their control of child bearing, for any increase in pleasure)

men shouldn't have sex if they can't support a child (sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, nobody should be having kids they can't support)

women shouldn't have to support a child they conceived if they don't want to, (if you think this is wrong then men opting out is also wrong)

women should only be allowed to abort in cases of rape, incest or risk of death (sorry, couldn't change that one; men just don't get pregnant)

BTW: the unspeakable violation of your human rights can be fixed with a blow up doll. You should get one. You won't have to wear a condom and they're clean, monogamous and chaste.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Swap around the words "men" and "women" in your rant and you have an exact replica of the pro-choice position you're currently on.

Women don't have to use contraception. They don't have to mother a child they created. If men can't support a child, the only certain way to avoid becoming financially ruined is to surpress their sexual urges - something we learned from the gay community is (apparently) an unspeakable violation of human rights.

I guess the same rules don't apply to us straight men.

If a man doesn't want to risk impregnating a woman - knowing that the choice of what to do about the pregnancy is hers and if she gives birth and parents, he will be on the hook for child support - he can choose to have sex only with women who cannot conceive whether that be because of menopause, or complete ovario-hysterectomy or any other situation in which she is 100% not able to get pregnant. He does not have to be celibate.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

How is it a straw-man? You said yourself that you're pro-choice, in that you want women to have as many choices and unlimited time periods as possible to opt out. Yet at the same time, you don't support men having anywhere near that many choices. Men get 2 choices and that's it. Women get more and want even more. You're not pro-choice, you're simply pro-women and anti-men.

.

Pro choice is aboutkeeping abortion legal so The pregnant woman can choose to either continue her pregnancy or choose to have abortion before viabilty.

Your opt out analogy fails.
Child support only occurs when when a child is born and the bio mom requests help to support the child financially.
When a woman becomes pregnant there is always a consequence.
If she shas an abortion ; that is a consequence for her but not the bio dad as he does not pay for child support.
If she has a miscarriage that happened to her body but the bio does not pay child support.
If she dies , that is a consequences but the bio dad does pay child support.
If she continues the pregnancy and gives birth to the child she pays financially. If she requires financial help only then might the bio dad be required to help with child support.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.


Also Sex used far more often for bonding and pleasure than for procreation so you are wrong about also.
 
Last edited:
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

If a man doesn't want to risk impregnating a woman - knowing that the choice of what to do about the pregnancy is hers and if she gives birth and parents, he will be on the hook for child support - he can choose to have sex only with women who cannot conceive whether that be because of menopause, or complete ovario-hysterectomy or any other situation in which she is 100% not able to get pregnant. He does not have to be celibate.

Oh, so now you think its OK to tell a man how he should have sex and with whom? Sorry - that makes you a bigoted, body-controlling, manslut-shaming, power-hungry sexist. Men don't get to tell women how and to whom to relenquish their vagina, we'd appreciate the same privilege over our penis. Y'know...equality and all.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Child support only occurs when when a child is born and the bio mom requests help to support the child financially.

Oh no no, if the man has already decided to walk away from the child before it is a person (and just a gunk of cells), he shouldn't be liable for supporting it. That would be like charging a woman for murder 9 months after an abortion because by that time, that gunk of cells she destroyed would've been a person. Doesn't work that way. You can't apply retrospective criteria to a decision. The only thing that matters is the circumstances at the time of the decision.

If she shas an abortion ; that is a consequence for her

No, your definition is simply wrong (look it up). If a woman wants to have an abortion and ends up having one, that's not a consequence. It's an outcome. And a favorable one for her. She got what she wanted.

If she has a miscarriage that happened to her body

A miscarriage can affect men just as badly (or worse) as it affects women. You're forgetting the fact that pregnant women are only so because men decided to give their body up to them. A man seeing his child die during a bad pregnancy is equally devastating.

If she dies , that is a consequences

And if the baby inside her dies, that's also a consequence. You're insisting that we should kill Peter to make Paul happy. Just no.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

It also means a person has the right to not be chopped up, sucked into a vacuum cleaner, or have their skull crushed against their will. Why should we give you bodily autonomy if you can't respect others' right to bodily autonomy?

Also Sex used far more often for bonding and pleasure than for procreation so you are wrong about also.

Some drugs and narcotics are used for addiction more often than for treatment, that doesn't discount their original purpose. Sex is designed for procreation. If you have sex, you're knowingly risking a pregnancy.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Sex is designed for procreation. If you have sex, you're knowingly risking a pregnancy.[/QUO

I got the impression from your previous posts that men were just satisfying urges not knowingly risking getting getting anyone pregnant and therefore were not responsible for any pregnancy . Now you are saying, "If people have sex they are all taking on a risk? Wouldn't mean men also knew there was a risk of pregnancy and therefore had some responsibility to not have sex if they didn't want to risk a pregnancy.
 
Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Oh, so now you think its OK to tell a man how he should have sex and with whom? Sorry - that makes you a bigoted, body-controlling, manslut-shaming, power-hungry sexist. Men don't get to tell women how and to whom to relenquish their vagina, we'd appreciate the same privilege over our penis. Y'know...equality and all.

I did not tell him how to have sex and with whom. I made suggestions as to what he could do if he doesn't want to sire a child but still have sex. The choice is his on what to do, knowing the possible results of each action.
 
Back
Top Bottom