What's the big deal with banning abortion in non rape cases?

I say go ahead and let GOP ban abortion, it would be the biggest voter driver in history for Democrats for the next generation.

 

I'll take this on.

I don't know when consciousness starts, it certainly doesn't start when there is a heartbeat but when exactly not sure. I personally think by the third trimester the fetus is likely conscious and would agree to a ban with exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother and viability of the fetus. The person who makes that decision should be a doctor with final say by the mother.

Regarding the rights of the father yes the father does have some rights but those are limited given he's not the one carrying the pregnancy and not going to bear the risk to his health. Further we have too many deadbeat fathers and if we're going to argue that the father has rights during a pregnancy then what if the father wants the child aborted and the mother doesn't?

 

I tend to leave the Right To Life to open-minded discussions. I don't have a strong opinion on it due to my lack of knowledge, but I do think we should have serious discussions once it starts to enter 3rd trimester.

I absolutely believe a man has a right to disown the baby at anytime while abortion is in a legal state or if he finds out after, he has the right to disown it once he becomes aware. If he wishes to have the child in his life, it would be up to the mother and any stipulations she determined.

I think in the future, there could be a claim to DNA rights by the father. At this point, its a bit premature to have that discussion. He shouldn't have donated his DNA to the woman.

 

So if the father decides to disown it would you allow the mother to have an abortion?

 

A conversation that Forced Birthers do not want to have is that 2/3 of fertilized eggs do not result in a baby, naturally.

Given 100 fertilized eggs, roughly

1/3 will never attached to the uterine wall.
1/3 will attach but will miscarry.
1/3 will be carried to term.

In Forced Birthers's perspective, 2/3 of all "babies" are "aborted" naturally. Who are you going to punish for that? God?


https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2005...d and one,fertilized eggs never fully implant.

Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete.

Source: American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists.


https://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-miscarriage#1

As many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage -- most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she’s pregnant. About 15%-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully.

 

Abortions and euthanasia should be legal. Humans are not that important.

 

Ok when do you consider an unborn fetus a life form that has a right to life? What right does a male have to a woman’s body to force her to carry the baby?

 

Force Birthers deeply believe that live begins at conception.

3.7M babies were born in the USA in 2019. Thus, there was twice that amount of "people" who were naturally aborted. 7M people dead, without a single word from the Forced Birthers about the tragedy. 7M is roughly 10x the number of legal abortions.

 

If you want to narrow down my opinion, which will change over time, is when the life form (i dont want to get caught up in the semantics on what we call it) is able to survive on its own. Im fully sympathetic on rape, incest and deformities, although rape and incest should be settled long before this moment passes. Regardless of time during pregnancy, a mother always has a right if her life is at risk.

As for your second question, I am not sure which approach you're asking; Is the 'male' the father or is the male generally speaking. If its the latter, the word male should be replaced with society. As with anything, its all about the social contract.

As for the former, a father may not demand either way. As I stated before, he should have a right to renounce the baby and not support it if he choses

 

LOL...

 

No that is not the crux of the debate, that's might be the crux of YOUR debate.

Most pro lifers believe life begins at conception.

It's very telling you think the father has as much right over another persons body as themselves.

 

So you think the father should be able to just disown it and not take any responsibility just because?

 

But he has the right to determine what happens to the woman's body, even if she's in danger because of that clump of cells?

It's funny how you put that, by the way. As a male, we have the ability to dispose of our cells at will. A woman has to have a medical procedure.

 

If you feel a woman has a right to abort/relinquish her responsibility for financial reasons then why shouldn't the male have a right to relinquish his responsibility for the same reason?

 

Oh, Fatt...er...Senator, you so cray.

 

I never said that at all. I stated if a woman has a right to abort her responsibility due to financial reasons, the father should have the right to walk away too.

 

Wait what?

So now abortion is just a financial relief for women?

Really dude?

Where you the one crying about somebody else making a binary argument with no nuance?

 

We give up that right the moment we decide to stick our penis in the vagina (whether protected or unprotected). Consider it an incentive from god (if you believe in one) that as a male you don't have to put up with all the **** a woman has to put with when pregnant and giving birth.

As males we have a choice. We can assess the risk and choose to have or not to have sex with the individual damn well knowing if the woman gets pregnant, we have absolutely no say in the matter. That's the risk we take as males.

It's really that simple.

 

You make an excellent point.

Force Birthers should really back the federal government finding out who the father is and making sure that the father shares financial responsibility for their child's first 18 years.

BTW, the above proposed law would turn most men Pro Choice in a New York minute.

 

Im not going to continue a conversation with you when you continue to cherry pick my conversations.

Name ONE time where I stated women ONLY have abortions for financial reasons. Nearly every comment I have stated the opposite. YOU are making it a binary conversation, not me.