View Single Post
  #32    
Old May 17th, 2013, 12:14 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
You sure use a lot of punishment language for someone who doesn't think of babies as punishment.

If a woman does not want to give her body up and risk her health for the sake of another person, "full human being" or no, she has no obligation to. It is that simple. The fact that the child requires her to go through extreme risk and harm to her body and life (look at all those businesspeople that are elbowed out of their jobs due to pregnancy) to survive is not relevant, because there are plenty of adult people that would survive if someone decided they were going to hook themselves up to the person and donate their organs. Yet most people don't, and they are not legally obligated to. So those people die. Is it unfortunate that they died because no one donated an organ to them? Yes. Does it make the millions of people in the immediate vicinity who could have murderers? No. If the child can survive without the unwilling womb of the mother, then good luck kid! Be free! If it can't, then it's unfortunate but, just like all organ donations, completely legal to refuse.

The child, human or not, has no right to lay claim to my body and use me as he pleases just because he would die otherwise. Just like no adult human has a right to lay claim to my body and use me as he pleases, regardless of consequences.

As much as people want to claim it, having sex is not signing a contract in semen. Just like if I ride a motorcycle and get in an accident, the hospital has no right to say "you know, she chose to take that risk, so I think I won't reattach her hand so she learns her lesson". Or "while I'm in there, might as well take her kidney and give it to this dying man, she wouldn't be in surgery if she didn't get into an accident on her risky motorcycle".

And men are irrelevant to this. Back to the original point I made about organ donation to a person - if a mother does not want to donate part of her liver to her daughter and the father is not compatible, that does not mean that the father is able to legally force her to do it because he wants his daughter to live. The father has no control over the woman's body as well - no one has a right to a person's body except the person. Just like one person can't force another person to use their body for anything, a man can't force a woman to use her body to have a child and he can't force her to not use her body to have a child. When men start having children, they can make this choice on their own, as they will be using their own bodies. Women's bodies are not objects that can be owned by the men in their lives; they are under the sole jurisdiction of the woman.
Equating a pregnancy with an organ transplant is laughable. Organ transplants require invasive surgery, while pregnancy is a completely natural procedure. Pregnancy is not invasive because the child has been in the woman's her entire life in the form of an egg. Women's bodies are designed to get pregnant and give birth. They're not designed to accept organs from another person.

You dodged my point about men. It's relevant because it illustrates a double standard. The radical feminists argue that not allowing women to have abortions forces them to become unintended mothers, so they must have a way to avoid that, yet the very same people demand that men be held legally responsible for their unwanted children.

Let's turn the tables. Say the woman decides to keep the baby, but the man isn't ready to be a father. Should be able to renounce any and all rights and responsibilities to the child? After all, as our Socialist-in-Chief says, "if you make a mistake, you shouldn't have to be punished with a baby", and unwanted babies are indentured servitude, like Live says.
Reply With Quote