View Single Post
Old May 17th, 2013 (9:43 AM). Edited May 17th, 2013 by FreakyLocz14.
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
  • Platinum Tier
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,491
What Gosnell did was an abortion. They were late-term abortions. The procedure that is used to abort a child that late in the pregnancy is called intact dilation and extraction, which us pro-lifers call "partial-birth abortion" because it requires the fetus to be partially removed from the uterus. It's spinal cord is then severed while it is still in the uterus.

In other words, if the spinal cord is severed while the fetus's head had yet to emerge from the uterus, then it's an abortion. If it's head has emerged, then it's murder. The difference is a mere couple of inches.

Originally Posted by Moogles View Post
The sad thing is that abortion shouldn't be a question between "murdering" a "baby" or not. Rather, it should be a question on if a woman has the right to control what's happening in her body or not. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that pregnancy and childbirth is actually a really tiring and invasive process. I'm a man and I don't think I could ever handle carrying a baby for nine months. Carrying a child isn't pretty and if a woman doesn't think she can handle it, she should have the choice to get an abortion.

I mean I don't really like the thought of abortion, but I recognize that a) As a man it really isn't my decision and I can't tell a woman what to do with her body and b) A woman should have the right to opt out of having her own body completely invaded for nine months.

And besides, if a woman doesn't want a child she'll find a way to abort it. Legalized abortions give safer access to healthcare and that's the important thing. Without it, well, we could have more stories like the OP 8(
Pro-choicers see it as a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body, but I see that as fallacious because there is a second body involved: the child's. Babies aren't alien invaders. Babies aren't a punishment. Babies are bundles of joy! The woman chose to opt-in by assuming the risk that she may become pregnant when she decided to have sex.

And why shouldn't the father have any say in it? He'll be held legally responsible for the mother's failure to get an abortion for the next 18 years, and morally responsible for the rest of his life!

And besides, there are ways to get rid of the child without killing it.

Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
Are you speaking morally or legally? I'm speaking purely from a legal standpoint, not a moral one. If having a child does not obligate you to donate nonessential organs if they need it, then having sex should not legally obligate you to donating your body for 9 months.
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Nope. You cannot be legally forced to carry a pregnancy to term, as it constitutes indentured servitude, among other things.
The funny thing is, the law won't allow the father to say that he didn't want to have a child to escape being held legally responsible for the child for the next 18 years of his life. The court will tell him "You assumed the risk that you may become a father when you chose to have sex with this woman".

Why should we hold men responsible for the choices that they make, but not women? How is that not indentured servitude? That sounds pretty sexist to me.
Reply With Quote