How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

Huh? How would you like it?

This question is especially aimed at Pro life MEN. How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

ProChoiceDanielle said:

Huh? How would you like it?

This question is especially aimed at Pro life MEN. How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

Click to expand...

Well in the case of rape or incest it would suck big time.

But, in the case of a woman getting pregnant because of consensual sex, I say that is what the potential consequences were and you engaged willingly.

Really a silly question and maybe this was the response you were looking for to start an argument but the fact is we are all in situations that we would consider against our will, and we don't look to killing someone as the answer.

blogger31 said:

Well in the case of rape or incest it would suck big time.

But, in the case of a woman getting pregnant because of consensual sex, I say that is what the potential consequences were and you engaged willingly.

Really a silly question and maybe this was the response you were looking for to start an argument but the fact is we are all in situations that we would consider against our will, and we don't look to killing someone as the answer.

Click to expand...

If a woman is using birth control, she is not concenting to pregnancy at all.

AntiLifeDanielle claimed:

If a woman is using birth control, she is not concenting to pregnancy at all.

Click to expand...

Danielle, so you're saying then that if a woman tells a man she is using birth control, and she gets pregnant anyway, since he did not consent to her pregnancy and being a father, he should not have to pay a dime?

ProChoiceDanielle said:

If a woman is using birth control, she is not concenting to pregnancy at all.

Click to expand...

If you read the packages of all the methods of birth control they don't claim to be 100% effective. Sexual intercourse is designed for reproduction so what else would you expect?

ProChoiceDanielle said:

If a woman is using birth control, she is not concenting to pregnancy at all.

Click to expand...

"That's just like... your... opinion... man" Big Lebowski quote

Say you put down 20 dollars on a race. As you're not much of a gambler, you take odds of 1.1:1. You're betting on a sure thing. You don't want to lose the money. But then something happens and you lose. You cannot claim that you don't consent to the result because "you thought it wouldn't happen or you were supposed to win." You accepted the risk, and by doing so, you need to accept the results.

Does that make sense?

A child who knows that he's not supposed to have a cookie takes one anyways. This is because he thinks that his mom won't find out. He feels that if she doesn't see him take it, she won't know that he did.

She then finds out.

Is that child not responsible because he thought he'd never be caught?

For the purpose of your argument, the burden of proof lies with you (prochoicedanielle) to show that by using birth control, the person is not consenting pregnancy. Until you do so, it's just an opinion. Nothing more.

IndiConservative said:

If you read the packages of all the methods of birth control they don't claim to be 100% effective. Sexual intercourse is designed for reproduction so what else would you expect?

Click to expand...

You are right, and that is exactly why abortion is safe and legal in this country. For people who do not want to have children.

What about married people who do not want to "reproduce"? Live a sexless marriage? I doubt it.

IValueFreedom said:

"That's just like... your... opinion... man" Big Lebowski quote

Say you put down 20 dollars on a race. As you're not much of a gambler, you take odds of 1.1:1. You're betting on a sure thing. You don't want to lose the money. But then something happens and you lose. You cannot claim that you don't consent to the result because "you thought it wouldn't happen or you were supposed to win." You accepted the risk, and by doing so, you need to accept the results.

Does that make sense?

A child who knows that he's not supposed to have a cookie takes one anyways. This is because he thinks that his mom won't find out. He feels that if she doesn't see him take it, she won't know that he did.

She then finds out.

Is that child not responsible because he thought he'd never be caught?

Click to expand...

That is not opinion, that is UH fact man. If a woman wants to become pregnant, she obviously is not going to use birth control!

ProChoiceDanielle said:

You are right, and that is exactly why abortion is safe and legal in this country. For people who do not want to have children.

What about married people who do not want to "reproduce"? Live a sexless marriage? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of condoms? They help out with that sort of thing. Again, not 100% reliable, but you have to decide whether it is a risk worth taking.

Look, if you do not want to have children, you should not be having sex at all. If you still want to have sex, then you are taking a risk. If you get unlucky and happen to get pregnant, then that is your own fault!!! You knew there was a chance that it would happen and you took the risk anyway because for some reason you decided that you could not live a happy life without sex.

So you got unlucky, now what do you do about it? Do you kill somebody because of your lack of luck? Or do you accept the fact that you were unlucky or made a poor decision and go through with the birth. Being forced to be pregnant (if the law is overturned) would simply force the woman to take responsibility for her own actions instead of trying to solve the problem by killing the baby.

Also, there is the option of putting the child up for adoption if you absolutely cannot take care of it.

Peralin said:

Have you ever heard of condoms? They help out with that sort of thing. Again, not 100% reliable, but you have to decide whether it is a risk worth taking.

Look, if you do not want to have children, you should not be having sex at all. If you still want to have sex, then you are taking a risk. If you get unlucky and happen to get pregnant, then that is your own fault!!! You knew there was a chance that it would happen and you took the risk anyway because for some reason you decided that you could not live a happy life without sex.

So you got unlucky, now what do you do about it? Do you kill somebody because of your lack of luck? Or do you accept the fact that you were unlucky or made a poor decision and go through with the birth. Being forced to be pregnant (if the law is overturned) would simply force the woman to take responsibility for her own actions instead of trying to solve the problem by killing the baby.

Also, there is the option of putting the child up for adoption if you absolutely cannot take care of it.

Click to expand...

No birth control is 100%. And until there is a form of birth control that is 100% there will be a need for safe and legal abortion.

I am a married woman, and I am NOT going to stop having sex with my husband simply because we do not want children right now.

ProChoiceDanielle said:

No birth control is 100%. And until there is a form of birth control that is 100% there will be a need for safe and legal abortion.

I am a married woman, and I am NOT going to stop having sex with my husband simply because we do not want children right now.

Click to expand...

And no one is saying that you should stop. All I was saying is that if the birth control would fail and you would become pregnant, it is your own fault and you should accept the responsibility of giving birth. There is no reason to abort the child simply because you don't feel like going through a pregnancy.

As IndiConservative said earlier in the thread, sexual intercourse is designed for reproduction, and, in my opinion, if you are too lazy to go through with a pregnancy which you asked for by having sex in the first place then you are completely irresponsible.

If you absolutely do not want a child then why, why are you having sex in the first place? For some reason people think that it is impossible to live without sex, and it isn't. However, if you want to try sex with birth control, that's fine, just don't act all innocent when you find out that you are pregnant!

The truth is, nobody knows for sure whether the fetus is a human being or not. So wouldn't it be a good idea to play it safe and just go through with the pregnancy. Isn't it better to go through with it than to possibly kill another human being? Sure, I'm pro-life, but even if I wasn't, I would agree that this logic makes sense. Since there is a good chance that the fetus is a living human being (and no one can prove that it is not), it would be very irresponsible and ignorant to have an abortion.

How would you like to be legally restrained from murdering someone? Tragic huh? "pregnant against your will" means, "unable to kill anyone today."

And who CHOSE to have sex?

Cry me a river. Yes, someone else has to be given the right to live, even when you want to protect your sexual irresponsibility from consequences.... its truly a shame.

ProChoiceDanielle said:

Huh? How would you like it?

This question is especially aimed at Pro life MEN. How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

Click to expand...

How would you like to die against your will, via a suction catheter?

From a man's perspective:

How would you like for a woman to get pregnant and refuse to abort the baby, refuse to let you give up your parental rights, and refuse to let you not pay child support? Sounds like abortion laws benefit the woman while giving the man no rights at all. Sounds unconstitutional that a law woulld bennefit one gender over the other, sounds an aweful lot like discrimination.

What if fathers were given the right to abort their children by giving up any legal attachments thus relieving themselves of the legal obligation to financially support the child. Wouldn't this be the legal equivelant to a woman's right to chose. If women get the right to chose, so should men. Wouldn't this be fair and equal? Or should having children only be a woman's choice?

ProChoiceDanielle said:

That is not opinion, that is UH fact man. If a woman wants to become pregnant, she obviously is not going to use birth control!

Click to expand...

Sorry about the quote. I had just finished the movie and my friends and I think that line is hilarious. In retrospect, a quote saying "man" when debating with a woman was... well, not thought out to put it nicely. I apologize.

Now, I'm a little fuzzy on what you mean by a "UH fact." If you could explain I would appriciate it. But for now I will just go under the assumption that you claim it is a normal fact.

True, if a woman (who has a minimally decent realization of sex) does not want to become pregnant, she should be, and most likely would be taking birth control. I concede that point. But that doesn't refute what I asked.

If a woman has sex, even when using birth control, and becomes pregnant, how did she not consent to the risk of pregnancy? As I submit that she did, how is she therefore not responsible for the child?

You have already conceded that birth control is not 100% effective. You know this from the packaging and/or doctors. As such, you realize that you're taking a risk. Sure, a very slight risk, but a risk nonetheless.

By saying that you never wanted this, how does that make you not responsible? You consented, even if you don't want to admit it. You know that the possibility exists, you're taking the chance, if you get "unlucky" and become pregnant, you're not less responsible than if you hadn't taken the contraceptive.

I challenge you, please, show the errors of my argument. But do so with facts, logic, and/or reasoning, not opinions. I will call you on all opinions, so don't be surprised about this. I am totally willing to see your side because as of two weeks ago, I would have considered myself "pro-choice." Yet, the longer I think about it, my ethics point me towards "pro-life" in this case.


**********************

proverbialthought said:

From a man's perspective:

How would you like for a woman to get pregnant and refuse to abort the baby, refuse to let you give up your parental rights, and refuse to let you not pay child support? Sounds like abortion laws benefit the woman while giving the man no rights at all. Sounds unconstitutional that a law woulld bennefit one gender over the other, sounds an aweful lot like discrimination.

What if fathers were given the right to abort their children by giving up any legal attachments thus relieving themselves of the legal obligation to financially support the child. Wouldn't this be the legal equivelant to a woman's right to chose. If women get the right to chose, so should men. Wouldn't this be fair and equal? Or should having children only be a woman's choice?

Click to expand...

Although I do like where you're going, I would caution you on using laws as a basis for a moral argument. Laws are fallible. This can be seen with endless examples, which I don't think I need to point out, as you can most likely think a dozen up in less than a min.

Peralin said:

And no one is saying that you should stop. All I was saying is that if the birth control would fail and you would become pregnant, it is your own fault and you should accept the responsibility of giving birth. There is no reason to abort the child simply because you don't feel like going through a pregnancy.

As IndiConservative said earlier in the thread, sexual intercourse is designed for reproduction, and, in my opinion, if you are too lazy to go through with a pregnancy which you asked for by having sex in the first place then you are completely irresponsible.

If you absolutely do not want a child then why, why are you having sex in the first place? For some reason people think that it is impossible to live without sex, and it isn't. However, if you want to try sex with birth control, that's fine, just don't act all innocent when you find out that you are pregnant!

The truth is, nobody knows for sure whether the fetus is a human being or not. So wouldn't it be a good idea to play it safe and just go through with the pregnancy. Isn't it better to go through with it than to possibly kill another human being? Sure, I'm pro-life, but even if I wasn't, I would agree that this logic makes sense. Since there is a good chance that the fetus is a living human being (and no one can prove that it is not), it would be very irresponsible and ignorant to have an abortion.

Click to expand...

Still does not matter. My husband and I do not want children, and are not in a position to have kids right now. Abortion it would be.

aquapub said:

How would you like to be legally restrained from murdering someone? Tragic huh? "pregnant against your will" means, "unable to kill anyone today."

And who CHOSE to have sex?

Cry me a river. Yes, someone else has to be given the right to live, even when you want to protect your sexual irresponsibility from consequences.... its truly a shame.

Click to expand...

Murder is illegal.

proverbialthought said:

From a man's perspective:

How would you like for a woman to get pregnant and refuse to abort the baby, refuse to let you give up your parental rights, and refuse to let you not pay child support? Sounds like abortion laws benefit the woman while giving the man no rights at all. Sounds unconstitutional that a law woulld bennefit one gender over the other, sounds an aweful lot like discrimination.

What if fathers were given the right to abort their children by giving up any legal attachments thus relieving themselves of the legal obligation to financially support the child. Wouldn't this be the legal equivelant to a woman's right to chose. If women get the right to chose, so should men. Wouldn't this be fair and equal? Or should having children only be a woman's choice?

Click to expand...

When men can become pregnant, then they can make a choice about becoming a parent.

Until then, I suggest that EVERY man speaks with a woman about their stance on abortion.

Re: How would you like to be a father against your will?

ProMurderDanielle,

I noticed that when I asked you if a woman told a man that she was using birth control and she got pregrant, do you think because he did not consent to being a father he should not have to pay, you famously ran away from what is essentially your own logic....

Care to answer, or will you run away more?

*scenario*

Let's say you and your husband have talked about having kiddo's down the road - but not now. You get pregnate, you guys seek an abortion - because you are not ready. Let's say that there is evidence to support claims that an abortion could end up with deseases or death to the mother.

Would you risk this for your husband?

ProChoiceDanielle said:

When men can become pregnant, then they can make a choice about becoming a parent.

Until then, I suggest that EVERY man speaks with a woman about their stance on abortion.

Click to expand...

The woman and man have already made the choice to become possible parents by engaging in sexual intercourse. The fact remains is that your happy with tossing life away for the sake of convenience. Abortion does nothing good short of helping save the life of the mother if in that dire situation.

There is no justification it promotes casual sex, disease and a breakdown of social responsibility. People should not have sex if they don't want to have children period. If you do then you accept the responsibility of caring for the child or giving it up for adoption. Standing by and not protecting the weakest among us is evil.

If the supreme court is truely impartial they will rule that is at least a states rights issue. The rights of privacy does not apply since abortion is supported by public money. It would then go to the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or the people".
This would be the best starting point to make it illegal nationwide.

That is what scares pro-abortionists. They know the facts and try to hide it with misinformation.

I noticed that you must have skipped over my post prochoicedanielle, so I will repost it again for you to respond to:

IValueFreedom said:

If a woman has sex, even when using birth control, and becomes pregnant, how did she not consent to the risk of pregnancy? As I submit that she did, how is she therefore not responsible for the child?

You have already conceded that birth control is not 100% effective. You know this from the packaging and/or doctors. As such, you realize that you're taking a risk. Sure, a very slight risk, but a risk nonetheless.

By saying that you never wanted this, how does that make you not responsible? You consented, even if you don't want to admit it. You know that the possibility exists, you're taking the chance, if you get "unlucky" and become pregnant, you're not less responsible than if you hadn't taken the contraceptive.

I challenge you, please, show the errors of my argument. But do so with facts, logic, and/or reasoning, not opinions. I will call you on all opinions, so don't be surprised about this. I am totally willing to see your side because as of two weeks ago, I would have considered myself "pro-choice." Yet, the longer I think about it, my ethics point me towards "pro-life" in this case.

Click to expand...

vauge said:

*scenario*

Let's say you and your husband have talked about having kiddo's down the road - but not now. You get pregnate, you guys seek an abortion - because you are not ready. Let's say that there is evidence to support claims that an abortion could end up with deseases or death to the mother.

Would you risk this for your husband?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Because these is nothing like that, that comes with abortion. This is the choice that my husband and I have made.

ProChoiceDanielle said:

If a woman is using birth control, she is not concenting to pregnancy at all.

Click to expand...

Sorry, BC is not 100% effective, and it says that on many forms of BC. So you still have two individuals consenting to taking a risk.