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!
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?
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.