Abortion

[Toni]

Then try the skin cells I scrubbed off in the shower this morning. They were alive until I scrubbed them off my body. True, they stand little chance of turning into a person, and neither does a blastocyst that isn’t part of a woman’s body. And both contain all the genetic information of a human being.
No word games, unless you are simply unwilling to indulge in logic to bolster your (unstated) case.

lol ... sure thing.

You can stick with your "a human" and I will just use my statement without the "a" in "We circler back to the original argument of when is it human". Maybe look at why the letter missing triggered you. Then cause you try and attack over something so meaningless to the average person. Ahhh forget it, its the net. In person I laugh at "You mean a human" and we move on.

Other that you will need to show the logic that leaving out the phrases "My body my choice" and "god said so" in describing why we are for/against abortion tends to leave us with more reliable stances, wait a sec, you never said where it flawed did you?

do you agree or not?

There is a difference between being human and being a person. The cancer I had removed was comprised of hyman cells and tissue. But it was unhealthy tissue that would and could never grow into a person. Left in my body, it would have eventually killed me. There was no eventuality where it could become a person or function without my body, with the exception of the possibility that my cancer cells were grown and cultured in very specific conditions even then, those cells could never become a person.

We is the word human to describe many things: human nature, human flaws, human desires, human excrement, etc. when we extend beyond biological, we tend to cha green the word to ‘man’. As in, a gift for all
mankind. Man made dams, etc.

 

[Elixir]

You can stick with your "a human" and I will just use my statement without the "a" in "We circler back to the original argument of when is it human"

You can stick to your “one clump of human cells is human and another lump of human cells is not human”.
But trust me - it’s not a good look, and does not lend to rational discussion.

 

[SIB]

You can stick with your "a human" and I will just use my statement without the "a" in "We circler back to the original argument of when is it human"

You can stick to your “one clump of human cells is human and another lump of human cells is not human”.
But trust me - it’s not a good look, and does not lend to rational discussion.

I will stick with I meant. You can stick with attacking a person over a missing letter to prove your point.

Yes, when a person like you tells me its not a good look, that means I am ok. Rational people don't get triggered over a letter. In fact, rational people look at each other when a person does. Usually we are polite and just let the triggered go for a bit. Then the adults can get back to the point.

The point I made remains.

People that can describe how they feel about abortion without "its my body my choice" and "god said so" tend to be more reliable. It shows that they can actually think about what they are saying. Some people rely on spellering/grammaring to make their point. You decide.

Good job by you.

 

[SIB]

Then try the skin cells I scrubbed off in the shower this morning. They were alive until I scrubbed them off my body. True, they stand little chance of turning into a person, and neither does a blastocyst that isn’t part of a woman’s body. And both contain all the genetic information of a human being.
No word games, unless you are simply unwilling to indulge in logic to bolster your (unstated) case.

lol ... sure thing.

You can stick with your "a human" and I will just use my statement without the "a" in "We circler back to the original argument of when is it human". Maybe look at why the letter missing triggered you. Then cause you try and attack over something so meaningless to the average person. Ahhh forget it, its the net. In person I laugh at "You mean a human" and we move on.

Other that you will need to show the logic that leaving out the phrases "My body my choice" and "god said so" in describing why we are for/against abortion tends to leave us with more reliable stances, wait a sec, you never said where it flawed did you?

do you agree or not?

There is a difference between being human and being a person. The cancer I had removed was comprised of hyman cells and tissue. But it was unhealthy tissue that would and could never grow into a person. Left in my body, it would have eventually killed me. There was no eventuality where it could become a person or function without my body, with the exception of the possibility that my cancer cells were grown and cultured in very specific conditions even then, those cells could never become a person.

We is the word human to describe many things: human nature, human flaws, human desires, human excrement, etc. when we extend beyond biological, we tend to cha green the word to ‘man’. As in, a gift for all
mankind. Man made dams, etc.

Yeah ... what's the difference in everyday usage? None of your examples changed the meaning of what I said. To regular people anyway. Yeah, describing a damn as "human" would really go over well.

Listen, I get I am new here. But at some point we judge people on what they said. If we are so enlightened anyway. You can decide if what I said resembles meaning a human damn.

The point I made was people that can describe how they feel about abortion without "god said so" and "its my body my choice" tend to be a tad bit more reliable to me.

Leaving out an "A" isn't going to add/subtract any weight for most people. Now, if you want me to yield to you guys just because I am new, well, could someone shoot me a PM? I would be happy kneel down and say "Thank you sir may I have another."

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, if by "child", you mean something that isn't remotely a "child", it is an intellectually unsound question.

Lets keep it in the context of your "when do the unborn over ride the living."

when is it ok for somebody else to tell you what you can and can't do?

What is this, a game of questions? Your attempted parallel is not viable here because it already presumes two alive parties.

no game, its about unpacking what people are saying. From all angles.

I said I think if we leave out "my body my choice" and/or "god said so" in abortion discussions we can come up with a more reliable position more often than not.

You posted something about unborn overriding the living among other things related to women's rights. But I am only talking about in abortion discussions.

So the question is simple, in the context of abortion, when does the rights of the unborn supersede the women's (or parents of the unborn) rights to do what they want? or more simply, are there times when the unborn have rights that supersede the "women's right" to choose.

When they can come out and live under the mercy of anyone else but the parent with no additional threat to the parent's life to accomplish this.

At that point, the parent has an obligation to finish things up and not maim someone as they're on their way out, who has been given so much mercy that they have earned the power and so the right to stand and live under some other mercy.

 

[SIB]

Well, if by "child", you mean something that isn't remotely a "child", it is an intellectually unsound question.

Lets keep it in the context of your "when do the unborn over ride the living."

when is it ok for somebody else to tell you what you can and can't do?

What is this, a game of questions? Your attempted parallel is not viable here because it already presumes two alive parties.

no game, its about unpacking what people are saying. From all angles.

I said I think if we leave out "my body my choice" and/or "god said so" in abortion discussions we can come up with a more reliable position more often than not.

You posted something about unborn overriding the living among other things related to women's rights. But I am only talking about in abortion discussions.

So the question is simple, in the context of abortion, when does the rights of the unborn supersede the women's (or parents of the unborn) rights to do what they want? or more simply, are there times when the unborn have rights that supersede the "women's right" to choose.

When they can come out and live under the mercy of anyone else but the parent with no additional threat to the parent's life to accomplish this.

At that point, the parent has an obligation to finish things up and not maim someone as they're on their way out, who has been given so much mercy that they have earned the power and so the right to stand and live under some other mercy.

yeah, that's how I see it. And there is a dicey middle ground. Some times, for me only, I would never put the burden of my choices on other people. I feel that is rude.

I think most people do think like we do. To me, I think iof we dump the "with us or against" notions we can have a reasonable middle ground. Its not this or that to me. That's why I say if we can defend our position without "god said so" or "my body my choice" we may be just a tad more reliable than with them as the base axiom for our position.

I am pro life and pro choice.

When is it human. That's the focus for me. 30 weeks may be a little to long. 8 week is too short. But in all honesty, I would have to go learn more about it.

 

[Toni]

Then try the skin cells I scrubbed off in the shower this morning. They were alive until I scrubbed them off my body. True, they stand little chance of turning into a person, and neither does a blastocyst that isn’t part of a woman’s body. And both contain all the genetic information of a human being.
No word games, unless you are simply unwilling to indulge in logic to bolster your (unstated) case.

lol ... sure thing.

You can stick with your "a human" and I will just use my statement without the "a" in "We circler back to the original argument of when is it human". Maybe look at why the letter missing triggered you. Then cause you try and attack over something so meaningless to the average person. Ahhh forget it, its the net. In person I laugh at "You mean a human" and we move on.

Other that you will need to show the logic that leaving out the phrases "My body my choice" and "god said so" in describing why we are for/against abortion tends to leave us with more reliable stances, wait a sec, you never said where it flawed did you?

do you agree or not?

There is a difference between being human and being a person. The cancer I had removed was comprised of hyman cells and tissue. But it was unhealthy tissue that would and could never grow into a person. Left in my body, it would have eventually killed me. There was no eventuality where it could become a person or function without my body, with the exception of the possibility that my cancer cells were grown and cultured in very specific conditions even then, those cells could never become a person.

We is the word human to describe many things: human nature, human flaws, human desires, human excrement, etc. when we extend beyond biological, we tend to cha green the word to ‘man’. As in, a gift for all
mankind. Man made dams, etc.

Yeah ... what's the difference in everyday usage? None of your examples changed the meaning of what I said. To regular people anyway. Yeah, describing a damn as "human" would really go over well.

Listen, I get I am new here. But at some point we judge people on what they said. If we are so enlightened anyway. You can decide if what I said resembles meaning a human damn.

The point I made was people that can describe how they feel about abortion without "god said so" and "its my body my choice" tend to be a tad bit more reliable to me.

Leaving out an "A" isn't going to add/subtract any weight for most people. Now, if you want me to yield to you guys just because I am new, well, could someone shoot me a PM? I would be happy kneel down and say "Thank you sir may I have another."

Unfortunately, abortion access is being decided by (mostly) men who ( mostly) have not got even a rudimentary understanding of pregnancy, embryonic development or the effects of pregnancy on a woman or girl from a medical or sociological point of view. Words matter.

As far as abortion arguments go, God says so and My body my choice are very concise statements of positions. I respect the brevity.

As far as you being new here: You have nothing to prove to me. And true confession: I often reply without actually seeing who wrote the post I’m responding to. I wrote my response to you the same as if you’d been posting for years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then try the skin cells I scrubbed off in the shower this morning. They were alive until I scrubbed them off my body. True, they stand little chance of turning into a person, and neither does a blastocyst that isn’t part of a woman’s body. And both contain all the genetic information of a human being.
No word games, unless you are simply unwilling to indulge in logic to bolster your (unstated) case.

lol ... sure thing.

You can stick with your "a human" and I will just use my statement without the "a" in "We circler back to the original argument of when is it human". Maybe look at why the letter missing triggered you. Then cause you try and attack over something so meaningless to the average person. Ahhh forget it, its the net. In person I laugh at "You mean a human" and we move on.

Other that you will need to show the logic that leaving out the phrases "My body my choice" and "god said so" in describing why we are for/against abortion tends to leave us with more reliable stances, wait a sec, you never said where it flawed did you?

do you agree or not?

Which brings us back to the issue that "human" doesn't describe what warrants protection. That was a human fingernail I snipped this morning, that doesn't make me a murderer.

What are the attributes that define something that warrants protection?

 

[Elixir]

I will stick with I meant. You can stick with attacking a person over a missing letter to prove your point

I apologize, but your willful incomprehension renders you NWRT.

You are welcome to your religious superstition, but you are not welcome to control other people’s bodies, no matter how much “personhood” you think one clump of their cells contains.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can stick with your "a human" and I will just use my statement without the "a" in "We circler back to the original argument of when is it human"

You can stick to your “one clump of human cells is human and another lump of human cells is not human”.
But trust me - it’s not a good look, and does not lend to rational discussion.

I will stick with I meant. You can stick with attacking a person over a missing letter to prove your point.

Yes, when a person like you tells me its not a good look, that means I am ok. Rational people don't get triggered over a letter. In fact, rational people look at each other when a person does. Usually we are polite and just let the triggered go for a bit. Then the adults can get back to the point.

The point I made remains.

People that can describe how they feel about abortion without "its my body my choice" and "god said so" tend to be more reliable. It shows that they can actually think about what they are saying. Some people rely on spellering/grammaring to make their point. You decide.

Good job by you.

It's not about a letter, it's about changing the meaning. Much "pro-life" "reasoning" is based on the fact that "human" has two definitions. You can't prove "human" and then use that as if you proved "a human".

 

[Toni]

Then try the skin cells I scrubbed off in the shower this morning. They were alive until I scrubbed them off my body. True, they stand little chance of turning into a person, and neither does a blastocyst that isn’t part of a woman’s body. And both contain all the genetic information of a human being.
No word games, unless you are simply unwilling to indulge in logic to bolster your (unstated) case.

lol ... sure thing.

You can stick with your "a human" and I will just use my statement without the "a" in "We circler back to the original argument of when is it human". Maybe look at why the letter missing triggered you. Then cause you try and attack over something so meaningless to the average person. Ahhh forget it, its the net. In person I laugh at "You mean a human" and we move on.

Other that you will need to show the logic that leaving out the phrases "My body my choice" and "god said so" in describing why we are for/against abortion tends to leave us with more reliable stances, wait a sec, you never said where it flawed did you?

do you agree or not?

There is a difference between being human and being a person. The cancer I had removed was comprised of hyman cells and tissue. But it was unhealthy tissue that would and could never grow into a person. Left in my body, it would have eventually killed me. There was no eventuality where it could become a person or function without my body, with the exception of the possibility that my cancer cells were grown and cultured in very specific conditions even then, those cells could never become a person.

We is the word human to describe many things: human nature, human flaws, human desires, human excrement, etc. when we extend beyond biological, we tend to cha green the word to ‘man’. As in, a gift for all
mankind. Man made dams, etc.

Yeah ... what's the difference in everyday usage? None of your examples changed the meaning of what I said. To regular people anyway. Yeah, describing a damn as "human" would really go over well.

Listen, I get I am new here. But at some point we judge people on what they said. If we are so enlightened anyway. You can decide if what I said resembles meaning a human damn.

The point I made was people that can describe how they feel about abortion without "god said so" and "its my body my choice" tend to be a tad bit more reliable to me.

Leaving out an "A" isn't going to add/subtract any weight for most people. Now, if you want me to yield to you guys just because I am new, well, could someone shoot me a PM? I would be happy kneel down and say "Thank you sir may I have another."

This will seem really callous but nobody cares how you (or anyone else) feels about abortion. It's not about how people feel but about what is objectively morally allowable and not allowable.

My position is that no one has the right to compel another person to carry a pregnancy against their will nor to force them to abort a pregnancy against their will.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, if by "child", you mean something that isn't remotely a "child", it is an intellectually unsound question.

Lets keep it in the context of your "when do the unborn over ride the living."

when is it ok for somebody else to tell you what you can and can't do?

What is this, a game of questions? Your attempted parallel is not viable here because it already presumes two alive parties.

no game, its about unpacking what people are saying. From all angles.

I said I think if we leave out "my body my choice" and/or "god said so" in abortion discussions we can come up with a more reliable position more often than not.

You posted something about unborn overriding the living among other things related to women's rights. But I am only talking about in abortion discussions.

So the question is simple, in the context of abortion, when does the rights of the unborn supersede the women's (or parents of the unborn) rights to do what they want? or more simply, are there times when the unborn have rights that supersede the "women's right" to choose.

When they can come out and live under the mercy of anyone else but the parent with no additional threat to the parent's life to accomplish this.

At that point, the parent has an obligation to finish things up and not maim someone as they're on their way out, who has been given so much mercy that they have earned the power and so the right to stand and live under some other mercy.

yeah, that's how I see it. And there is a dicey middle ground. Some times, for me only, I would never put the burden of my choices on other people. I feel that is rude.

I think most people do think like we do. To me, I think iof we dump the "with us or against" notions we can have a reasonable middle ground. Its not this or that to me. That's why I say if we can defend our position without "god said so" or "my body my choice" we may be just a tad more reliable than with them as the base axiom for our position.

I am pro life and pro choice.

When is it human. That's the focus for me. 30 weeks may be a little to long. 8 week is too short. But in all honesty, I would have to go learn more about it.

Then head out and learn about it.

 

[Elixir]

I think that a woman who is 30 weeks pregnant suddenly saying “hey, I’m over it, think I’ll go get scraped this afternoon” is a vanishingly rare occurrence. And if it does occur it’s probably for the best for everyone if she follows through with it.
At the end of the day, it’s no business of the government.

 

[Toni]

I think that a woman who is 30 weeks pregnant suddenly saying “hey, I’m over it, think I’ll go get scraped this afternoon” is a vanishingly rare occurrence. And if it does occur it’s probably for the best for everyone if she follows through with it.
At the end of the day, it’s no business of the government.

There's that but there's also the fact that it is difficult to obtain a late term abortion prior to the latest SC debacle. Far fewer providers are equipped in terms of skill set and facilities--and their own personal philosophies to perform a late term abortion without compelling reason. In fact, I am not aware of any place where that happens, largely because late term abortions are performed only because the woman's life is at risk or because the fetus has grave abnormalities that are incompatible with life or perhaps because of rape.

What some people do not realize is that the body does not always abort the fetus if it has died. Sometimes, a dead fetus is retained in the woman's body where it begins to break down as all dead things do and the woman will become septic and die if the fetus is not removed promptly.

Oh, yeah: I should remind people. The medical term for what lay people call miscarriage is abortion. Or natural abortion if we're being very picky to draw distinctions between when Nature/God/whatever decides the embryo or fetus is no longer viable (almost always due to serious genetic defects but sometimes due to illness or injury to the mother) and aborts the non-viable embryo or fetus and when the woman decides, with whatever criteria she uses, that she cannot continue to carry the pregnancy and has an abortion.

Miscarriage = abortion, aka natural abortion
Abortion by intention = abortion, aka induced abortion.

 

[Rhea]

So the question is simple, in the context of abortion, when does the rights of the unborn supersede the women's (or parents of the unborn) rights to do what they want?

Never. Not ever.
There is no case, ever, in which one human can forcibly take or use the organs of another, including renewable organs like blood and tissue.

Never.

or more simply, are there times when the unborn have rights that supersede the "women's right" to choose.

Nope, there are not. There are no times when one human has a “right” to use the body parts of another human against their will.

Not for organs, not for sex, not for forced labor (prison forced labor is wrong and should be ooutlawed)

And that’s why your ridiculous claim that

leaving out the phrases "My body my choice" […] in describing why we are for/against abortion tends to leave us with more reliable stances,

Is utterly wrong, and cannot be conflated with “because god said so..”

It is a clearly established article of law that you do NOT have a right to the body parts of another human, for use or for removal. Nor does a fetus, no matter how “cute” or “innocent” you think it is.

People that can describe how they feel about abortion without "its my body my choice" and "god said so" tend to be more reliable. It shows that they can actually think about what they are saying

People who do not understand the human right of bodily autonomy are not reliable.

 

[Toni]

What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?

Why did you specify women?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.

Every one of those aborted fetal children had a father. Where the hell is he? Why isn't he supporting the mother and his child? If he's incapable of that, he needs to keep it in his pants.

A big part of the problem I have with RvW is the way it gets men off the hook for irresponsible, even abusive, sexual behavior. Whether he thinks it through this far or not, RvW enables him to dismiss the consequences of his choices.

As long as "Well the worst outcome is she needs to get an abortion, I don't even have to be there. It's all on her. Her Choice." of course men are going to behave badly. We always have(as a group, not all of us).

Maybe people who make babies that they aren't willing and able to properly care for ought to get their tubes tied or something. But certainly not just women.
Tom

Regardless of the fact that all embryos and fetuses and children had at least a sperm donor, the man’s physical contribution ends at ejaculation, which is a very small effort, biologically speaking.

The woman is the person whose body bears the vast overwhelming effort and the entire physical burden. Her body experiences pregnancy and childbirth. Her heath, present and future bears the burden of pregnancy and childbirth.

His does not.

With respect to society, economics and educational and career attainment, his status increases, on average while hers decreases.

A man can father many children and be totally ignorant if the fact. A woman has to contend with the physical, physiological, mental and sociological impact of any pregnancy, whether it ends in natural abortion, induced abortion or childbirth. She faces negative consequences to her health, her career, her socioeconomic standing, He gets a boost.

No one should ‘get off the hook’ for any kind of abusive behavior. You seem to think that torturing a woman for 9 months is an ok trade off to ‘punish’ a man who behaves badly.

And who the fuck are you or anyone else to decide what constitutes ‘ irresponsible sex?’

In Catholic doctrine, I believe that any sec not intended to produce more children is ( or was) considered irresponsible. By that definition, whatever sex you are currently engaging in is certainly irresponsible.

Men who do not wish to father babies they do not want to raise should have a vasectomy, it’s cheaper, has fewer potential medical consequences, and men rarely if ever run across a urologist who questions them about if they are sure, or refuses unless they already have children or are over 35. Plus it is much more reversible than a tubal ligation.

 

[TomC]

In Catholic doctrine, I believe that any sec not intended to produce more children is ( or was) considered irresponsible. By that definition, whatever sex you are currently engaging in is certainly irresponsible.

Why did you refer to Catholic doctrine? In a post about me?

Are you unable to grasp that I'm a nontheist gay? That I graduated from 12 years of Catholic education in 1976(3 years after RvW) solidly Pro-Choice? That it was later when my ethics on this subject changed? That I'm much more Pro-Lifer than most Catholics?

I'd say "I don't understand why you do that." But I do understand it.

Have fun dancing around your strawmanned arguments. It's what I've come to expect.
Tom

 

[atrib]

Have fun dancing around your strawmanned arguments. It's what I've come to expect.

Why don't you just clarify what you mean by the term "irresponsible sex"? That way everyone knows what you are talking about.

By the way, this is what you said in the post that Toni was responding to:

Every one of those aborted fetal children had a father. Where the hell is he? Why isn't he supporting the mother and his child? If he's incapable of that, he needs to keep it in his pants.

This is what Toni said in response:

In Catholic doctrine, I believe that any sec not intended to produce more children is ( or was) considered irresponsible. By that definition, whatever sex you are currently engaging in is certainly irresponsible.

 

[Elixir]

In Catholic doctrine, I believe that any sec not intended to produce more children is ( or was) considered irresponsible. By that definition, whatever sex you are currently engaging in is certainly irresponsible.

That's a good point.
The proscription is against sex as a pleasure source. At least that's what I've gotten from the Catholic people I've known... not that I ever asked a priest.

 

[Toni]

In Catholic doctrine, I believe that any sec not intended to produce more children is ( or was) considered irresponsible. By that definition, whatever sex you are currently engaging in is certainly irresponsible.

Why did you refer to Catholic doctrine? In a post about me?

Are you unable to grasp that I'm a nontheist gay? That I graduated from 12 years of Catholic education in 1976(3 years after RvW) solidly Pro-Choice? That it was later when my ethics on this subject changed? That I'm much more Pro-Lifer than most Catholics?

I'd say "I don't understand why you do that." But I do understand it.

Have fun dancing around your strawmanned arguments. It's what I've come to expect.
Tom

You've frequently talked about being raised Catholic and attending Catholic school. I absolutely understand that you, like many of the people who no longer practice the faith in which they were raised, don't believe that your Catholic upbringing affected your sense of right and wrong or morality at all. I understand that feeling. I was raised more or less Southern Baptist and came to absolutely despise the church I was dragged to, one reason--actually the straw that broke the camel's back--was the youth pastor encouraged the youth group to view Catholics as pagans and not Christian. However disgusted and outraged you are now, I certainly was at the time. Anyway, I didn't set foot into that church for decades and swore I never would again. But my favorite aunt died. It was extremely difficult for me to go to her funeral service in that church. I had heard quite enough hell and damnation and intolerance of all kinds growing up. If I had loved her less, I would not have gone to the service. But I did love her, very much, and i was extremely gratified that the funeral service was exactly what she would have wanted: no hellfire and damnation, just praise and recognition and love for a woman whose heart was truly filled with nothing but love. I sat in the pews and sang the hymns--shocked that I remembered them, and I felt something like comfort, which was very surprising to me. I came in full of anger and grief and left, still with grief but also with a sense of relief and community: everyone at that service loved my aunt as I did, or their version of it. No, it did not make me want to embrace being a Southern Baptist or any kind of Baptist. But I recognized that part of church teachings resonated in parts of me I did not know existed. It is not easy for most people to throw off what they were taught as a child. I like to think that I did--certainly I never was in a single Sunday school class from as far back as I can remember being in Sunday school or Bible school as a very young child, where I did not feel like a rebel apostate. But I recognize the comfort that religious faith is capable of giving, at its best. At its worst, well, we see the effects of that all over the world.

I'm not suggesting that you are still a Catholic deep down in your heart of hearts. I have no idea. I do recognize sentiments you express: irresponsible sex, and certain ideas with regards to women that remind me of what I learned when I occasionally went to Catholic services with a friend or when I had a sleepover the same night her sister did, with all her friends from Catholic school and they quizzed me about why Baptists believed (insert theological point) instead of (Catholic version). I think that it would be remarkable if your upbringing didn't inform your sense of right and wrong--it certainly does for most of us. I don't necessarily think we absorb the lessons our parents/teachers/faith leaders want us to learn but we do absorb lessons.

I am genuinely not writing any of this as any kind of insult or challenge to you at all. More like a recognition. Different church/different doctrine but similar lessons that go very deep.

My apologies if I've gotten you all wrong or if I've offended you.

But aside from that, my real point is: Women get to choose whether or not to continue to carry a pregnancy and not the man because it really is just their body that will endure the pregnancy and childbirth, or miscarriage or abortion and any lasting effects. It is their person who will bear the judgment of society about whatever choice she makes. She's the one who will have her educational and career goals altered and set back significantly. Society assigns her the guilt, even if she is raped. Even if she's 10 years old and has been raped, as we see in recent news in which case, her existence is considered a hoax and there are threats of jail--and no real condemnation from those same people for the man who raped her, and no questions about how her family failed to keep her safe.

This doesn't mean that the men who father children feel nothing, although many seem to feel nothing at all, and some seem to feel only pride that their manhood has been confirmed. An unintended pregnancy can wreak havoc on everyone involved, regardless of whether the pregnancy is carried to term or if there is a miscarriage or an abortion. Still, the woman's body and mind and life are the most affected and so the choice must rest with her.