It's A Woman's Responsibility Not To Get Pregnant If She Isn't Willing To Assume The Consequences

[MementoMori_]

It's been said that men and women bear equal responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Maybe that's true in a moral and financial sense since the courts will force an unwilling father to bear the financial cost. But its much more of a problem for woman since they have both the risk of having to bear the financial burden themselves, the physical job and obligation of bearing the child and the primary (if not sole) duty of care-giving for the child for at least a couple of decades.

There are things that suck about being a man and things that suck about being a women. Unfortunately for women, they are the ones who have to worry most about getting pregnant since they have a lot more to sacrifice than men. Therefore it is up to them to prevent it if they don't want to bear the consequences.

But abortion is not a moral option.

Abortion is murder no matter how it is rationalized. A child in the womb is not part of the mother. Proof? Every cell that belongs to the mother has the same DNA. The baby has different DNA from its mother and it has that DNA from the moment of conception and the creation of the first cell of its new life. DNA is what defines an individual, and the baby has different DNA from the moment of conception. The baby also has its own blood type which can be different from the mothers. The baby is not an appendage of the mother, it is a separate individual with its own separate identity.

A baby and its mother are two separate lives from the moment of conception. And once conceived, the baby has the same moral right to its human life that any other individual human has.

It's up to the woman to prevent pregnancy if she doesn't want to carry the baby until it is born. Once she becomes pregnant she is responsible for the life she conceived and morally obligated to protect the baby's life until she delivers it. If you are not willing to assume that most basic human moral obligation, don't get pregnant. It is YOUR responsibility to prevent it. You can't wish that reality away.

[markml]

I am pro-life, but I don't like your argument at all.

The fact of the matter is that if a man recklessly gets a woman pregnant when he knows she wouldn't want to be pregnant, then he also bares moral responsibility if she decides to have an abortion.

Cases where the man should hold blame for the abortion definitely include if he rapes her. But also, even if it is consensual, if both he and the woman are drinking, he bares more responsibility for the unprotected sex because it's presumed he can physiologically handle more alcohol before getting drunk.

You can't make a moral argument about women choosing abortion, and then at the same time void men of their moral responsibility for the choices they make. That comes off as hypocritical.

Physically, yes, a woman's body carries greater liability than a man's. Morally, there is nothing to excuse men from acting reckless, and a just society will make men liable for their actions.

[MementoMori_]

Your premise is mistaken.

First sentence in my post:

"It's been said that men and women bear equal responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Maybe that's true in a *moral* and financial sense..."

[Benedek38]

"if a man recklessly gets a woman pregnant when he knows she wouldn't want to be pregnant"
That assumes the woman wasn't using contraception. Thus she wasn't doing everything within her possible power to prevent pregnancy. Just saying.

[Kkaos]

So what if ultrasounds revealed that the baby would be born with some severe and debilitating defect? Abortion is still wrong then... Even if the baby was only going to live to experience severe pain and an eventual premature death?

I agree that people should be more responsible about having sex and using contraception and I agree that the final responsibility does always lie with the woman as it's her body, however I also believe that abortions do have their place under certain circumstances.

[MementoMori_]

I might agree that abortions have their place in certain circumstances such as rape. But I don't agree that the one you described is one of them. What person will make such a decision about whose life is a life worth living? Only God knows what the fate of that fetus will be.

[Kkaos]

So how are you drawing the line? If it's wrong to have an abortion if the baby is going to suffer immense pain, why is it ok if the baby is a result of rape? Isn't that YOU playing God?

[lforman007]

So true. It is despicable to kill a baby for your convenience, just like it is despicable to kill a fully-formed human for your convenience. The only time abortion is justifiable is if the woman was raped or the baby could cause complications within her. There are emergency contraceptives that are very easy to obtain and research about, there is adoption or there is motherhood.

[MementoMori_]

You are very wise for your age and I completely agree.

[lforman007]

Aw thank you

[RainbowSmile]

I understand pro choice individuals just want to look out for the well being of the mothers and their heart is in the right place but if your confused about whether abortion is murder or not you just have to ask yourselves two simple questions:

Is it alive? Yes or else you wouldn’t need the abortion

Is it human? Yes, it is not an elephant fetus or a brick or a book of stamps, it is human. Every human that’s ever existed has been a fetus before and therefor it is just a stage in a persons life. And to say it’s just a clump of cells is, well isn’t that what we are still? Just a clump of cells?

Those who says it’s the mothers body. She is sharing that body now. Just like conjoined twins. It wouldn’t be okay for a conjoined twin to murder their counterpart would it? No

Those of you who say it relies on the mom so it’s not really alive. Well what about people who are hooked up to life support or oxygen tubes to sustain their life. Is it okay to kill them? Fetus are no different in that they rely on the mothers body to carry out their functions.

Then you have to ask where is the cut off point? I think
Most agree it’s wrong to kill a fetus that is 8months, so at what point is it okay? At what point does that “clump of cells” become too human to kill?

[Anonymous]

I am pro choice. While I myself would likely not get an abortion, I wholeheartedly believe that it should be a legal and safe option for women. You seem to work on a level that women get pregnant on a whim and when they change their minds, poof, baby gone. It isn’t that simple. Simple solutions are rarely appropriate for complex situations.

As many people have said, there are women who are raped and get pregnant. There are women whose lives are in danger because of the pregnancy. There are pregnancies that are the result of incest. All of these seem to be situations that most sides seem to agree upon that abortion is okay. Why is it condemned when women who cannot afford to have and raise a child, who do not want a child, whose lives would be unduly disrupted because of the child choose to end their pregnancy. Everyone is so obsessed with the lives of the clump of cells that could potentially become a person, why are we not thinking of the lives and wellbeing of the women who make this choice?

For many women it is not an easy choice. It is our right to do with our own bodies as we choose. You argue that the dna is different, but it is still the woman’s body that is providing for the fetus. It is the woman who is growing it. The woman should not be forced to go through this unwillingly.

If abortion becomes illegal, women will die. Yes, they won’t be able to abort their pregnancies in a facility, but it will revert back to what it was before it was legalized. Dangerous back alley abortions for desperate women who are willing to risk their lives so that they may not have a child. Is this really a trade off you can live with?

(Also the statement made about how it’s the woman’s responsibility to not get pregnant is bullshit. This isn’t a solo mission, it takes two people to make a baby.)

[MementoMori_]

"If abortion becomes illegal, women will die."

As they should if they intentionally murder their baby. I believe in the death penalty for that offense.

"(Also the statement made about how it’s the woman’s responsibility to not get pregnant is bullshit. This isn’t a solo mission, it takes two people to make a baby.)"

Again I repeat. Men do not get pregnant. It is the woman who becomes pregnant. So if she doesn't want to assume the responsibility of protecting the life that she decided to create, it's her responsibility not to let that life be created in the first place.

[Opinion Owner]

If I punch you because you’re being an asshole and you get a black eye, it’s your fault for being an asshole and you don’t get to be mad at me for giving you a black eye. Never mind the fact that if I had been able to somehow, someway control my fist you wouldn’t have a black eye.

Huh, I guess your logic is totally sound.

As for your first statement, clearly you have some issues with women. I know you’ll disagree and say that “murder is murder, male or female” but considering your hard stance and inability to experience compassion for women in difficult situations it’s clear that there are some underlying issues that you should probably deal with in a healthier way than spouting that women should die for getting an abortion on the internet. You can be pro life and still, ya know, a decent human being. (Also, if you’re so pro-life, it’s really interesting how quickly you suggest that the death penalty should be used. Funny how things like that work).

[MementoMori_]

"If I punch you because you’re being an asshole and you get a black eye, it’s your fault for being an asshole and you don’t get to be mad at me for giving you a black eye. "

I will assume that this attempt at making an analogy that the person who was "punched" in the case of the pregnancy was the mother so therefore it isn't her fault.

But your analogy fails because it is fatally logically flawed. Unless we are talking about rape, which I agree is an exception, the mother consented to the risk of pregnancy when she agreed to have sex. So therefore she is assuming the risk of the consequences that she must protect any life so created. I did not agree to be punched in the face. If I did, I would be responsible for the consequences.

"Huh, I guess your logic is totally sound. "

So it appears that it is YOUR logic that fails not mine.

[MementoMori_]

And by the way, you do not have a right to punch someone "because they are being an asshole." If you do it is again YOUR responsibility and you are solely responsible for the consequences.

[mistixs]

"As they should if they intentionally murder their baby. I believe in the death penalty for that offense" even if it's murder, the woman didn't technically do it, a doctor did it. She just gave the doctor support to do it. So what if a man gives a doctor support to perform an abortion on his wife/girlfriend? Fathers DO often agree with it

[Opinion Owner]

Not all women who get pregnant and want abortions consent to having sex. They still get pregnant. Their ability to get pregnant is what is being questioned. Your ability to get a black eye isn't my fault. So I shouldn't worry myself too badly if you do even though it my direct action that caused you to have it. You were being an asshole. You were asking for it.

[Opinion Owner]

My apologies, I missed the part where you stated that rape was the exception. But I still stand by it. It is equal responsibility because guess what pal? It isn't just the baby's random DNA in there. It's the combination of the parents'.

[MementoMori_]

A woman doesn't need the father's permission to murder her baby. And even if she did, and even if he gave "permission" giving someone "permission" to commit a crime is not a crime.

Hiring someone to commit murder however is murder. So if a man hires a doctor to murder the baby, that man is equally guilty of murder.

Both the woman who consents to the abortion and the doctor who performs are always guilty of murder because they both assist in the actual killing of the baby.

The father is only guilty if he was involved in hiring the murderer or somehow assisted in the murder himself.

Hope that clears things up for everyone.

[MementoMori_]

Look I think my position is pretty clear and simple to understand. If a woman chooses to have sex, she is voluntarily assuming the risk she may become pregnant. It's entirely voluntary. If you don't want to have any risk of getting pregnant, don't have sex. You can completely avoid the responsibility of protecting your unborn baby by doing that. It's YOUR choice. What I am saying is that if you choose to assume the risk of pregnancy you are also morally responsible for any life you create. If you do get pregnant you have no moral right to end that life since you voluntarily made that choice. If you kill the baby in the womb it's murder. You chose to create that life and once you make that choice you assume the responsibility of protecting it until it is free of danger. It's really pretty simple. With rights come responsibilities. You said you believe in the right to choose... well then you also have to accept the responsibilities that come with your choices. If you don't fulfill the responsibilities that come with your voluntary choices you should have to pay the price. And the price for murder should be the death penalty... the same penalty that the mother sentenced the baby to.

[weasley8]

The idea isn't that it isn't a life. The idea is that it isn't a human life, at least not in the sense that most people think of the word. If you're going to claim that just being a separate life is enough, then you would also have to take the same stance on meat or any animal product.

[ThisDudeHere]

A very good point, never thought about it before.

[MementoMori_]

Wrong. It is a separate HUMAN life. If it is not a human life, than what kind of life is it?

[ThisDudeHere]

In the very beginning, a lump of cells no different from your heart or liver.

[MementoMori_]

Let's say that's true. What gives you the right to destroy a living human heart or liver?

[ThisDudeHere]

People already do that to those kinds of organs as they please or whenever their health requires it.

[MementoMori_]

Right... you may have the right to choose to destroy your OWN organs. But not the right to destroy someone else's organs.

[ThisDudeHere]

Indeed. Except abortion is pretty much always asked for by the female anyway so...

[weasley8]

@MementoMori_

It's not a human life because it doesn't fit the definition of human.

Specifically, I was referring to the fact that it isn't capable of maintaining homeostasis. It is essentially a parasite. When a person has a tapeworm, they remove it. A fetus is a parasite, and we allow people to remove parasites. Yes, that means that the parasite has to die. But humans don't inherently value life itself unless it's human, which I've already established a fetus isn't. We kill countless animals every day, whenever it's convenient for us. See the meat industry, the pest control industry, not to mention trophy hunting and deforestation.

Some people use the argument of intelligence, but a pig is about as smart as a three year old human child, and we have no problem killing them, so the argument doesn't hold up.

[weasley8]

To continue,

I'm not here to argue that a fetus has the same value as other animals. I would argue that it has more than that. It might not be human, but there is something about them that makes humans naturally value them more. However, most people can also acknowledge that the life of a living person is worth more, as most people approve of abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. That is where the bulk of my argument lies. The life of a human, so to speak, is worth more than the life of a fetus.

The life of the fetus holds value, more than other animals, but that is not enough to force a woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth, and here's why.

Even a healthy pregnancy can wreak havoc on the body. More than seventy percent of women end up with incontinence after childbirth.

Pregnancy also greatly increases the risk of several cancers, and there are many complications that can come up unexpectedly even in an otherwise healthy pregnancy.

Many women are diabetic when pregnant, and preeclampsia, which can be fatal, usually can't be diagnosed until after 20 weeks, at which point abortion is usually unavailable.

The maternal mortality rate is far higher in the United States than in any other developed country, and it is currently increasing. In the United States, more than 700 women die each year from complications that don't come up until they are already in the delivery room, and another 50,000 come close, end up on life support, and often suffer permanent effects.

No one should be forced to go through that.

Most people agree with abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. What some fail to realize is that the life of the mother is always at risk. Abortion doesn't exist for the purpose of killing the fetus. It exists for the purpose of removing it and the risk it brings from an otherwise healthy person.

[MementoMori_]

"It's not a human life because it doesn't fit the definition of human."

The cells are alive, we agree on that, so it's only a matter of what kind of life. If the cells have human DNA, what kind of life is it?

[RainbowSmile]

If it not a human life than what type of life is it? Certainly not an elephant or a field mouse growing in the womb. It is human. It is alive, or else no abortion would be needed. Every human that has ever existed has at one point been that clump of cells so therefor it is a stage of development in a persons life.

[weasley8]

@MementoMori_ @RainbowSmile

Having human DNA is not enough to be a full human. Every time you scratch your arm on something you kill human cells, but you're not considered a murderer, and thus the argument that human DNA is enough to be considered human is baseless. While a fetus may have human DNA, it is not itself a full human. It is part of a human, which one day may create a human, but so is every egg or sperm cell.

And yes. It is a alive. I'll agree that it is alive, but so is a tapeworm. I've already established that we don't inherently value life itself, especially not above that of an already living person.

Finally, is the point about it not being human the only part of my argument that you people are going to respond to?

[RainbowSmile]

A parasite and its host are different species and a parasite is an invader from the external environment. Scratching cells off your arm is not the same thing since they are dead skin cells and are a part of the larger sum which is you. Yet as early as 12 hours after conception a new human genome is formed.

But where would you draw the line and why? 3 months? 5 months? 7months? Considering all these scenarios involve a fetus which isn’t yet capable of maintaining homeostasis.

Tell me when does the human fetus fit the definition of human? At what point, to you, is the fetus too human to kill?

[MementoMori_]

That's a straw man argument. I never said having DNA is enough to make the baby a "full human." What I said was that the baby is a different individual from the mother because it has different DNA.

[weasley8]

@RainbowSmile Cancer cells have human DNA as well. So whether you think of the fetus as a separate being or as something that is the same, it is still not completely human. As for having separate human genes, there is a phenomena known as chimerism, wherein a fetus absorbs its twin in the womb. Therefore different parts of the person will have a different genome. This will sometimes cause issues. We allow people to get rid of the cells that are not theirs, even though they are technically alive, and have human DNA that is separate from that of the person. The reason for this is that having human DNA, even if it it separate human DNA from the host, is not enough to constitute a full human, and certainly not enough to morally subject a living person to suffering.

As for where I would draw the line, I don't think there is a specific point, as it greatly depends on the circumstance. The reason for this is that when people get abortions, they usually get them very early on in the pregnancy. Only around 1 percent of abortions take place after 20 weeks, and the reason for this is that people don't get late term abortions unless there is a medical complication. Why would they? They have to go through pregnancy for longer, it wreaks more havoc on the body, and the procedure itself is more invasive and has a greater recovery time and a greater chance of complications. Why would someone wait to need an invasive procedure, when they could just do it earlier with a few pills?

I would say that it's a complete human when it is possible to remove from the body of the pregnant woman, and have the fetus still live, even if it needs life support. At that point, I would say it is immoral to kill it, as it's life is no longer dependent on the suffering and danger of a living person.

[weasley8]

@MementoMori_

You said that the cells are alive and have human DNA, and asked what kind of life that would make it if not human. I answered that question. If you would now like to amend your argument to include the point about having separate DNA from the mother, which was not included in your previous comment, then I suggest you read the point I made about chimerism in my response to @RainbowSmile.

[MementoMori_]

Why should I amend it when I am right?

[weasley8]

@MementoMori_

The amendment would be including the fact that the DNA is separate in your argument. It wasn’t in your original comment, but you were acting like it was in a subsequent comment. Either way, you still haven’t responded to my points.

[MementoMori_]

Wasn't in my original comment? What was this then?

"A child in the womb is not part of the mother. Proof? Every cell that belongs to the mother has the same DNA. The baby has different DNA from its mother..."

[weasley8]

@MementoMori_ I wasn't referring to your take. I was referring to your argument against my points. You had never made that point in response to anything that I said.

Besides, this is irrelevant. You still haven't responded to anything in my actual argument. I don't care about the he said she said. It doesn't actually change anything in my argument. The fact remains that I have countered every point that you have made in response to my argument. You have failed to do the same.

[MementoMori_]

Congratulations, you win.

[Inneedofusername]

I never get how someone may want to force all the people who never want kids (and there are MANY such people) to never have sex. Which is as basic human need as drinking or sleeping with the exception you won't die with the luck of it. You will just feel like dying, like starving people, but without death

[MementoMori_]

The part I don't get is what do you mean by "force?" No one is forcing anyone to do anything. But you are responsible for the consequences of your choices. If you CHOOSE to have sex, and you get pregnant, you have chosen to take on the responsibility of protecting the human child that is conceived. I you CHOOSE NOT to have sex you won't have any chance of having to take on that responsibility. It's about choice. This is PRO CHOICE. I thought feminism is FOR PRO CHOICE. But it seems they want choice, but not any responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

[DianaWest]

are you being serious, or do you need someone to help pull your head out of your ass? men don't have as much responsibility? of course not. men can get their 5 minutes of pleasure, forget to wear a condom, and then run off never to be seen again and blame women if they get pregnant. oh no, it was all her fault. i had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[MementoMori_]

Triggerd!

[DianaWest]

pitiful how that is the only response you can think of. Clearly, you have nothing to say.

[Barrabus_the_Free]

Women have over 20 forms of contraception. Plus Plan B.

If a woman gets pregnant, it's because she wanted to.

When men have the option to avoid all responsibility for their actions the same way women do, then *MAYBE* I will support women who want to murder their unborn children. Maybe. Moral support, I mean. Not by like, giving them money or anything. I don't give money to women or buy them anything.

[lovedejj_xo]

A woman can do whatever she wants with her body without others in her business. Only person that should have a say is the guy she laid down with even then it’s ultimately her body and life long decision (dad can bail or leave at any point, mom can’t). Even if she kept the baby and did adoption it’s shamed in society to just give your kid up to the system.

[Anonymous]

Abortion is not even in the vicinity of murder. I do agree people should take more care when it comes to this stuff, but I also think people shouldn't rape, and kill, and steal and blah blah, but those are all things that have always been around, and always will. There will never come a time when we will eradicate such problems, therefore for the problem at hand, abortion is the best option

[MementoMori_]

Don't understand the logic there. You are saying that because some people do bad things and will continue to do them regardless attempt to prevent it, that abortion is a good thing?

[Opinion Owner]

It's two separate points. Abortion is good compared to the alternative. And yes, people will do bad things always, since that is so, making abortion illegal would be adding fuel to fire.

[RainbowSmile]

None of that other stuff is legal or paid for by tax paying citizens

[Gedaria]

I hear on here a lot about guys who don't like using condoms. So what birth control is to be used. It falls into the woman to let this just like magic. But a lot of the ways of stopping baby coming are some times not very pleasant to keep taking. So if no condom no pills or divises used there is only one thing left NO SEX. Which will not go down well at all. Abortions are out !!!

[CT_CD]

I agree. Obviously it's partly the man's fault too but women know they're the ones who get pregnant. They're the ones who have to actually physically deal with being pregnant so they should be more careful.

[Rogzi]

You can remove a fetus. The shits no more alive than a kidney transplant.

[MementoMori_]

A one celled animal is considered "alive." Yet a one celled human being is not afforded that same dignity?

[Rogzi]

Roaches are considered alive too.
They get stepped on regularly.
You're saying this about being alive like that's supposed to hold some type of intrinsic value.

[Aphrodite8789]

No it’s not. The man shouldn’t cum in the woman if he does that’s his fault.

[MementoMori_]

May be his fault AND hers, but it's her problem.

[Aphrodite8789]

How is it her problem when she can easily get an abortion? We are not the ones at risk. You men are if we want to keep the child, as we can either run your pockets, or just stop you from seeing the child all together.

[sunshinepearl123]

I always find it funny when men blame pregnancy on the woman. Sure, you had nothing to do with it and you can walk away problem free.

[CoffeeWC]

I agree. It's her body, her responsibility.

[MementoMori_]

Women want it both ways. On the one hand they claim it's their body and they have a right to kill the baby as long as its in their body. On the other hand, when it comes to who should be RESPONSIBLE for the baby being in her body in the first place, suddenly the fact that it's her body and she needs to be responsible for controlling what happens to it changes everything.

[MementoMori_]

If you want the rights, you need to also accept the responsibility. Rights don't come free.

[MlleCake]

Men and women are equally responsible.

[mistixs]

Exactly. Both the man and woman consented to the same act so they're both responsible

[Anonymous]

Agree! Abortion is murder!

[Secretgardenblood]

Nice take

[ThatInsaneChick]

One word: RAPE.

[Browneye57]

Here we go...

[Anonymous]

Interesting