Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

If women didn't want to have a baby, they shouldn't have had sex to begin with.  They need to start taking responsibility for their actions. 

If they have been raped, or if need be for specific medical circumstances, they should be allowed an abortion for the sake of preserving their own health.

Many republicans take this viewpoint, and I think it's ridiculous that extremist feminists are opposed to them saying things like "republicans are against women's rights!".

Even with republicans controlling our government at almost every level, abortion is still legal, so this seems kinda redundant...

Her body, her choice, you faggots.

Abortion is a terrible thing and I wish people didn't do it, however, they should have every right to do it.  You can't force a person to bring a child into the world if they don't want it or can't/won't take care of it.

>>3

Seriously. Murder is a right. We exercise the right kill with every dead civilian in Lebanon. We exercise the right for humans to murder humans when we execute a rapist, a child molestor or an actual murderer.

The question here is whether or not there should be consequences for exercising that right.

It simply must be understood that having an abortion is apart of being a responsible woman. Telling women when they can and when cannot fuck is an infringement of their personal physical rights.

Stupid fucks, show at least some ability to distinguish between a cluster of cells and a living sentient human.

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1153966199/

>>5
If they wanted to have sex they should have had some birth control pills, condoms, morning after pills, or any of the other fifty million various methods of easy contraception on hand.  When you use a combination of them, you can easilly reduce the chance pregnancy to less than one percent.  There is no need to have an abortion, even if you have sex regularly, if you are acting responsibly. 

Of course, in the event you are raped, there should be exceptions made.  Otherwise, 99% of the time, it's because the woman was acting irresponsibly.  Just take the god damn pills instead of killing fetuses you bitches.

>>7
That would be the sensible idea, that makes people accountable to their actions, but welfare-statist liberals and their socialist bretheren are against making people accountable for their actions. 

>>8 Perhaps because their elemantary understanding of environmental determinism allows them to understand that an unwanted pregnancy is not a failure of the woman but the environment and culture that didn't build her character, rationality and independence towards pushy men. There is actually such a thing as collective responsibility.

>>9
No there isn't.  It's basic stuff really.  You don't want a baby? Use birth control.  There's no need for abortions at all. 

>>10 Birth control is so easy to get, there's really no excuse for abortions outside of the obvious (rape for ex).

>>9  People should be held accountable for their actions.  The fact that you are saying they shouldn't just shows that you are a Socialist/Communist.

"Accountable for their actions"?

Why do you feel you have a right to say when a woman should and shouldn't spread her legs? And before we continue...can you please tell me if you're a virgin or if you happen to be in the habit of dating women? Also: Are you a woman or a man?

>>13 You shouldn't ask for things like that until the discussion actually requires it. I think it would only harm the debate. My argument is that if individuals of a society are too lazy to change their culture in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they should pay to help those that have been negatively influenced by said defect society.

>>13
I don't think I would be doing so in asking her to use some method of birth control, or to have the baby normally.  She can still have sex whenever she wants, she just has to use some birth control. 

Again, I don't think it's asking too much that she either: 

1.  Use birth control, so the question of whether or not to have an abortion never comes to the table in the first place

or

2.  Have the baby normally.


There are so many methods of birth control, and hell, some you don't even need to wear protection to use.  It's really not that hard.  There is no longer a need for abortion in society anymore, now that we have birth control. 

Of course, there should be exceptions.  I'm not sure what all of them should be, but rape is obviously one of them. 

Does this seem unreasonable? Why?

>>15

If doesn't want to use birth control = her choice.

If she doesn't want to go through the whole bother of labor = her choice.

If man wants to fuck other men = his choice.

If man wants to start family with another man via adoption = his choice.

Better question: What do you have against freedom and liberty?

>>16
What do I have against killing fetuses? Well, the fetus is a developing human being.  So, I'd say that it has some rights to existance as an individual, but not as many nor as much as a full, self-reliant and sustaining human being. 

Thus, it seems a reasonable solution to allow abortions when necessary, and outlaw them when not.  If the woman doesn't want to have a baby, all she needs to do is to use birth control. 

What is so damn hard about using birth control?

>>17
>What is so damn hard about using birth control?

It's not 100% reliable and some forms of it take away the fun.

>>18
Using multiple kinds of birth control at once makes the chance of pregnancy go down well below 1%.  For all argumentative purposes, this is effectively not considerable. 

"and some forms of it take away the fun."

Condoms? Condoms are only one method of birth control, and there are plenty of alternatives if you have an aversion to condoms. 

>>19 We don't care about the availability of birth control. The only issue I am ready to flex on is whether it should be state-funded or not. Considering how gender inequality is actually heavier in pro-'life' areas (Taxachussets have 32nd highest taxation yet have least teen pregnancies) I think the notion of collective responsibility is applicable. Apart from that- abortion isn't murder, so its being a right is simply not questionable. We do not need more humans, especially not those that aren't set out for a healthy, provided upbrining. Perhaps if you actually were allowed to stay around with your baby after giving birth, or at least get the same pay as men, or at the very fucking least have an acceptable minimum wage (A worrying amount of minimum wage takers are single mothers). Meanwhile, the right talk about how women suffer due to emancipation and how families are so important. They, as always, are talking about the families with purchasing power and the families that like to live in homophobic, inequal solitude.

>>20
Why don't you care about birth control? Are you saying it doesn't bother you a bit to have a fetus killed? Even the slightest?

...

If so, you should realize that the woman (and the man, for that matter) is perfectly able to use birth control.  I honestly don't see why this is an issue except in the case of rape.

>>20
No defender of individual liberty would support state-funded (taxpayer funded) abortions.  That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.  Can you imagine putting a gun to the head of a pro-lifer, and telling him he is going to have to fork over cash to fund what he believes is MURDER?

It is one of the worst violations of liberty to force an individual to do or fund something that is diametrically opposed to their views and value systems. 

Forcing pro-lifers to fund abortions is like forcing animal rights activists to fund cruel animal research and testing, or to subsidize factory farms.  It is blatantly wrong. 

Is there anything more evil than forcing a person to live and work for something they not only don't believe in, but are diametrically opposed to?

Only victims of crime should get free abortions. Adults should be more responsible.

>>23
I sure hope you don't mean tax-funded abortions...

Tax funded doesn't = free.  People have to pay for it, and too often, those tax payers are pro-life. 

>>24
If a pro-lifer believes their tax dollars should not have a cluster of cells surgically removed from a 9 year old rape victim then they can go fuck themselves.

>>25 They don't want that, and those that do are ostracized by the rest. Take it easy, for hell's sake.

"It is one of the worst violations of liberty to force an individual to do or fund something that is diametrically opposed to their views and value systems. " No, not per se. People who oppose capital punishment pay so that society can take revenge on those that lived in the shadow of american affluence and prosperity.

>>27
I never said I agreed with capital punishment, but this is beside the point, of course.  Capital punishment is something that is reserved solely for the lawbreakers, whereas tax-funded abortions hit EVERYONE, pro-life, pro-choice, and the law abiding from both groups. 

>>25
If it's such a just cause, why don't you fucking pay for it yourself?

People are all too god damn ready to spend OTHER people's money to achieve goals THEY want. 

>>25
She wouldn't even become pregnant by then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche

>>28 I wonder who pay for the wingnut populist idea that all criminals should be subject to more-expensive-than-treatments sentences and that marijuana users should have their lives ruined. Who pay for the crime-raising usage of capital punishment? Via tax? Oh, yeah, those that oppose the crusade on drugs, the tough on crime policies and capital punishment. This is quite a case for the libertarians, even though they scare me.

>>31
What about the libertarians scares you? They are for human rights...

>>32
He is a liberal, everything scares him, they are even scared of other people being scared.

>>31
The "War on Drugs" is an obnoxious (not to mention expensive) violation of human rights.  Vote libertarian, so we can end it. 

The democrats certainly won't. 

>>34
How do you stop people from selling poison to kids?

>>35
How do you stop them now? Please don't say "... the FDA", that's complete horse shit.  The FDA is a corporate whore who can be bought at any time by the corporations. 

Anyways, even if the libertarians got elected, and were in the majority, the moderates would make sure that your shitty and corrupt FDA stayed, so your argument is really redundant. 

>>35
Integrity.  Businesses compete in the market for reputation, just like they compete for everything else.  Obviously, most large corporations who do the majority of business aren't going to be tempted by the idea of selling someone a potentially harmful substance, and tainting their hard earned reputation. 

>>36
Wrong, if they get elected and start getting corrupt then the public would vote for someone else especially when having to compete with the reps and dems.
You are a senior policeman, drugs are legal, kids die every day from drug abuse. How do you stop people from selling drugs to kids?

>>35
If a company sells poison to children and the children dies, the company is obviously going to be dragged into court and prosecuted. 

>>36
Who the hell cares if the public knows they are corrupt if some corporation just payed them off a couple million dollars? They are fucking set for life.  The next people can similarly be bribed out whenever they want to regulate the business. 

Take a look at eminent domain, if you want to see a classic example of the mixed economy failing miserably.  The law-which was designed to benefit the public, winds up benefitting large corporations and the super-wealthy by destroying the property rights of small business owners.  Large corporations and developers use power and influence over officials to get them to abuse eminent domain powers and evict small businesses/the little guy from premises so that they can use the area for developing, building a wal mart, whatever. 

>>38
It's not like it'd be that to stop them when they are illegal as it is now, when they are legal.  In fact, I think the fact that they are illegal, if anything, makes kids want to go use drugs outside of supervision. 

Many people start taking drugs because of a sense of rebellion.  Americans are very rebellious people.  During the prohibition era, many Americans started drinking - on principle.