3 ms·

> do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child? Why or why not? As for me, I say no. If a woman can terminate the preg

> do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child? Why or why not? As for me, I say no. If a woman can terminate the pregnancy. a man should be able to waive his part in it. That still leaves the issue of a man losing a child he wants if she doesn't, but that issue, as well as the issue of abortion, will be solved once we find a way to transplant the fetus to an artificial womb. Until then there are no perfect solutions. > As for the reproductive rights, as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) isn’t the choice at conception? Contraceptives can and do fail. Even if you're doing everything right. Contraceptives help, and comprehensive sex ed promoting the correct use of contraceptives goes a long way to help prevent unwanted pregnancies (as evidenced by higher teen pregnancy rates where they only provide "abstinence only" ignorance) but it doesn't solve the problem. > People talk about Roe v Wade as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby. "spontaneously" or not, women do in fact get pregnant against their will. They also can get medical complications that require them to terminate willful pregnancies in order to protect their health and their lives. The loss of Roe v Wade means that more women will die. needlessly. More women will cruelly suffer. More children will cruelly suffer as well.

endisneigh 4y ago
> "spontaneously" or not, women do in fact get pregnant against their will. They also can get medical complications that require them to terminate willful pregnancies in order to protect their health and their lives. The loss of Roe v Wade means that more women will die. Indeed, don’t misunderstand me, I’m not against abortion. The situations you’ve mentioned are good reasons to have it. My point is that the choice that people want already exists other than rape. Abortion should be legal, but not because reasons, but for medical necessity and for situations in which the choice that a woman does have is made for her (rape).
- autoexec 4y ago
  My feeling is that until a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb, it is dependent on the women's body. It feeds off of it. It takes her nutrients, her oxygen, her energy. It alters her body to accommodate itself. Pregnancy is a great and special sacrifice, and it must be one made willingly. At any point, prior to where the fetus could be viable without its mother, the mother should have every right to terminate that pregnancy for literally any reason at all. Anything less would deny women their right to have control of their own bodies and lives. Again, plenty of people end up pregnant against their will. Others will have fully intended to have a child, but their circumstances suddenly changed. It needn't always be due to some medical necessity. As long as the mother's body is needed to sustain the life of the child, that life is subject to her whims. Her house. Her rules. The moment it can be removed and sustained without her, she should no longer have the right to abort it, only to surrender it.

endisneigh 4y ago

> "spontaneously" or not, women do in fact get pregnant against their will. They also can get medical complications that require them to terminate willful pregnancies in order to protect their health and their lives. The loss of Roe v Wade means that more women will die. Indeed, don’t misunderstand me, I’m not against abortion. The situations you’ve mentioned are good reasons to have it. My point is that the choice that people want already exists other than rape. Abortion should be legal, but not because reasons, but for medical necessity and for situations in which the choice that a woman does have is made for her (rape).

autoexec 4y ago
My feeling is that until a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb, it is dependent on the women's body. It feeds off of it. It takes her nutrients, her oxygen, her energy. It alters her body to accommodate itself. Pregnancy is a great and special sacrifice, and it must be one made willingly. At any point, prior to where the fetus could be viable without its mother, the mother should have every right to terminate that pregnancy for literally any reason at all. Anything less would deny women their right to have control of their own bodies and lives. Again, plenty of people end up pregnant against their will. Others will have fully intended to have a child, but their circumstances suddenly changed. It needn't always be due to some medical necessity. As long as the mother's body is needed to sustain the life of the child, that life is subject to her whims. Her house. Her rules. The moment it can be removed and sustained without her, she should no longer have the right to abort it, only to surrender it.