Saint John wrote:bluejeangirl76 wrote:Saint John wrote:Yes, the law allows women to be baby killers, but that doesn't make it right. How horrified would people be if I walked up to a gleefully 2 month pregnant woman and used her stomach as a fucking heavy bag? That's the way we (rational) see it when they opt to abort a perfectly beautiful little innocent creature. Rape and incest cases excluded, of course.
hold on... why do you exclude those cases?
granted, I agree, but I'm interested why it's ok to choose to end
some pregnancies and not others. if women who have abortions are, as you say, baby killers, then they are still killing a baby regardless of the circumstances in which it was conceived, are they not?
Let me see... I'm sure you'll say that a rape victim doesn't choose to have sex while the women whose condom broke
did choose to, so even though both are victims of circumstance, and both become pregnant, only one should be "allowed" to abort it. if it's a "perfectly beautiful innocent creature" then why is it ok to
kill it in special circumstances?
Good question and excellent observation(s). It really boils down to accountability, Kim. And I just
can't hold a rape victim accountable and have them reminded of a horrific event for their rest of her life. But I
can hold someone accountable that took a calculated risk and lost. Their burden is exponentially less and not only were they not the victim of a crime, but they were a
willing participant ... man
and woman. Assuming you (not you personally) believe in God, I think pretty much anyone could look The Big Guy (Yes, he is a man, bitches!

) in the eye and ask him to understand your rationale for the choice you made. Not so much when you try "Um, God, Johnny wore a rubber and I figured riding him in the backseat of his '79 Camaro also gave me the advantage of gravity."
Fair enough. Looking at the right-to-lifers usual general argument of "a life is a life no matter what", I was interested to see you make the exception for some cases. I've actually heard and read arguments where people have said that even rape was no excuse and that those women should give it up for adoption if they didn't want it (this was the topic of a project I did in high school...) so I was interested to ask why the exception.
And a friend of mine was the product of a (date) rape and her mother chose to keep her... so it's always interesting to me how varied the viewpoints are.
But I still don't think that consensual sex automatically equals irresponsibility or lack of accountablity if a pregnancy happens. I have always always always taken ALL the responsibility for making SURE there was b.c. involved, taken all the precautions... for a long time taking double precautions... but that doesn't guarantee anything, so if a pregnancy I didn't want were to occur, does it make me irresponsible? NO.
Then again, I'm not stupid or uneducated, and I may not be like a lot of other women who either don't care or don't know enough. It's all about education and there isn't enough of that.
There's the automatic assumption that if an unmarried woman or a young girl gets pregnant, she's a "slut". There's embarrassment and judgement. NEVER for the guy. it's always "she slept around" or "she went and got herself knocked up"... and that's why you have women and girls not wanting to have it and give it up - people will know and people wil judge them. Or at least that's the mindset. I'm not excusing it - not in any way - but that's why it happens in way too many cases, along with all the other reasons that aren't necessarily good ones that have been discussed here. Better education and doing away with all the judgment and stigma might go a long way. But it's a catch 22. Don't teach young women and let them go on to make a mistake, or teach them and risk that they will feel you're condoning sexual behavior.
This isn't a problem that created itself.