Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health Counting abortion as a woman’s right to choose offends against the moral principle which prescribes the sanctity of human life. I tolerate abortion as a necessary evil, the same way I tolerate the deaths of soldiers in war as a necessary evil. However, I do not in any way acknowledge abortion as a woman’s right. A woman does indeed have the right to do with her own body as she chooses, but she has no rights over the life of another human being, even when that life is growing inside her. It revolts me that anyone can speak of terminating the life of an unborn human being as a right without any other reservations about the wrongness of claiming killing as a right – that would trouble the mind of someone with a conscience. Do these people think they can play the role of some type of God? That they can claim the power of life and death over another living human as a right?
Abortion is not a right, it is a wrong. It is a crime against the unborn that bloodies all our hands because we all consent to it even though we know that it could so easily be avoided. It is a morally indefensible practice which is just as cruel, barbaric, and unnecessary as circumcision. There is no medical need for any healthy person with normal genitalia to be circumcised and there is no medical need for any healthy pregnancy to be terminated. If you know you don’t want a child – then simply don’t get pregnant. Abortion is wrong, but we do it because not doing it might create a whole new set of problems – that is what abortion is, it is not a right. The only right a woman has in this context is the right not to get pregnant. Once you become pregnant and decide you want an abortion, your abortion should only be granted at the discretion of society at large, not as an automatic right to an individual who has proven themselves to be incapable of acting responsibly. Society stands as the protector of the rights of the unborn child. It is the duty of every decent man and woman alive to ensure that human life is treated with the utmost respect, no matter what stage of development that life is at. That respect should start with decent people demanding an end to rhetoric that speaks of abortion as a right. They must remind people that abortion is not a right – it is an evil we permit for the convenience of those who recklessly create life only to destroy it. We must not allow mad women to redefine human life as non-human so they can justify the routine destruction of millions of human embryos and foetuses. To do anything less will take us somewhere none of us want to go.
The proper way is to tell people that, when destroying an unborn life, they are committing an abhorrent act, which we as a society condemn in the strongest terms. We must argue for the end of the misuse of language and semantics which defines abortion as a right and argue against the abuse of abortion, which is justified on the ground that it is a woman’s right. We have the right to express our disgust at the casual disregard for human life that has brought us to the point where we have abortion on demand and abortion as a contraceptive of first resort. We should not allow ourselves to be emotionally blackmailed into silence on this issue by wildly exaggerated claims that abortion is a traumatic experience for abortionists. If abortion is so traumatic, then why do the number of abortions performed increase every year? And why do the numbers of women having multiple abortions increase every year? It can’t be as traumatic as they claim. What kinds of fools want to put themselves through the same awful trauma multiple times? Furthermore, when does the aborter become away that she doesn’t want to get pregnant? Do you suddenly decide you don’t want to become pregnant upon discovering that you are pregnant? No, you don’t. Women know before pregnancy whether or not they want to become pregnant. They also know beforehand whether or not they have the resources to provide for a child – which means the onus is on women to take every step to avoid putting themselves through this so-called traumatic experience. However it isn’t really traumatic -- for the woman anyway. The only party suffering trauma is the person growing inside the woman, which is either poisoned to death or dismembered and sucked out of the womb alive -- and to compound the insult, either thrown out in the trash or used as raw material for in laboratories.
If you know you don’t want to have a child at any given point in your life, it is your responsibility to not get pregnant. There are over a dozen very reliable contraceptive methods that a woman may resort to – the most reliable among them being abstinence. But no, they want to fuck and then hide their fuck ups behind the claim that abortion is a traumatic experience – as if that somehow washes away the callous recklessness that created a life and the crime of destroying that same life. I’m not buying it. Abortion is no traumatic experience for the woman. Many past sexual partners of mine have had multiple abortions. At worst, some of them have described their abortions to me as unpleasant experiences which must be endured for the ulterior goal of avoiding the responsibility of raising the child. Once it is over, they simply forget about it and move on with their lives. That’s right – women who get abortions are the ultimate deadbeats; deadbeats who avoid their responsibility simply by eliminating it. And yet, these women are the same dogs who are the loudest critics of deadbeat fathers. These women don’t deserve sympathy, understanding or counselling to get them through this so-called traumatic experience anymore than men deserve the same for abandoning their families. They deserve shame and condemnation to punish them for their recklessness and to deter the other loosed-moral sluts who would treat abortion as nothing more than birth control.
For those of you who didn’t exactly major in physiology, an embryo or a fetus is a living organism with human DNA which in the overwhelming majority of cases will grow into a fully-formed human just like yourself. Let’s not forget that is what we all were before we were born. If we were to force women to terminate wanted pregnancies, it would be called genocide. However, when a slovenly whore wants to abort her unborn child we call it “my body, my choice”.
Now some hypocrisies and double standards, we have to live with because we haven’t found a way to resolve them intellectually or philosophically. However, this is one is a hypocrisy too far. If it’s wrong to harm an unborn child when the pregnancy is desired, then it’s wrong to harm it when it is not desired. You can’t have it both ways and expect decent people to join you on the “my body, my choice” parade.
Now to those women who do not want to accept sole and full responsibility for the existence of the barbaric and medieval practice known as abortion – too bad. You and you alone are to blame for it. Deadbeat women are the only reason abortion clinics are able to exist at all. Abortion clinics are no different from any other business in the principle of being a business. They provide a service for a fee. There are women who want abortions and clinics who will provide them. It’s elementary supply and demand. For those of you women who still refuse to accept the fault, let me explain further. You’re not going to pull the “I didn’t make myself pregnant” card. According to these women, it’s “my body, my choice”, or in other words, it’s their right to choose whether they keep or dispose of a pregnancy. But abortion is men’s fault because men have sex with women and men get women pregnant.
Now how dumb is that? How dumb would that argument sound coming from a deadbeat dad? Well, let’s see: “I’m not the one who had the baby, so how come I’m the deadbeat? The mom must be a deadbeat too because I didn’t make this baby by myself.” Now why doesn’t that argument work? Because men are not labelled deadbeats for having sex or fathering children. Men are labelled deadbeats because of their failure to support their children – a choice men make on their own, independently of the child’s mother. And the same goes for deadbeat women who get abortions. Pro-Abortionists or “pro-choice” women are not being attacked for having sex or getting pregnant. They’re being attacked for avoiding their responsibility by destroying it – a choice they make on their own.
Now, isn’t it interesting that deadbeat fathers don’t go around screaming “My money, my choice”? Men don’t go around bellowing that it’s their right not to take responsibility for children they create. Yet, we tolerate this nonsense from women. Men are jailed for not paying child support while women have absolutely zero legal ramifications following an abortion. And we say we live in a “civilized” society.
We don’t blame women for creating deadbeat dads, so we’re not going to blame men for abortion. The decision to get an abortion is made by a woman and by a woman alone – so no man can be blamed even partially for it. Male input is not required for an abortion. On the contrary, any attempt by a man to influence a woman to keep or abort a child against her wishes would be regarded as some kind of abuse towards women. So that one’s not going to fly. The woman is the one asking society to remedy a situation she finds herself in, not the man. The man’s point of view is irrelevant to the staff of the clinics where abortions are performed – which leaves us looking only at women.
Now, the smart women who accept that the above argument is irrefutable, will then cling on to the very last straw-man argument that they have heard from others. That being, “Abortion isn’t murder, it’s not a human.” This argument is so childish, I don’t even know where to begin.
The dictionary definition of murder follows:
1. To kill another human unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly
Since the fetuses are innocent and haven’t broken any laws, it’s pretty unlawful to kill them. And, I’d really like anyone to show me an abortion procedure that is humane.
The legal definition of murder follows:
“The person who causes the death of a human being, means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death.
Murder is the unlawful killing, by any person of sound memory and discretion, of any person, with malice aforethought either express or implied by law.”
The law specifically states that murder is the intentional killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought. That is exactly what an abortion is. Abortion fits the description of first degree murder.
Recently, a man in California kicked his girlfriend in the stomach with the intent of causing her to miscarry the fetus. Previously, there was no "or a fetus" clause in the California Criminal Penal Code, but was added after a landmark case in which the man only faced battery charges after he kicked his pregnant girlfriend with the intention of causing a miscarriage, but the girlfriend wanted to keep the baby.
So what it boils down to here is whether or not the act of ending a person’s life is murder hinges upon the woman’s decision. If she chooses to abort, it’s not murder it’s her choice. If she doesn’t want an abortion, but gets one anyway, it’s called murder.
That is a complete refutation of the “it’s not a person” argument.
And lastly, even in the rare case of a deadbeat woman carrying her pregnancy to term, she can still give up her child for adoption after the child is born, cutting off all legal and financial responsibilities to that child without the man’s consent. On the contrary, a man can not do the same without a woman’s consent.
Now, I’ve fought very dirty in this article and I make no apologies for that because we’re up against people for whom the rules of logic, ethics, reason, fair play, and the simple doctrine of “judge not lest ye not be judged” mean nothing. I’ve judged them by the same standards that they expect others to meet – and they fail miserably to come within even limping distance of it. I’ve had enough of the never-ending man-bashing from these disgusting slags who are far from the virtue they make themselves out to be. Every fucking day it’s “men are violent, men are abusive, men keep women down, male-dominated society” -- it goes on and on. Yet the whores pointing the finger are every bit as corrupt as those they dare to judge. I’m not going to let some stinking whore label me negatively. Not as long as I have the brains, the knowledge, and the unbending will to tell them about their putrid selves. So this article will hit them like flying debris in the hurricane of man-bashing that they worked up.
+1 y
Women's Right to Choose
KillerrMike Xper 3
2 4
What Girls & Guys Said
72 112You know when your water breaks, then you have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body.
Good Lord, the people on here are evil or retarded. "Overpopulation"? Simple math tells us that if the entire planet's population lived in a city as dense as Paris, everyone could live inside Texas alone. "A woman's right is more important"? The only logical conclusion to women obsessed with abortion is they're drunk with power. Abortion is the right women have, whenever they want, to murder an innocent person who did no wrong. They're drunk on the power of life and death. Evil.
"VirginGuy" are you retarded? If a fetus isn't alive, then it can't be aborted. Are you saying that a baby two days away from being delivered cannot actually be killed, because it was not born? You do realize that it is alive, and thus abortions kill it?
It's the womens right to choose... murder! The reason why you have sex is because you want to have a baby. Normal people see that life growing inside them as a person just like any other and if you kill a person, doesn't that make you a murderer?
You write: You're using an ad hominem; attacking the person and not their argument
I think you're more guilty of this than anyone else who has commented on this. You've called someone "dumb", "childish", "stupid" etc. in nearly every post you've written.
You write: Yes, women have the right not to be raped. And yes, the woman will have her body occupied by a fetus for 9 months against her will. However, that doesn't justify murdering an innocent to get rid of a temporary inconvenience.
It's not a "temporary inconvience." It often has serious, even life-threatening consequences.
Pregnancy doesn't always happen because a man and woman knowingly have unprotected sex. There are many different situations that lead to abortions. Pro-choice works
https://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/nicaragua-abortion-law-puts-pregnant-cancer-victim-risk-2010-02-23
Even if she knowingly had unprotected sex, how do you say no abortion because a murder has no justification and yet allow a person to die?
Here is the link to a case in Nicaragua where a where a woman with cancer was denied treatment because she was pregnant. There is a total ban on abortion in the country and the doctors are afraid of giving the woman treatment because it may harm the fetus. Obviously, if a cancer patient gets no treatment, they will die. https://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/nicaragua-abortion-law-puts-pregnant-cancer-victim-risk-2010-02-23
Also, if a woman is at risk of dying if she gives birth, should she still not be allowed to have an abortion? Isn't refusing her this also murder? Maybe this woman had unprotected sex, knew she'd get pregnant and didn't care. But what if this pregnant woman was a rape victim? How do you say, "No, you can't kill the fetus because it's a person and murdering a person has no justification. However, I know this pregnancy will kill you and I'm OK with that."
Huh? Things aren't black and white.
For example, an Ecotopic Pregnancy: The most serious complication of an ectopic pregnancy is intra-abdominal hemorrhage (severe bleeding). In the case of a tubal pregnancy, for example, as the products of conception continue to grow in the fallopian tube, the tube expands and eventually ruptures. This can be very dangerous because a large artery runs on the outside of each fallopian tube. If the artery ruptures, you can bleed severely.
"First of all, a pregnancy is not a procedure that permanently removes bodily organs and had life-long effects. The main difference between the two situations is that in one, you neglect the need of a dying stranger whom you have no legal ties to at all. In the other, you are intentionally killing your own offspring."
Pregnancies DO have life-long effects. Not to mention, some pregnant woman are at risk of DYING because of the pregnancy.
Like I said, the law and life isn't black and white. "If someone locked me in their basement and raped me every day for nine months, the judge would not accept that as an excuse not to put me in prison if I murdered that person -- and that is a guilty person."
It's called self-defense. Sure, some judges may not, but others would. Here's a link to the self-defense laws in California: https://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html
A surrogate who suddenly decides she wants out of her contract (an abortion) may not have the right to one because she earlier signed a contract stating she'd carry the fetus to term. A women who gets pregnant after being raped had no choice in the matter and shouldn't be required to carry the fetus again her will.
Even if you were to give a fetus rights, what about the rights of the woman? You can't go around arguing that one thing deserves rights while dismissing the rights of another.
Maureen Condic has been criticized. Google her and you'll find a long list. Secondly, I never conceded that I thought a fetus was a person (read my post again). Your arguments are ridiculous. You're comparing a surrogate mother to a regular pregnant woman and that's silly. A surrogate agrees to let her body be used for this and most sign contracts that give control to the future parents. Your perspective is very black and white and that's not how life/the law works.
If a fetus is a person why is it called a "fetus"? Simply because it is NOT a whole person.
Consequently, a pregnant woman?s removal of a fetus from her body, even though it will probably result in its death, is no more immoral than an ordinary person?s refusal to donate his or her kidney to another in need of one, even though this refusal will probably result in the death of the prospective recipient.
Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson of M.I.T argued that even if the fetus is fully a human person with a right to life, this does not mean a woman must be forced to use her bodily organs to sustain its life. It is much the same, we are told, as the case in which one does not have a right to use another?s kidney if one?s kidney has failed.
Dr. Maureen Condic has been criticized by MANY others in academia and the medical community. She isn't even a human embryologist. Since you're the one approaching things with bias, here's a pro-choice argument that takes into consideration the possibility that a fetus may be human (I still say it isn't, but regardless):
Regarding your "dead bodies" crap: dead bodies and a fetus can't be compared. this is simply ridiculous. everything about them is utterly different.
Also, the reason why abortions can only occur with a woman's consent is obvious: the pregancy is occuring within her body. "But it's his child too" you say. Well, as the article I quoted shows, a fetus isn't a child. "Well, it takes 2 to make it." True, but it's only the woman who carries the fetus to term. "Shouldn't he have the right to have it, if he helped make it?" Ultimately, a fetus needs a woman's body to survive, and she has the right to control her own body. Get over it.