Men go for abortion because they are usually lazy and do not want to have to deal with raising a child. Women should not abort unless complications occur and she has a high risk of dying with the baby.
2006-08-07 07:35:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by joeman_hulke 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I disagree....
I don't think abortion empowers women.
Women become empowered when they have complete control over their bodies. If this "choice" is taken away from women, what will the next one be? What if I need chemotherapy someday and the government decides for some reason that it's bad for the environment or against some one else's ethics so I don't get the remedy I need. Another choice is taken away. Less government is what we need.
I know women in relationships that made the decision to have abortions for personal reasons, not because they were sex toys for men. This is a false argument too. Your version of women as objects of pleasure with a quick fix from abortion is similar to the do anything you want and God will forgive you idea. I know more people who sin regularly and use the excuse that all will be forgiven....sick!
I am pro-choice, I do not want someone else making my decisions for me. I would not have an abortion myself, but there was a time I would have considered it. I will continue to support, without judgement, my friends that have gone through the experience. If abortions are eventually banned in several states, I will learn how to perform them safely so the women that will get them ANYWAY will be protected.
2006-08-07 14:45:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Brooke 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
It seems to be the nature of the beast. A women can look at a guys d**k and not get turned on. But put a picture of a breast in front of a man and he is turned on. Pornography, prostitution, and strip clubs just play on this weakeness for massive profit. I think a lot of men who say they are pro abortion are that way so they can have an out for their irresponsibility of impregnating someone. Men can be real dogs. Some will say and promise the moon just to get a piece. If the woman gets pregnate they will just say to get an abortion or blame the woman for not using birth control. At the same time some women will try to use a pregnacy to trap the man of their dreams. Unfortunately this is very common now and the results have horrible. In conclusion, any man worth his salt will in fact be a father, without question, to his offspring.
2006-08-07 14:28:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by diaryofamadblackman 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't know of any women who believes that abortion empowers women. Abortion wouldn't even be an issue if men were able to get pregnant. I am sure the stats of abortion would be threw the roof if men had the option.
2006-08-07 15:32:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Scully 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, I have never considered abortion to be empowering, in fact I have never heard anyone say that. The thing is, though, that this is a free country. And we should be able to make our own decisions about what to do with an unplanned pregnancy. Nobody's religion should be making laws that everyone needs to follow. AND, if men could get pregnant, it would not be an issue. Abortions would be legal.
AND, if you really want to get your point across, you should word things better and use Spell Check.
2006-08-07 14:42:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, lets say, that it takes "two to tango", and that women who dont use birth control, or men who dont use "protection" are the main culprits that are leading to abortion.
I know of many women who have kids, just to be on Welfare and get large checks for the more kids they have..(yes, it does happen and I can see it in my own town!).
I know of men who have "knocked up women" and left them and not paid a dime for child support, only to impregnate many women in this way..(they have proven that the lower the intelligence of men and women, the more children they will have! Go Figure that one out!).
Women have a mind of thier own. They can choose to be "used" or not "used" as you are pointing out... No woman "has" to be used, and its of thier own violation if they choose to be.
To me, abortion is murder, so I dont support it. I would rather a woman and man both use some type of protection in order to not procreate and have to destroy a human being.
I wish you well..
Jesse
2006-08-07 14:21:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by x 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Men have always thought of em as better than women and have treated em like trash and always will.
I think that only in rape cases should women have the choice to abort.
2006-08-07 14:54:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by A 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
In his Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul, II equated abortion to other societal ails that he considered as threats on human life and dignity, stating:
Whatever violates the integrity of the human person . . . torments inflicted on body or mind . . . whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all things and others like them are infamies indeed.
As well, forced pregnancy should be added to the list of societal ails. It violates the “integrity of the human person” by forcing women into a role of motherhood rather than letting them choose whether or when to be a mother. Not providing women reproductive freedom treats them “as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons.” Pregnancy inflicts a great amount distress on the body and mind. The body obviously greatly changes and although it does not affect all women, postpartum depression is a common mental illness. Women should have the choice on whether or not they want to go through this life changing process as it can affect them physically, mentally, socially, and economically.
Roe did not win the battle for reproductive liberty in the United States, in fact, it was just the beginning. Abortion is only one aspect of reproductive liberty and not the only one at risk. Anti-choice sentiment is no longer restricted to abortion. It has extended itself to birth control, emergency contraception, and abstinence plus sex education. Instead of undermining reproductive liberty, it would make more sense to further it. While historically reproductive liberty in the United States has been a negative liberty there is data that shows in states where it is a positive liberty, the community seems to benefit. With adequate access to education and effective contraception, women can control their reproductive lives. The frequency of unwanted pregnancy will lower and subsequently the frequency of abortion. However, the anti-choice agenda is not to protect the unborn but to demolish reproductive liberty in the United States.
If their true concern was for the unborn, they would support emergency contraception, birth control, and abstinence plus education. If not support reproductive liberty, than provide for the unborn once they are delivered into the world; not let them live in poverty as 12,132,645 in the United States currently do. Approximately 1.3 million abortions occur annually in the United States. If the current federal and state governments cannot provide for the children living in poverty now, how to they intend to take care of the influx of children as a result of abortion being banned? By completely taking away an already limited choice, women living in poverty and potentially their children are being forced to live in a constant cycle of poverty.
Both life prior to Roe and a contemplated life after it provide a grim outlook of reproductive liberty in the United States. However, the threat of Roe being reversed is real. Yet many women feel that their reproductive liberty is not at risk. Even with the increase of birth control prescription denials, many feel that it will not happen to them. The ability to control your health and your future is not something to be apathetic or naïve about. Today, I believe that reproductive liberty is taken for granted by many women in the middle to upper classes. This is mainly due to them not having a recollection of what life was like prior to Roe and not having to experience restrictions on freedom. This is especially frustrating when reading of the effects of thalidomide in the sixties on unborn fetuses.
Even in the sixties, a decade associated with an increase in education and freedom, many women were still denied control over their reproductive liberty. Before the known side effects, thalidomide was prescribed to treat morning sickness in pregnant women. Subsequent to their deliveries, many of their infants were being born without arms or legs due to the side effects of the drug, which were not known prior to their pregnancies. Even after public knowledge of the harmful effects thalidomide had on the fetus, many women were denied abortions and the ones who could afford it, again had to go overseas to obtain one. The struggles thalidomide mothers have faced are united by two reoccurring themes in history, injustices between the “haves and have-nots” and a paternalistic society. Regardless of social status, women as a whole did not have much say in their reproductive decision-making. Their lives, reproductive and otherwise, were at the mercy of their husbands or physicians. In The Life of Reason, George Santayana states:
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience.
To overturn Roe could condemn America to repeat a history of infection, sterility, and death. Reproductive healthcare would return to a paternalistic system where woman have to look to their physicians and/or husbands to make their reproductive health decisions. Many others will be forced to seek out abortionists not unlike their predecessors prior to 1973. Once again, women are teaching each other how to perform abortions including menstrual extractions , which many in the medical community considered to be highly dangerous if performed by a lay person. Additionally, the already widening gap between the wealthy and the impoverished will increase, potentially encroaching upon the reproductive liberties of thousands of women and introducing even more children to a life of poverty. As women who can afford to, will travel to another state or even country to have an abortion; while those who cannot, will be at the mercy of either an abortionist or child welfare. Truly, the social and economic landscape of America will be changed forever if Roe is overturned.
The world is full of many instances that we as human beings have no control over. Pro-life supporters like to argue, “Aren’t you thankful your Mother did not have an abortion?” However, there are many people from Generation X who would not be here if their mother or father were not involved in an abortion during a previous relationship. Are their lives less valuable because in order for them to live, a previous pregnancy had to be terminated? To be truly pro-life, I believe that individuals must consider the lives of people currently living as well as future lives. Women are no longer limited to antiquated gender roles but have the choice to become productive influential members of society. By protecting reproductive liberty, we are providing women the chance to better themselves socially, economically, and health wise. Not only do they benefit but their families or potential families and society as a whole benefits.
2006-08-07 16:07:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by tarap_mcw 2
·
0⤊
1⤋