Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Well, it’s at least refreshing to have somebody admit that the stance against abortions is in order to punish women specifically for having what they perceive to be irresponsible pleasurable sex!
Usually they try to hide it behind the pretext of the “right to life of a baby”, which is obviously not the case for you.
I strongly suspect you are not alone, but rather part of a large majority of those that are
“anti-abortion”.
If it truly were about the “right to life of a baby”, the circumstances of getting pregnant (whether willingly, by force, or accidentally) would have no bearing on whether the resulting “baby” should have “a right to life”.
While one might be technically correct in saying that “most” (if meaning a higher number than not) unintended/unwanted pregnancy occur without using contraception; not so much with the “precaution” part.
52% not using contraception
48% using contraception (43% using it incorrectly or inconsistently. 5% contraception method used correctly failed) Problems with contraception play big part in unplanned pregnancies, study says
What percentage might you suppose of those not using contraception where not doing so due to either religious conviction (i.e. devout Catholics) or due to poor sexual education (i.e. abstinence only education, misinformation about risks of using contraception, “I swear I’ll pull out!”, etc. etc)
or lack of availability of access or affordability of effect contraceptives?
Do you think that might tip the scales from
52%-48% to 48%-52% at least…..maybe more?
So much for “most cases precation/protection was thrown out the window for pleasure.”
Another interesting tidbit you perhaps didn’t take into account:
“where data is available, nearly a quarter of all women, feel unable to say no to demands for sex.”
‘Staggering number’ of unintended pregnancies reveals failure to uphold women’s rights
To your question:
Of course it’s wrong!
Its wrong to take away the bodily autonomy of a person.
Is it ever right to force a person against there will to use their body and internal organs for the benefit of someone else?
No matter who that someone else may be.
Let’s consider a “what if scenario”:
Two twin siblings go out on the town to celebrate their 21st birthdays.
They go to a bar and have a couple drinks.
They make sure to eat some fried food cause
they’ve been told that it keeps you from getting too drunk.
On the way home they get in an accident, and end up in the hospital.
One of them has internal damage
(kidney failure) such that they will not survive without a transplant.
Should the state have the right to force the sibling to donate their kidney in order to save the other ones life?
Why should the state have the right to insist a woman should use her internal organs and risk possible health complications against her will,
to sustain a not as of yet formed, insentient, potential, future life?
