Great post.

I agree with the majority of what you are saying but, what if that child was going to have a life of pain and suffering? You'd have to be pretty fucked up to let that happen?

@bryanthetrumpet Not sure what there is to disagree on. I'm definitely a "quality of life" person vs merely being born to exist.
If you're alluding to really late term abortions I certainly don't support giving birth knowing there would be no quality of life.
There are a litany of reasons someone can find themselves in the position to be considering/forced into a super late term abortion. Look at some who never knew they were pregnant to begin with- it happens. Some women have wonky cycles, extremely overweight, spotting, the list of circumstances that would put someone in that position are endless.
Too damned many people on this spinning ball anyway. I'm almost to the point of opinion if one doesn't have all ducks in a row and set it's immoral to have a child to begin with. There are no guarantees in life but try to stack the deck in the child's favor.
Also there are women, and I know them, who thought they wanted kids but those very necessary hormones did not kick in and the child suffered as a result.

Apologies for the rant and maybe veering off topic there. I'm a "no questions asked, on demand" for this life choice.

@jorj Perhaps you aren't aware not all parts of the country make the procedure easily accessible. Facilities that will perform late term are even fewer and farther in between, potentially endangering women's lives as a result.

Not sure why the caps are necessary.

Until women no longer have to be concerned about restrictions on the right to do what THEY CHOOSE concerning THEIR bodies there is indeed need for validation legally. People seem to forget that it's still to this day forever coming up in the courts.

THAT'S WHY WOMEN KEEP HAVING TO BRING UP RIGHT TO BODY AUTONOMY.

@jorj @jorj When men with your mindset "nut up" and get off their donkeys to shoulder more of the contraceptive/reproductive burden physically and financially(beyond condoms!) then you may have a leg to stand on, until then your hobby horse is obvious, you or someone "scratched" yourself on someone and it ended up in a live birth someone hadn't bargained for. TFB, that does not negate the issue that women shoulder 99% of the physical and financial burden of whether to carry a child or not to term.

Corpses still have more rights over their body than women in too many places for "the greatest nation on earth".

@jorj i thought it a legitiment arguement; and i'm not an 'emotional female' or even a particulary empathetic person but i smell bullshit from a safe distance ?

@bryanthetrumpet not necessarily the case. My grandson was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis but didn't know till he was 5 years old. But now that we know, he'll have a choice when he gets a little older.

To clarify, if a woman were to have an abortion at 23 weeks, you believe she should be charged with murder?

If the fetus is of a maturity to live on it's own and anyone actively kills/has it killed, that could be murder. The abortion places I've known of go to twelve weeks. As I said, why not prevent, rather than terminate?

Patriarchy.

Because men don't (and shouldn't) have any say, they also should be allowed to relinquish all rights and responsibilities associated with the conception. Just my two cents.

It's her body. Period.

Nobody is talking about late term abortion....which should be ALSO LEGAL when the life of the woman is at risk. Remember, the woman always comes first.

Exactly. You've just provided some context that is NOT in the question! Which was my point.

What I provided is not "context" but logic. The life of the woman is the only one that matters.

"Nobody is talking late term abortion", "the life of the woman is at risk". You're jumping to several conclusions that aren't even mentioned in the original post, but are using them as "facts". I didn't respond in order to have a debate - I was simply pointing out that the question could have been clearer. Anyway, I've had enough of your preaching.

@DUCHESSA Why only when the mother's life is at risk? Who determines that? Possibly a man who you said has no right to opine? Stick to your guns woman! (What if said woman was actually held prisoner in a basement and was raped for years on end. Manages to escape her captor in her third trimester. If she is at no risk of death, are you saying she shouldn't be allowed to terminate the pregnancy?!?)

@JeffMurray Who decides the woman life is at risk? A medical professional, guy. About your example: Yesssssssssss, no woman should be forced to deliver a baby she didn't / doesn't want....and I doubt any intelligent woman will want a child from a mentally disturb man.

@DUCHESSA So I again ask, why would you say, "when the life of the woman is at risk"? If a man, even a medical professional guy, has no right to opine as you stated earlier, why should he have any say or control in any way whether or not a woman can get an abortion? Most everything else you've said on multiple posts seems to claim you're pro-choice 100%, and then this. I don't get it. ANY conditions or restrictions means you are not actually pro-choice because any of them can be used to deny a woman her autonomy.

Are you aware that pills fails and condoms break?

I didn't think about that when I posted, condoms slip off too. All three are also a reason to abort.

@egt1977 So then why even mention them? If anyone can just say, "Uh, the condom slipped off" and be granted an abortion we can just assume everyone will say they used some prevention method and allow unrestricted access.

I guess the "some consulting with the doctor" goes only as far as health risks for the woman.

Correct

Don't you think as "enough reason" the fact the woman doesn't want to become a mother...then or ever?

Yes of course.

So if the human population on Earth was rapidly dwindling, would that change your stance? If not, why is population part of your reasoning?

They would say, "Let's try to elect this guy to the US Senate."

Please, di tell me who in her sane mind uses abortion as a form of birth control.

You just contradicted yourself...

That means "AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER"?

@DUCHESSA If I were the father then it would affect me.

I would not walk away.

@El-loco Here we are not talking about "WALKING AWAY" BUT ABOUT THE WOMAN decision TO ABORT...even if the father doesn't walk away.

@DUCHESSA I am too drunk to use logic. If you were carrying my child I would not ask you to abort. I would ask you to accept my help and respect for what would not be a pleasant process. I would only ASK you not to abort.

@El-loco The fact is you wouldn't even have the right to ask...anything. Trust me,, the abortion process -as unpleasant / dangerous as it is- never is as UNPLEASANT / DANGEROUS as nine months of changes and risks are.

@DUCHESSA I do not claim the right to ask anything. I only tell you what I would do. The choice would be yours. I accept that the father has no right over the existence of his offspring even if he is prepared to do right by them. I accept it, but I don't have to like it.

@El-loco What you would do is irrelevant....and whether you like or not her decision is also irrelevant.

@DUCHESSA I find it confusing to have a fight with someone I never met and will never meet.OK, I get it, I'm irrelevant.

@El-loco A fight? I believe you are really confused. I only stated that you -or any other man- lccks the right to opine / say anything on abortion....even if the man is the "FATHER".

@DUCHESSA I agree with a lot of what you say, but this line in the sand is confusing to me. Men have no right to opine on the subject, what, because they don't have the ability to get pregnant? Does that mean barren women, old women, and women born without a uterus/have had a hysterectomy also have no right to opine?

Actually the technology for males to have babies is already well established. Just attach the foetal sac to the intestine to get nourishment. Just not many takers.

Why "and the doctor"? If a woman wishes to abort the opinion of the doctor is ONLY a medical one.

@DUCHESSA Here in Alabama women still have to go through a doctor to have an abortion. We haven't progressed to a point where the meds are available OTC.
I didn't mean to imply that a doctor should have the right to prevent a woman from accessing abortion care.

Needless to say the abortion must be performed by a doctor.

Legally is a fetus until the birth.
BYW, to wait until the 3rd., trimester is stu...d and a risk for the woman.

I'm not concerned with if the courts say it's a fetus or not, and it may be a risk to have a late term abortion, but it happens enough to be an issue.. Just for the record, if the doctor shows it to be a risk to the woman to have the child at any point, then I'm fine with the procedure.

You do realize that's one of the avenues people use to prevent abortions, yes? In areas of the country where they have legislated away most places one could get an abortion, pro-life organizations set up "abortion clinics". They tell the woman that she is unable to have the procedure for various reasons (like she currently has a fever and it would be unsafe to perform) and string her along until she reaches a gestation point after which an abortion is no longer legal. Basically, if you believe in any restrictions, you DO NOT believe in a woman's right to choose.

I don't think we should really be supporting our arguments with phrases that start with, "In ancient times".

Abortion should be covered by the insurance. Now, those who say "" Why should my taxes be used to solve the problem.when the woman can't pay for the surgery."....Well, if you know how much it costs to support a child (welfare) during 18 years...you will want your taxes to pay for the abortion.

@DUCHESSA Furthermore, if the woman doesn't have insurance, it should be covered by the state.