Abortion punishment.???

There is a difference between the law and what people say. Some people think that their cats are more important than people. They name them, buy them toys, put them in their wills and cater to their every need while eschewing human contact. That just means they like cats; it doesn't mean cats are people.

Likewise many people have an even stronger connection to their unborn baby. That connection is emotional, not legal.

Same reason a cat lady may think her cat is more important than any human, while the shelter down the street is euthanizing homeless cats.

Again, don't confuse what people say with what the law says.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another way of describing the situation is that the mom has the right to opt out of parenthood, where the dad does not. From a standpoint of equal rights, the dad should have the same opportunity to opt out of the liabilities of a continued pregnancy as the mom, not by forcing a termination, but by a specified waiver of parental responsibility.

Should Men Be Able to Opt Out of Fatherhood?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/should-men-be-able-to-opt-out-of-fatherhood

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Found this looking for something else

To good not to pass on

All fixed now

It's gods plan at work

No need for any laws to regulate

Take a moment and think about what Rick Warren said. Rick said, "He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death." Let's examine one simple implication of this statement. What this means is that God has pre-planned every abortion that has taken place on our planet.

https://godisimaginary.com/i6.htm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think it's selfish to bring children into this cruel world knowing that they will or could endure hardships, pain and bad experiences in their life.

If I had the choice of never to be born then I would definitely choose the option not to be born into this cruel world.

 

Fortunately, that is a choice you can make.

I am glad we brought children into this world, and I hope they have a life that's been as full as ours. (And, of course, we can give them the support to do that - if they choose to.)

 

I once knew someone who believed the world would end in the year 2000. It occurred to me to rewind for a moment and ask her an obvious question: If you believed the world was ending, why did you have a baby? "Because," she explained, matter of factly, "I loved him that much."

That is to say, expecting the world to end in six years, she got married and began intentionally attempting to have a child because she loved her unborn, unconceived, allegedly doomed son that much.

There is always the possibility she meant that was why she didn't abort, but that was never the question, and this was allegedly a planned pregnancy.

And speaking of selfish, I don't think I can begin to explain a melodrama in one corner of the extended family by which two psychiatrically incompetent parents might be planning to reproduce again as a political argument.

Selfish parenting is at the heart of the American family experience during my lifetime. I don't think that's extraordinary in itself, but it's also true I've witnessed in my life and family two occasions when we might suggest the women have finally caught up to the men for selfishness and irresponsibility. It is easy enough to hedge, for the sake of general decency, against the casual indictment of a friend who seems to have treated pregnancy and motherhood as a social status; and, yes, there are questions of postpartum depression, but neither was her deliberate choice to carry a child especially influential over her behavior. One of the chief differences in her consumption behavior, for instance, was that she spent more time explaining why it was okay for her to have this drink in her hand. And, hey, at least she could hold up the cigarette in her other hand and acknowledge she was cheating.

To the other, there is a cousin of some degree that makes this friend look like a model pregnancy. While the one didn't confirm her pregnancy medically until drinking too much alcohol on Saturday landed her in the emergency room on Monday after collapsing at work, at least she enrolled in a prenatal program and attended her appointments. Not listening to one's doctor is an American rite (and right) of some sort; skipping prenatal care entirely because it's inconvenient is the sort of thing that makes other people think twice, especially when there are learning disabilities. Typically, when I mention the bright-line of a dryfoot standard, people freak out about distractions intended to freak people out; my cousin's son's wife, whatever that makes her relation to me, is the living test. It's the old Poundstone joke come to life: Under law, anyone can have a kid, but you need a license to have a dog.

The thing about not listening to one's doctor—my friend was more attentive to another doctor, and what was said about another patient—is that at least one is engaging with the doctor and choosing to ignore the advice. This, generally speaking, is considered somewhat normal, but only if we compare it to skipping care altogether. My cousin of some degree couldn't be bothered to ignore the advice; she preferred to never hear it in the first place.

Yet, here we are today, with the public trust trying to figure out what to do with a blank-page ward quite apparently operating with multiple cognitive disruptions who happens to have survived falling off a building because his parents really are incompetent in multiple relevant forms of the word.

And when it comes to societal policy, we do have an American joke, that Republicans are pro-life until you're born; and we can see the results of that American tendency in what happens next.

Remember, best practices are too expensive.

There is a reason Child Protective Services are generally loathed, but like many government agencies viewed as perpetual failures, they fail because we, the People, intend that they should.

That is to say, given a choice between Sparta and something less morbid, we would seem to prefer to absolve our consciences than anything else. It's true, doing the "right" thing is expensive, but compared to just leaving children like my cousin's grandson to flail and suffer and eventually die, "Won't someone please think of the children?" sounds great. Except, you know, like so many other things, it's really expensive, and we don't really want it that badly, so we'll shortchange ourselves—tank our own endeavor—and complain about the results.

Everything about this aspect of the discourse, at least in my society, is selfish. Indeed, that's part of why it's significant that the question of punishing a woman can generate all manner of chatter, but consideration of practical solutions, such as how to help reduce unwanted, unexpected, and unplanned pregnancies↗, finds silence quieter than the stones themselves.

Think of it this way: Discussions pertaining to reproduction, rights, and politics, tend to foster stronger participation when the purpose is to insult women or consider how to punish them; when question is reducing the number of pregnancies leading to abortion demand, well, that means men need to be more useful than knocking women up, complaining about them, or telling them their place.

Which in turn is why societies struggling with the anti-abortion proposition tend to focus on punishing and dehumanizing women. Which is also great right-wing fundraising and, for the politicking sector, job security. In the end, the anti-abortion question orbits whether or not the lobby can convince people to recognize in a zygote a human rights status they refuse to recognize in women.

And there is a reason they find such considerable success as they do. Denigrating women is an historical custom of my society; and just like other irrational, flexible definitions perceived to lend to our empowerment, people aren't giving that up without a convincing logical reason. It's a convenient circle, kind of like nice work if you can get it, you know?

 

When her life is in jeopardy because of the pregnancy, that would be reason to abort. There are 256 birth world wide every minute. It's the most natural thing in life. And, yes, that life she carries is darned important, not a frivolous inconvenience to be extracted like a cancer.

As for clinical manipulation? I do think it's morbid. Should there be legal boundaries? Maybe. Cloning people is illegal, the last time I checked.

 

Yet here you are. I think most every living creature has an instinctual impulse to survive. It's priority #1.

 

And yet half the population can't do it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Besides, more people watch the Olympics, which isn't exactly a natural part of life.

The only natural thing in life seems to be death.
Everything else is up for grabs.

 

Two-bit Mansplanation for the Gallery

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click because she got the need.​

I would remind that we cannot take away what she never had in the first place.

All human rights are established and recognized by convention. Most of us believe there is some reason for having them in the first place; to wit, as I sit here alive and unviolated, I would expect my consideration of human rights standards against murder and rape would have to do with something more than lamenting the inconvenience of being expected to not rape and kill. That is to say, if I absolutely must have an opinion on the subject, as such, then yes, I explicitly appreciate not being raped and killed at the moment, and if I am completely honest I must also acknowledge that human rights standards generally reduce the number of people who might purport reason to formulate my rape or death.

Prohibitions and customary disdain for dueling must necessarily have some effect, for instance. Such circumstacnes do not mean nobody will ever challenge me, as such, but generally speaking it seems enough these days to bawl to or about moderators. And, besides, escalation seems to prefer mass shootings in my society—often about a girl, by the way—instead of duels—which, in turn, could also easily be about a girl, which reminds of the Iliad and Odyssey, which in turn remind that wars apparently obliging divine intervention can apparently be about a girl, too. Historically speaking, yes, I can imagine a conservative argument in by which one is not taking anything away from women, but, rather, protecting traditional standards of decency, or whatever the hell it is they might come up with this week or next, which in turn sounds an awful lot like last, or the week before that.

But that's just the thing. I sometimes remind people they don't want me thinking for them. And, you know, yeah, I could probably come up with an argument by which we're not taking a damn thing away from a woman since she never had it in the first place, but historically such depictions of conservative conscience tend to offend conservatives, who in turn never really do get around to explaining what they're really after, because, well, that would mean admitting at least some of those seeming exaggerations and caricaturizations are reasonably accurate.

Having control and a say over her own body? This is an occasion when it seems of utility to observe that these are the United States of America, as such; our essential discourse on the human rights of woman is, "Hush, dear, the men are talking."

Part of our historical specialization is the separation of human from other. And as the enlightened world emerges from and reckons with any number of struggles derived therefrom, we Americans seemingly intend to parse the notion to its last inkling of possibility.

No, really, that's how we do it. If woman is human, then rape is rape. You know, just to speak of having control and a say over her own body. But if we measure her as Adam's rib, we have some wiggle room on rape: Well, yes, rape is wrong, but you bear some responsibility in this. You married him, once upon a time, after all. That she was dumb enough to marry him in the first place is a mitigating circumstance in something like two-thirds of the states.

Yes, really: Any excuse.

In the American traditionalist outlook, we're not taking anything away from her, and more fool she for wasting her life with such fanciful notions as being anything more than a reflection of how men feel about themselves.

And fertilization-assigned personhood: There is no conflict between the rights a "person" and a woman.

 

Again looking for something else and found this

Small extract

This is the reason why we menstruate, shedding the entire lining of the uterus — to rid ourselves of non-viable implanted embryos each month.

https://www.quora.com/Are-humans-the-only-species-that-intentionally-aborts-pregnancies

: