By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:

See, what bothers me here is that the right will fight like hell to see that the baby is brought to term, but once it's out? Fuck you, i got mine, you care for your kid.

Either you care for human life or you don't, which is why i'm more inclined to believe that the right's stance is more about oppressing women than it is about caring for any sort of sanctity of life.

while I think there is a huge difference between not providing a livelyhood for someone and actually actively killng a person,  i kind of agree with you here.

I do think it is the responsibility of the government to some extent to provide the basic neccesities of live for a child, if the parents cannot do so. that includes taking them away from bad/abusive parents. Since obviously children cant provide for themselves.

and i guess millions of women like opressing themselves, especially the majority of married women with kids.

Somewhere where we agree, what do you know

It's not opression if someone does something willingly, of course. That'd be like saying all farmers are slaves because most slaves (in the western hemisphere at least) were put on farms. But forcing a woman to make a certain lifestyle choice has been shown to be detrimental to society in a number of ways, including decreased economic advancement and an increase in poverty and crime.

Which isn't to say i'm out there advocating abortions or unlimited unprotected sex. Unwanted pregnancies should be rare, and thus the decision to abort be rarer still, depending on how the individual feels about adoption or their willingness to actually be pregnant (and go through associated social stigmas, etc etc).

My idea is that abortion is a small but necessary part of the sex and reproduction tool-kit.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.