your rapist is forgiven, your mother goes to hell!

[crashhelmet]

Ok, now you're literally saying that because Crash disagrees with abortion, that makes him a misogynist, and I can only assume you think the same about me.

It has nothing to do with my "feelings as a man", it has to do with my feelings as a person. I see the fetus as a living being on its own - one dependent on another person's body, yes, but a living being nonetheless. All we're saying is that the decision to remove that life should only be allowed under specific circumstances.

Nobody ever said or even implied that women were "morons who need a man's help to make their decisions for them." It has nothing to do with you being a woman. It may for some people who actually are misogynists, but don't try to label us as that - if you abuse such a word, it loses its meaning and those who deserve it won't get the sting they should.

If men could get pregnant, I'd be just as against abortion as I am now.

This.

It's my feelings as a person. Neither my gender nor my religion have anything to do with it. If I was female and/or atheist, I'd still have the same opinion on the topic.

Let's ignore the fact that the arrest I mentioned earlier was for beating the crap out of a guy that punched a girl in the face.

Let's ignore the fact that I have spent years providing free self-defense and situational awareness classes to women and children so that they can be safer, working with the local women's shelters and organizations like RAINN.

Because I have a penis dangling between my legs, I must obviously hate women. Because I'm a Catholic, I must obviously hate women. Because I value Life, I must obviously hate women.

[crashhelmet]

this always kinda has me wonder (and again, just my rambling mind)
what about people born with parasitic twins?
i mean, a parasitic twin is still a life. it still would have an independant "soul" from conception. yet, by not removing and, to put it bluntly, killing the parasitic twin, both will usually die.
same with some types of conjoined twins. seperating could save one but being joined could kill both.

With parasitic twins, it again comes down to the situation. If you're down to the decision of choosing to lose one or both, I'd rather only lose the one. Most cases that I've read of, parasitic twins aren't typically in the same class as a set of conjoined twins. You usually have a situation like the girl in India that has extra arms and legs. They're usually absorbed, for lack of a better term, by the dominant twin. But as I said, it would be a case by case basis.

i know, its kinda OT, but it kinda isnt. these are examples of things that happen, but i dont see the RAGE assosiated with it that i do with (nessesary, life-saving) abortions.

also, what can be considered specific circumstances. many have mentioned nessesary medical procedure, not on-a-whim abortions and there is still argument against it.

The specific circumstances that I support abortion are the cases where the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother and rape. As I stated earlier, if the mother's life is legitimately at risk, I'd choose the mother over the child.

In the case of rape, there's no telling what kind of psychological impact the pregnancy, and even caring for the child after it's born, will have on the mother. That constant reminder of the rape can be traumatizing to the victim. Despite being a man, Catholic, and "Pro-Life", I could not and would not wish that kind of torment on someone. To me, that would be more cruel than taking the life of the fetus.

[linguist]

Ok, now you're literally saying that because Crash disagrees with abortion, that makes him a misogynist, and I can only assume you think the same about me.

i don't think he's saying necessarily that crash (or by extension, you) is a misogynist, just that the views held ion this topic are misogynistic.

and, however you want to quibble over it, telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body is an inherently misogynistic viewpoint, regardless of the gender that holds it.

[bara]

Its very bold to claim that 'if I were a woman or atheist I would still believe that same thing I do right now'.

Its possible Ill admit, but even a slightly different perspective can greatly alter personal views and beliefs. A completely different gender and religious view are extreme changes. This is why I feel that such things as abortion should reside solely the decision of the person and their doctor and religion should stay out of it.

One of the arguments Ive seen is that she should have carried as long as possible. But even then the chance of a horrible miscarriage occurring is great. There have been countless women who were having a perfect pregnancy only to have something unforeseeable occur that caused death for both. In this case we know damn well that she wasnt going to be able to carry twins to term. Her chances of even carrying one kid were very near 0.

I dont own a uterus, I never will since I am male. I damn sure dont think its my place to tell any woman what she cant do with her body. I can tell her what she can do... whatever she wants.

[crashhelmet]

i don't think he's saying necessarily that crash (or by extension, you) is a misogynist, just that the views held ion this topic are misogynistic.

and, however you want to quibble over it, telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body is an inherently misogynistic viewpoint, regardless of the gender that holds it.

My views are not an attack on women. It's the concern for the life of a human being. Are you saying that pro-life women (yes, they do exist) have this misogynistic viewpoint as well?

[linguist]

My views are not an attack on women. It's the concern for the life of a human being.

is the woman carrying a fetus (which can't survive independently of her) not a human being then? or do the effects of unwanted pregnancy on her life just not matter as much?

Are you saying that pro-life women (yes, they do exist) have this misogynistic viewpoint as well?

that's exactly what i'm saying. women are just as capable of misogyny as men.

[Andara Bledin]

is the woman carrying a fetus (which can't survive independently of her) not a human being then? or do the effects of unwanted pregnancy on her life just not matter as much?

That's an inconvenient fact that gets sort of shoved in the corner whenever this discussion comes up.

All focus is on the proto-human developing (or failing to develop) inside of her, but her own health and well-being, including her mental well-being, are often either just sort of hand-waved off or discounted entirely as being irrelevant.

I, personally, as a woman and a Christian feel that until the fetus can survive outside of the womb, then it should not have the same weight as given the woman carrying it when discussing abortion specifically. (legal cases involving unwilling termination of the pregnancy by an outside agent are another matter entirely)

that's exactly what i'm saying. women are just as capable of misogyny as men.

Not only are women just as capable of misogyny as men, but when they are, they tend to act as if, as women, their misogyny gives it a legitimacy that it should never be afforded by decent human beings.

^-.-^

[draco664]

As I stated earlier, if the mother's life is legitimately at risk, I'd choose the mother over the child.

Then you're a bad Catholic. That is directly opposite to the Church's view.

[HYHYBT]

I use the word necessary because women need to have that choice available.

In other words, it's not the abortion itself that's necessary after all, but its *availability.* In which case you should have said that and not the other in the first place.

And thank you for falsely painting me as an opponent.

[Rebel]

In other words, it's not the abortion itself that's necessary after all, but its *availability.* In which case you should have said that and not the other in the first place.

And thank you for falsely painting me as an opponent.

I did not intend to do so.
The 'you' in my responding post was a generic 'you' to be directed to people who oppose the topic.
It was in no way directed at you and I apologize if it appeared that way.
I simply wanted to clarify my position on my use of the word necessary.

[Rageaholic]

Then you're a bad Catholic. That is directly opposite to the Church's view.

I'd take "bad" Catholic over "good" Catholic anyday.

[draco664]

I'd take "bad" Catholic over "good" Catholic anyday.

Me too. I didn't say it made him a bad person.

[Jaden]

and, however you want to quibble over it, telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body is an inherently misogynistic viewpoint, regardless of the gender that holds it.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this.

Yes, you're right. Telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body would be misogynistic. I'm not concerned what she does with her own body - I'm concerned what she does with the other person's body.

If you want to label me a misogynist over that, fine. I have nothing but respect for women, and certainly don't think of them as being any lesser than men in any regard. But if it helps you sleep better at night to just label me as a misogynist so that you can invalidate my stance on this issue that you disagree with, go right ahead.

[crashhelmet]

Then you're a bad Catholic. That is directly opposite to the Church's view.

I have been a bad Catholic for a very long time. The good thing is that I recognize where and how I'm guilty and then I do my best to perform acts of penance and contrition for them.

Now, whether or not my views are against the Church's remains to be seen. As I have pointed out several times in this thread, as strict as the Church is about things, they still have exceptions to their own rules

[HYHYBT]

The 'you' in my responding post was a generic 'you' to be directed to people who oppose the topic.
It was in no way directed at you and I apologize if it appeared that way.

Oh. Then I apologize for reading it that way.

And here comes one question that may well make you think I'm against abortion after all, though I'm not; but so far, there is one argument I've seen made here that seems a bit off.

That would be the parasite one. OK... so, the argument goes, even if it's a full person from the moment of conception, it's still fine and dandy to abort because a fetus is a parasite and nobody has the right to another person's nutrients. Given, for the sake of this one argument, that both are people, it seems to me that the one has a much higher stake in the matter than the other. For the mother, most likely nothing but a few months' inconvenience; for the fetus, certain death. The two really don't even seem comparable to me.