If you are for abortion because it is the woman's right to choose what she does or doesn't have happen to her life, then aren't you being a sexist?
What about the MAN'S right to choose?
Does he have no say in how HIS life goes?
What about the child? Does he/she have no right to choose?
Let's evaluate the right to choose. Is it really the right to CHOOSE. For everyone involved?
Does anyone else find it a little disturbing that ONLY a woman gets to determine how her life goes?
A man doesn't get to say, "I don't want to have a child right now so either you abort or you relieve me of all financial duties." He also doesn't get to say, "I want a child right now and I'm willing to take on the financial and physical task of raising that child." He gets NO say. Only the WOMAN gets a say. She gets to determine not only how HER life goes but also how the life of the father goes. Wow. Talk about control!
A child doesn't get the opportunity to say, "You know what, you're going to be sucky parents & frankly I'd rather not be raised by you so don't even let me live." The child also doesn't get to say, "I want the opportunity to change the world. No. I just want the opportunity to live. Don't abort me. Don't kill me." Nope. The child gets no say. Only the WOMAN gets a say. She gets to determine not only how HER life goes but whether or not another individual even gets the CHANCE at life. Wow! Talk about control!
I posed this question once to a friend. Her response? The man's opportunity to choose comes when he decides whether or not to have sex with that woman. WOW. Are you kidding me? When does the CHILD'S opportunity to choose come in? If a MAN loses HIS right to choose the second HE decides to have sex with a woman shouldn't the same also go for the woman? Shouldn't BOTH of the two people who are ABLE to speak for themselves get to exercise THEIR rights when determining whether or not to even be involved in an act which could create a child?
Once they have CHOSEN their path by choosing to engage in an act that could create another life do they then get to END another life because they don't like their choice? Or rather...does ONE of those people get to exercise control over ALL other people in the situation without further thought to anyone's life but her own?
I don't get it. I thought it was about the right to choose. I thought they were pro-CHOICE. Clearly, it's only about the woman having control over men and children. Seems sexist and selfish to me.
Still, if we're going to go by THAT standard, why stop at any age?
If I don't like the choice I made to have children when times get hard and my kids are 10, 8, or 3, do I get to kill them? I mean, it IS about MY right to choose at the expense of my children's lives, right? Why should age matter? If I can kill my children when they're fully-formed babies at 6 months of life after partially-birthing them, then why not now? Why do they suddenly have rights? When do they get rights?
If they're a full life with rights if born premature at 6 months then why are they not a life with rights if I decide to kill them at 6 months gestation? If the line between them being a life and not is blurry when they clearly CAN survive outside of the womb at 6 months, then why not keep it blurry for the convenience of all women?
How much easier would it be on us women if we COULD decide that we no longer wanted that child and could kill them...regardless of their age? Seems to me if they become an inconvenience on me then I should have that right as a woman. That IS what it's about, right? JUST the woman having a choice and no one else. Clearly it is. So why stop that "right" at any age?