Where do you stand on abortion rights?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Denying women the right to control their own bodies is misogynistic.

Denying someone the right to live is the ultimate denial of rights.  IIRC isn't it your position that abortions are okay right before birth as well?

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Denying women the right to control their own bodies is misogynistic.

Denying someone the right to live is the ultimate denial of rights.  IIRC isn't it your position that abortions are okay right before birth as well?

Hey, TNF's always up for killing the f[inks] out of parasites.

[BaconBacon96]

Option 1 (Believes in human rights)

[TNF]

Denying women the right to control their own bodies is misogynistic.

Denying someone the right to live is the ultimate denial of rights.  IIRC isn't it your position that abortions are okay right before birth as well?

Yes, I believe that access to abortion should be unconditional. I tend to think that living, breathing women should have more autonomy over their own bodies than should creepy men like yourself and those in this thread who have taken it upon themselves to speak in defense of the fetuses of the world who believe that women's bodies should be public property.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Denying women the right to control their own bodies is misogynistic.

Denying someone the right to live is the ultimate denial of rights.  IIRC isn't it your position that abortions are okay right before birth as well?

Yes, I believe that access to abortion should be unconditional. I tend to think that living, breathing women should have more autonomy over their own bodies than should creepy men like yourself and those in this thread who have taken it upon themselves to speak in defense of the fetuses of the world who believe that women's bodies should be public property.

At nine months it is impossible to deny that the fetus is a life.  I can't understand why you would think that it's okay to end its life minutes before birth, but as soon as it leaves its mother's body, that would be murder.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Denying women the right to control their own bodies is misogynistic.

Denying someone the right to live is the ultimate denial of rights.  IIRC isn't it your position that abortions are okay right before birth as well?

Yes, I believe that access to abortion should be unconditional. I tend to think that living, breathing women should have more autonomy over their own bodies than should creepy men like yourself and those in this thread who have taken it upon themselves to speak in defense of the fetuses of the world who believe that women's bodies should be public property.

At nine months it is impossible to deny that the fetus is a life.  I can't understand why you would think that it's okay to end its life minutes before birth, but as soon as it leaves its mother's body, that would be murder.

Do you actually think that abortions (at least a large percentage of them) occur at nine months?

[TNF]

Denying women the right to control their own bodies is misogynistic.

Denying someone the right to live is the ultimate denial of rights.  IIRC isn't it your position that abortions are okay right before birth as well?

Yes, I believe that access to abortion should be unconditional. I tend to think that living, breathing women should have more autonomy over their own bodies than should creepy men like yourself and those in this thread who have taken it upon themselves to speak in defense of the fetuses of the world who believe that women's bodies should be public property.

At nine months it is impossible to deny that the fetus is a life.  I can't understand why you would think that it's okay to end its life minutes before birth, but as soon as it leaves its mother's body, that would be murder.

Whether or not the fetus is alive is immaterial.

[Sol]

In any case, pregnant people of all genders will not magically want to have a baby if the government outlaws abortion. You'll get not just back-alley abortions, but also more infanticide and parental abandonment as well. See Romania.

[Mr. Smith]

Very very very very very very very reluctantly Option 2 (not a misandrist or murderer)

Instead I support expanding the hell out of sex-ed, Planned Parenthood, contraceptives, not trying to ban the practice and any measure to prevent it from getting to that point in the first place.

Prevention by any means is the best place to start.

But I'm not in favor expansion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I voted option 1, but it were interpreted in the OP's absolutist viewpoint, I'd have to vote option 2.

Before the embryo becomes a fetus, I support access to abortion.  After a fetus becomes viable outside the womb, I oppose abortion save if it becomes the only way to preserve the physical life of the mother. In between, I'm non-dogmatic enough that I'm comfortable with pretty much any set point of demarcation between allowing abortion and not allowing it.  However, I oppose exceptions in the case of rape and incest.  The sole justification for not allowing access to abortion is the view that what is in the womb is already a human life, and that is not dependent upon the circumstances of how it came to be, no matter how vile they may have been.

[SNJ1985]

Option 2, with no exceptions.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Denying women the right to control their own bodies is misogynistic.

Denying someone the right to live is the ultimate denial of rights.  IIRC isn't it your position that abortions are okay right before birth as well?

Yes, I believe that access to abortion should be unconditional. I tend to think that living, breathing women should have more autonomy over their own bodies than should creepy men like yourself and those in this thread who have taken it upon themselves to speak in defense of the fetuses of the world who believe that women's bodies should be public property.

At nine months it is impossible to deny that the fetus is a life.  I can't understand why you would think that it's okay to end its life minutes before birth, but as soon as it leaves its mother's body, that would be murder.

Whether or not the fetus is alive is immaterial.

That is a very revealing statement.  Why is one type of killing okay while another is not?  I know you strongly condemn the killing of Palestinians in Gaza (I do as well).  Why are their lives not immaterial?  Are fetuses the property of their mother?

@R2D2, no, but then again it's also illegal pretty much everywhere.

[Oak Hills]

However, I oppose exceptions in the case of rape and incest.  The sole justification for not allowing access to abortion is the view that what is in the womb is already a human life, and that is not dependent upon the circumstances of how it came to be, no matter how vile they may have been.

I think this point is too often overlooked in the abortion debate.  An abortion ban with rape/incest exceptions seems to me to be a position that can only come from either the misogyny to which many abortion rights proponents (absurdly) attribute all opposition to abortion, or unthinking moderate heroism.  I like to think that the vast majority of people with that view fall into the latter category, but who knows? 

Not to mention such a policy would be extremely impractical anyway, since the court proceedings needed to prove a rape occurred often last longer than it would take for the pregnancy to end in birth, if I'm not mistaken.

As for my view, I voted for option one, since I think the standard for whether or not it's acceptable to kill something should be whether it is legally a person (since even a sperm or unfertilized egg is clearly "alive"), and that begins at birth.  In short, abortion should be legal because, once we're born, our lives are invariably counted from the dates of our births rather than dates of our conception, "viability", or whatever other standard one uses. 

[Maxwell]

Option 1 (but I'm not going to be condescending about it)

[GaussLaw]

Option 2, with the only exception of the life of the mother.

The results are not surprising at all.

[Türkisblau]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism

Supporting the life of unborn children is not misogynist. It's like when my fellow dems scream about how people disliking Obama is about race. It is also like when cons turn arguments about welfare to the tiny percentage who use drugs and are "freeloaders."

You look like children when all you can say to people who hold different views as you is "OMG you guys are totally misogynist sexist pigs!!!1!!" It's idiotic and not intelligent conversation in any way, shape, or form.

[H. Ross Peron]

Option 2 except for life of the mother.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Option 1 (not a sexist)

I chose option 1, but it's comments like this that make me sick to my stomach about doing so sometimes.  It's as dumb as saying "Option 2 (not a murderer)."

[Beet]

Option 1, as long as "having access" does not mean unregulated (as would occur if it were illegal).

[Wolverines34]

Option 1

[Bigby]

Option 1 due Option 2 being too risky. And no, I won't call those who oppose the legality of abortion "sexist/misogynist/whatever."

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Option 2, unless the mother's life is at risk.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I'd be against the right to terminate the life of an unborn child if men were the ones who get pregnant too, so I hardly see what this topic has to do with misogyny... (but I understand that it's a useful line).

That's like saying that because you'd be in favor of voting restrictions even if it were white people being disproportionately harmed by them, it's OK that you're in favor of them when it's black people being disproportionately harmed by them. You don't get to make up a fantasy world to give you cover for your retrograde beliefs. Own up to them.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No restrictions at all.  It's none of your business or my business what a woman does with her body.

[IceSpear]

Pro-choice