Pro choice or pro life?

[Agent Cobalt]

I'm pro-life and against abortion in all cases.

The idea that abortion needs to be legal for health reasons is nonsense and an excuse to keep it available. Less than 1% of abortions are to save a mother's life from things like ectopic pregnancies. Today it's just a form of birth control, and it's disgusting to me that we tolerate such infanticide. A woman has no right to end a life simply because of inconvenience. And no, rape and incest are not legitimate reasons to take innocent life. The pretenses for the creation of the life have no bearing on the value of said life or the protection, safety and respect it should be given. Either life is sacred and the lives of the innocent ought to be protected at all costs, or life is expendable and can be extinguished for any reason. If that seems extreme so be it.

As is said so often- It's a child, not a choice.

 

[Tinhead Bruce]

This is not a good reason to be pro choice, but just remember: There are 6+ billion humans of this earth. Way more people than resources available. If our population continues to grow, someday we may all be starving.

Also, there are people in every continent starving right now. We have a responsibility to take care of the people already alive, before we take care of the "people" not yet born.

 

[Xairmo]

I'm pro-life and against abortion in all cases.

The idea that abortion needs to be legal for health reasons is nonsense and an excuse to keep it available. Less than 1% of abortions are to save a mother's life from things like ectopic pregnancies. Today it's just a form of birth control, and it's disgusting to me that we tolerate such infanticide. A woman has no right to end a life simply because of inconvenience. And no, rape and incest are not legitimate reasons to take innocent life. The pretenses for the creation of the life have no bearing on the value of said life or the protection, safety and respect it should be given. Either life is sacred and the lives of the innocent ought to be protected at all costs, or life is expendable and can be extinguished for any reason. If that seems extreme so be it.

As is said so often- It's a child, not a choice.

So say a 14 year old girl is raped by her father, and in the process she gets impregnated. You think she should have to bare that child? To every day have to look at her child with anger and regret, instead of love and joy. To look at the child as a daily reminder, a manifestation if you will, of that nightmare. And for that child to know his or her history, to know how they came into the world. To have to bare such a burden, knowing how utterly unwanted they are.

Like I said, I don't fully agree with what abortion is but I think women should always have that option. A woman should not be further punished after being raped by being forced to keep the child.

 

[Metatron]

I'm pro-life and against abortion in all cases.

Hah. No surprises here, having come from someone with a picture of Ronald Reagan in their signature. Don't even bother to try and consider the other side of the argument. Oh, and there's a difference between a mass of cells on a petree dish, and a living, breathing human child, btw.

Typically, I'm against abortion, especially after a certain point in pregnancy. I don't agree with people that claim "a human fetus is not living because it need its mother's nourishment to survive." After a certain point in pregnancy, the embryo can feel pain and that, I believe, constitutes a human life.

However, under extreme circumstances, such as acts of rape or incest, and if the pregnancy is not in the final stages of development, then I see no reason why abortion should not be an option to the mother. If a woman is raped, why should she be forced into enduring the physical pains of labor, and conceive a child that was not her choice?

A woman who makes the mistake of having unpredicted sex and has waited past a certain point in the pregnancy when the human embryo starts to take shape, I believe, shouldn't be given the choice. I hate to sound like an unsympathetic bastard, but...it's her own fault.

So, in short, I'm really on the fence about this topic. I believe it should be kept legal, but with far more strict conditions than there are now =/

 

[Cosmic Tyrant]

Typically, I'm against abortion, especially after a certain point in pregnancy. I don't agree with people that claim "a human fetus is not living because it need its mother's nourishment to survive." After a certain point in pregnancy, the embryo can feel pain and that, I believe, constitutes a human life.

However, under extreme circumstances, such as acts of rape or incest, and if the pregnancy is not in the final stages of development, then I see no reason why abortion should not be an option to the mother. If a woman is raped, why should she be forced into enduring the physical pains of labor, and conceive a child that was not her choice?

A woman who makes the mistake of having unpredicted sex and has waited past a certain point in the pregnancy when the human embryo starts to take shape, I believe, shouldn't be given the choice. I hate to sound like an unsympathetic bastard, but...it's her own fault.

So, in short, I'm really on the fence about this topic. I believe it should be kept legal, but with far more strict conditions than there are now =/

You've taken the words right outta my mouth. Though I disagree on the "right time" to abort. In my opinion, life needs knowledge to grow. A fetus only knows three things; it's dark, damp, & warm. That's what it knows from being in the womb. Babies can be brought up in different ways. If one tries real hard, they can make a child think becoming a serial Killer is perfectly normal, and anything else is "wrong." Development may be different, but in the end, all children can be brought up the same with effort. To me, life is meaningless without knowledge to help nourish it. But I still stand ground against abortion if the mother wasn't protected. It was her foolishness and carelessness that led to the birthing, and it would be selfish to abort something that could've been prevented.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

So say a 14 year old girl is raped by her father, and in the process she gets impregnated. You think she should have to bare that child? To every day have to look at her child with anger and regret, instead of love and joy. To look at the child as a daily reminder, a manifestation if you will, of that nightmare. And for that child to know his or her history, to know how they came into the world. To have to bare such a burden, knowing how utterly unwanted they are.

Like I said, I don't fully agree with what abortion is but I think women should always have that option. A woman should not be further punished after being raped by being forced to keep the child.

What was I thinking? No, you're right, just kill the kid. Yes she should bare the child. The origin of the conception had no bearing on the worth of the child. And you can champion abortion as the cure to self-pity after a rape all you want, but killing that child isn't going to unrape that girl and it's not going to help her mind. Abortions have even shown to harm a woman's health and mental stability. Caring after children and enduring motherhood and parenthood are by no means easy, but I'm sure endometriosis, a scarred uterus, stressed mental health, and prolonged guilt trips throughout life won't be pretty in the long term either. And hey, there's always adoption. Maybe she won't love that child, but there are plenty of people willing to give the child their love.

Like I said, it's a child not a choice. I don't follow that line of thinking that a child is a punishment either. And I'm not a mindreader that assumes he knows that that child will hate itself either. And even then, it's not like the child's better off not being born. Abortions don't prevent child abuse or feeling bad. In fact, crimes against children you think are unwanted or are self-hating have increased since abortion became legal nation-wide and haven't gone down. And I'll reiterate and correct a previous statement of mine regarding abortion today being used as birth control. Less than 7% of abortions are ever performed to save the mother's life or for health reasons and less than 1% are because or rape and/or incest. Add to that more abortions come from largely unmarried, well off women in their 20's. Your scenario is unlikely statistically, and really almost non-existent. You can come up with many more I'm sure, but I won't be guilted into supporting the smothering of an innocent life; when faced with these situations I er on the side on life.

Hah. No surprises here, having come from someone with a picture of Ronald Reagan in their signature. Don't even bother to try and consider the other side of the argument. Oh, and there's a difference between a mass of cells on a petree dish, and a living, breathing human child, btw.

Thanks for assuming I'm close-minded on issues like abortion because I have a signature with one of my favorite statesmen in it and because I mentioned I'm pro-life in all cases. I've considered the other side for quite some time and I still do. Any thinking man constantly questions himself and his beliefs. I'll let you in on a little secret- I used to be a very non-conservative, moderate social liberal and rabid atheist years ago. I'm not above critical thinking and changing my mind. And the tired point about the baby being a clump of cells doesn't change when life begins, the worth of the child, the child's rights, that that breathing human child comes from that mass of cells, or draw the line as to when ending human life is and is not acceptable.

 

[Metatron]

What was I thinking? No, you're right, just kill the kid.

Whoa, slow down there, buddy. If you hadn't noticed, there's a huge difference between this and this.

And you can champion abortion as the cure to self-pity after a rape all you want, but killing that child isn't going to unrape that girl and it's not going to help her mind.

..."Killing" isn't necessarily a word I would use for stopping the growth of a tangled mass of cells that could *potentially* become a human life in later stages of development, but you're saying that, even if a woman was raped, she should still be forced into giving birth to a child that she had no choice over? And think about the well being of the "child." If it was conceived through rape, you don't think that could cause any emotional harm on it in later stages of its life? Growing up without a father? Knowing it was the product of a man forcing himself upon a woman, and impregnating her?

And hey, there's always adoption. Maybe she won't love that child, but there are plenty of people willing to give the child their love.

While I do agree that adoption is the best alternative to having an abortion, it is said that roughly 3 out of every 100 children born here in the US are put up for adoption. How many of those children, I wonder, are actually placed into homes with loving, caring families?

Less than 7% of abortions are ever performed to save the mother's life or for health reasons and less than 1% are because or rape and/or incest.

Okay, fine. I understand that the option of having an abortion is widely abused by people who have made the stupid mistake of having unprotected sex, getting themselves knocked-up, and deciding that they're not responsible enough to raise a child, but...what about in those other cases? You said yourself that 7% of abortions are performed in order to save the mother's life, so what about in those circumstances? How is it decided who lives? A woman who is conscious and aware of what's going on in the world around her, or an undeveloped human embryo?

Look dude, I'm not trying to completely tear-apart your post here, I just think that saying "abortion is wrong in all circumstances" is...a bit harsh. I mean, lets be realistic here; whether or not abortion is legal or not, it's gonna happen. It can either be a sanitary procedure that is highly regulated, where the "child" feels no pain, or we can do away with it completely, and "back-alley" abortions will occur. Like I said, I generally disagree with abortions, but I try to keep myself with an open mind for the more extreme of circumstances =/

 

[Agent Cobalt]

Whoa, slow down there, buddy. If you hadn't noticed, there's a huge difference between this and this.

Yes, you tried to bring that to my attention in your previous post. If you hadn't noticed, there's a difference between conception and birth and yet both involve human life.

..."Killing" isn't necessarily a word I would use for stopping the growth of a tangled mass of cells that could *potentially* become a human life in later stages of development, but you're saying that, even if a woman was raped, she should still be forced into giving birth to a child that she had no choice over? And think about the well being of the "child." If it was conceived through rape, you don't think that could cause any emotional harm on it in later stages of its life? Growing up without a father? Knowing it was the product of a man forcing himself upon a woman, and impregnating her?

To put to death. To deprive of life. To put an end to; extinguish. Look, just because you don't recognize that that clump of cells is living, is a unique life, and is human doesn't mean you're not killing it when you end its life. I know people who have been raped and people who were conceived through rape and none of them would have been better off dead or not born. Everyone deserves a chance to live, regardless of the misconceptions others would project onto them about how miserable their lives must be. And I grew up largely without a father in my life, as do many Americans. I don't recommend it, but I'd rather a child live without a father than not at all. A mother isn't being forced to give birth; she's just not killing her child. The child has nothing to feel guilty about; it's innocent. And even if that child is miserable I'd rather take that chance than not give it a chance to live. I stand by my position that the circumstances for the child's conception have no bearing on the worth of that child's life. And I'll repeat myself- I won't be guilted into not siding with life.

While I do agree that adoption is the best alternative to having an abortion, here in the US, it is said that roughly 3 out of every 100 children born here in the US are put up for adoption. How many of those children, I wonder, are actually placed into homes with loving, caring families?

From what I've read, there are thousands of people upon thousands of people waiting to adopt all the time. From people that can't have children themselves to those just looking to care for those with nobody to care for them. I'd say a lot of them do. Now there's a waiting period for legal and bureaucracy reasons, but that's just the system. At light speed we could likely find a home for every child. Anyway, the system isn't perfect, no, but then what is?

Okay, fine. I understand that the option of having an abortion is widely abused by people who have made the stupid mistake of having unprotected sex, getting themselves knocked-up, and deciding that they're not responsible enough to raise a child, but...what about in those other cases? You said yourself that 7% of abortions are performed in order to save the mother's life, so what about in those circumstances? How is it decided who lives? A woman who is conscious and aware of what's going on in the world around her, or an undeveloped human embryo?

7% of abortions are for "health reasons" but doesn't even mean anything. The honest truth is that there's virtually *never* a case where abortions are used to save a woman's life. That 7% includes "psychological reasons" and not just physical harm, which I take with a grain of salt. The actual physical issues are also able to be fixed without abortions with things like C-sections. So honestly the health reason is an excuse either to not get surgery that might leave a scar or to avoid mental stress. The only case where a woman's health is truly at risk would be something like an ectopic pregnancy in which the child attaches to the fallopian tubes and not the uterus, in which case the mother and child will both likely die, and the procedure to save the mother isn't so much an abortion (which is meant to kill) but a procedure to protect life; the child's death is the unfortunate result of trying to move the egg from the tubes and into the uterus. Now I'm sure the next argument is going to be guilting me into supporting abortions so a mother won't have to live with a scar on her stomach.

Look dude, I'm not trying to completely tear-apart your post here, I just think that saying "abortion is wrong in all circumstances" is...a bit harsh.

Well the world is harsh. And sometimes being bold, sticking to your guns, and seeing things in black and white is the only way to keep things in order. I know to many I probably come off as a caveman, but so be it. My ethics come before my "sensitivities."

I mean, lets be realistic here; whether or not abortion is legal or not, it's gonna happen.

So will murder, rape, theft, and any other crime that ought to remain illegal and not just legalized because "people will do it anyway."

It can either be a sanitary procedure that is highly regulated, where the "child" feels no pain, or we can do away with it completely, and "back-alley" abortions will occur. Like I said, I generally disagree with abortions, but I try to keep myself with an open mind for the more extreme of circumstances =/

Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, it can be banned like it used to be not that long ago and those that break the law can be prosecuted under the law for their crimes like they used to. And the child can feel pain by a few weeks. You'd be surprise how quickly a human grows in the womb. It's sad really; there used to be a time when women like Susan B Anthony were around that thought a woman's right to choose had to do with voting against Woodrow Wilson, not killing their offspring in vile fashions; in fact, they were vocal opponents of it. Now it's mainstream. Thanks Margaret Sanger.

 

[Angela]

Yes, you tried to bring that to my attention in your previous post. If you hadn't noticed, there's a difference between conception and birth and yet both involve human life.

Actually the first picture is not human it's just a mix human gens, just spit in a jar with couple of your buddies and whola! (Sorry couldn't resist)

To put to death. To deprive of life. To put an end to; extinguish. Look, just because you don't recognize that that clump of cells is living, is a unique life, and is human doesn't mean you're not killing it when you end its life. I know people who have been raped and people who were conceived through rape and none of them would have been better off dead or not born. Everyone deserves a chance to live, regardless of the misconceptions others would project onto them about how miserable their lives must be. And I grew up largely without a father in my life, as do many Americans. I don't recommend it, but I'd rather a child live without a father than not at all. A mother isn't being forced to give birth; she's just not killing her child. The child has nothing to feel guilty about; it's innocent. And even if that child is miserable I'd rather take that chance than not give it a chance to live. I stand by my position that the circumstances for the child's conception have no bearing on the worth of that child's life. And I'll repeat myself- I won't be guilted into not siding with life.

And what will you say when you get rapped and get pregnant, oh wait you can't your a boy (You can't get pregnant that is, never know what rapists are into so I can't say that about rape), so let me ask you, do you hate the morning after pill since it kills a "form" of life that enters the woman?

I would never spoil my body just because some loser downtown couldn't keep it in his pants, I would want to wake up and see the scared on my lower are just to remind me off what happened, but I would be willing to spoil my body when I'm older and have a husband.

And a woman never knows what will happen to a baby ones given away, does it get a good home, is it being treated better, is it happy, is it hungry is it crying is it sick, will it hate me when it grows up because I gave it away, will it blame me for being put into the care of a neglectful family, so I would never give away a child, so I would not be carry a child just to give it away.


And you know the violent gene the father has, the one that makes him rape, the burst of violence he momentarily had when he did the thing he did, it passes on to the child, and I would not be comfortable knowing that I was making a caring a baby that may some day do what his father did too me to another young girl.

From what I've read, there are thousands of people upon thousands of people waiting to adopt all the time. From people that can't have children themselves to those just looking to care for those with nobody to care for them. I'd say a lot of them do. Now there's a waiting period for legal and bureaucracy reasons, but that's just the system. At light speed we could likely find a home for every child. Anyway, the system isn't perfect, no, but then what is?

Now I'm going to sound like a total godoholic, like some members have been sounding in this thread *Note that I say this with a sarcastic tone*

Maybe god didn't plan for them to have children, since that people can't have children then it's god's doing, I'm totally going to ignore the fact that it's biological and say god did it.

*Okay sarcastic loony hour over, I'm sorry the person I'm quoting I know you didn't talk about god, so that wasn't aimed at you, but it was aimed at some of the MALES on here that think a rape is god's doing*

7% of abortions are for "health reasons" but doesn't even mean anything. The honest truth is that there's virtually *never* a case where abortions are used to save a woman's life. That 7% includes "psychological reasons" and not just physical harm, which I take with a grain of salt. The actual physical issues are also able to be fixed without abortions with things like C-sections. So honestly the health reason is an excuse either to not get surgery that might leave a scar or to avoid mental stress. The only case where a woman's health is truly at risk would be something like an ectopic pregnancy in which the child attaches to the fallopian tubes and not the uterus, in which case the mother and child will both likely die, and the procedure to save the mother isn't so much an abortion (which is meant to kill) but a procedure to protect life; the child's death is the unfortunate result of trying to move the egg from the tubes and into the uterus. Now I'm sure the next argument is going to be guilting me into supporting abortions so a mother won't have to live with a scar on her stomach.

Your sure were right about that, a c-section for a rape, that sounds like the tRADE OF A LIFE TIMe, thank god that you will never have any say in anything about abortion, thank god that it's entirely up to the woman to decide if the baby get's aborted or born, thank god that there is no law that says the father has a say in the abortion, actually I would do a c-section for a baby I would have with a man I loved.

I'm actually going to focus more on the fact that you think it's right to abort when the child is attached to the tubes, I mean stick with your arguments, you think it's okay to kill a child when it's stuck to the tubes, are you sick or something (No offence),,,,,,,,


Now with it in mind that you think it's justable to abort when the baby is killing both the mother and the baby, then I want you to keep this in mind, feel the feeling that you feel when you claim that that kind of abortion is justable, then multiple it with two, and then you'll see how us woman's feel about rape abortions,


Now I think I may have widen you horizon gotten you to feel what other's feel about another kind of a abortion, your lucky I was able to do that, you admitted something that gave me a chance to communicate with you, some boys on here haven't had that benefit.

Well the world is harsh. And sometimes being bold, sticking to your guns, and seeing things in black and white is the only way to keep things in order. I know to many I probably come off as a caveman, but so be it. My ethics come before my "sensitivities."

So will murder, rape, theft, and any other crime that ought to remain illegal and not just legalized because "people will do it anyway."

Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, it can be banned like it used to be not that long ago and those that break the law can be prosecuted under the law for their crimes like they used to. And the child can feel pain by a few weeks. You'd be surprise how quickly a human grows in the womb. It's sad really; there used to be a time when women like Susan B Anthony were around that thought a woman's right to choose had to do with voting against Woodrow Wilson, not killing their offspring in vile fashions; in fact, they were vocal opponents of it. Now it's mainstream. Thanks Margaret Sanger.

Abortion is not murder.

What is a feuds suppose to be old to be considered having a soul according to Christianity? anyone?




My final words in this posts are,

Boys, the woman's opinion is the only opinion that matters, the boy/male has no saying in if she has it born or not, there is no law stating the father of the child has any say in the abortion so until that changes you'll just have to face the cruel cold world, that she's not going to carry your mistake, and you can't do anything to change her mind, you can't force her to do anything.

 

[Metatron]

Just allow me to play the Devil's advocate here for a quick minute:

Actually the first picture is not human it's just a mix human gens, just spit in a jar with couple of your buddies and whola! (Sorry couldn't resist)

Actually, no. The first picture was, as I had put before, "a tangled mass of human stem cells on a petree dish." I'm pretty sure your spit doesn't contain embryonic stem cells =x

And what will you say when you get rapped and get pregnant, oh wait you can't your a boy

...What?
I don't think that's the point he was trying to make. Even though I don't agree with his logic, to say "You couldn't get pregnant, therefore you wouldn't understand" really...doesn't make too much sense. I mean, of course putting it into perspective would help someone to understand what an important choice the woman is faced with, but to say that, because he isn't a woman that his opinion doesn't matter, just isn't fair.

And you know the violent gene the father has, the one that makes him rape, the burst of violence he momentarily had when he did the thing he did, it passes on to the child, and I would not be comfortable knowing that I was making a caring a baby that may some day do what his father did too me to another young girl.

"Violent gene?" Does that even exist?
You can't just assume that because the father had a sick, twisted mind, that the child will necessarily be born that way. While I certainly do agree that the woman should not be forced into conceiving a child that was her choice, to say that the child *might* grow up to be like the father in that aspect doesn't really seem like a legitimate point of arguement. Otherwise, you're basically saying that people will mental health issues shouldn't be allowed to breed =x

Now I'm going to sound like a total godoholic, like some members have been sounding in this thread

Actually, I think we've all been pretty good about not bringing religious beliefs into this debate :3

Abortion is not murder.

Depends how far off into the pregnancy we're talking about. 2 weeks? No. 4 Months? Yes.

Boys, the woman's opinion is the only opinion that matters, the boy/male has no saying in if she has it born or not...

Oh, so because the man isn't the one to face pregnancy, then his opinion regarding the fate of the child doesn't matter at all, despite the fact it was his sperm that was partially responsible for the creation of the child? Yeah, that totally makes sense. Well, then I guess we shouldn't permit any males to even post in this thread anymore, seeing as their opinion doesn't matter at all.

there is no law stating the father of the child has any say in the abortion so until that changes you'll just have to face the cruel cold world.

Actually, if the couple are legally married, then yeah, the father does have a say in whether or not an abortion should be practiced. And even if the couple isn't married, the male does still have the option of petitioning legal custody of the child, even if it is still in the womb (although this is usually unsuccessful).

 

[Angela]

Just allow me to play the Devil's advocate here for a quick minute:


Actually, no. The first picture was, as I had put before, "a tangled mass of human stem cells on a petree dish." I'm pretty sure your spit doesn't contain embryonic stem cells =x

I was kidding about the spit.

...What?
I don't think that's the point he was trying to make. Even though I don't agree with his logic, to say "You couldn't get pregnant, therefore you wouldn't understand" really...doesn't make too much sense. I mean, of course putting it into perspective would help someone to understand what an important choice the woman is faced with, but to say that, because he isn't a woman that his opinion doesn't matter, just isn't fair.

Actually it is fair, since that is the cold hearted truth.

"Violent gene?" Does that even exist?
You can't just assume that because the father had a sick, twisted mind, that the child will necessarily be born that way. While I certainly do agree that the woman should not be forced into conceiving a child that was her choice, to say that the child *might* grow up to be like the father in that aspect doesn't really seem like a legitimate point of arguement. Otherwise, you're basically saying that people will mental health issues shouldn't be allowed to breed =x

Actually it has been proved that the violent gene passes on, as does the gene that makes people become alcoholic, and you may ask what makes people become alcoholic, well it is more likely for people with ADHD to become addictive to something because a lack of the chemical Dopamine that causes happiness so that the person keeps seeking into some kind of comfort, such as dope, alcohol and others, it has been proven that the violent gene passes on, and yes I think it's fair seeing he might get that gene, I mean I'm not going to keep the baby, so why create a monster just send it away from me, well I must be really cold hearted to think like that, but so would the rapist be.

And if crazy people want to have children then they can have them, but they'd just be spreading their decease, it doesn't matter to me if the people with mental health issues want to breed, so long as they don't use me for it.

Actually, I think we've all been pretty good about not bringing religious beliefs into this debate :3

You can't deny seeing one or two, abortion is wrong because the baby's were made by god.

Depends how far off into the pregnancy we're talking about. 2 weeks? No. 4 Months? Yes.

If I remember correctly then 4 months is too late to abort, after those months I believe their is a baby in there, so I would considered that murder, but I'd have it aborted anyway if it were possible.

Oh, so because the man isn't the one to face pregnancy, then his opinion regarding the fate of the child doesn't matter at all, despite the fact it was his sperm that was partially responsible for the creation of the child? Yeah, that totally makes sense. Well, then I guess we shouldn't permit any males to even post in this thread anymore, seeing as their opinion doesn't matter at all.

Actually, if the couple are legally married, then yeah, the father does have a say in whether or not an abortion should be practiced. And even if the couple isn't married, the male does still have the option of petitioning legal custody of the child, even if it is still in the womb (although this is usually unsuccessful).

@bolded: Could not have said it better myself, I mean he's not going to be the one squeezing a baby out there lower body, and if the baby get's born, the I would force him to pay me money for the baby, so you can look at it this way, while the baby is inside me the father has no say, when it's out well, "Here's your baby, enjoy, have him back by 6"<<<< this is only if the baby was conceived by the act of love.


And again, while it is inside ME, then the father has no say,


Well I'm a stubborn woman so no court would tell me to have a baby, if they would then I'd just throw myself down a staircase or something, or smoke like crazy, or lie to a doctor and say that I was not married, my body my option, and if those fail then I'd drink to make sure the baby would be ugly since the father is going to take it away from me anyway.

I know call me a cold hearted woman, but my body, I decide what I do with it no one else!

 

[Virtual Chatot]

In my opinion, pro-life.

Let me just shift the perspective on the idea that a fetus is not human, and merely a "jar of spit".

If it is not human, then it has the potential to become a human, and why would you still want to keep that mass of cells from becoming human? Advocates of the pro-choice movement always say that they are protecting women's rights, but they neglect the fact that they are destroying millions of potential women.

 

[Aurafire]

Um...Angela, it takes two people to make a baby. A man and a woman. Why do you have sole control over what happens to it when, without the man, you wouldn't be able to have a baby in the first place? Just because it's in your body doesn't mean half of the child didn't come from a man.

I'm also....slightly disturbed at how you would handle it if you weren't granted permission to have an abortion. Why would you take it out on your innocent child? That's almost as bad as having an actual abortion, and you're putting the child at great risk by smoking and drinking while pregnant. Is that fair at all?

 

[Angela]

Um...Angela, it takes two people to make a baby. A man and a woman. Why do you have sole control over what happens to it when, without the man, you wouldn't be able to have a baby in the first place? Just because it's in your body doesn't mean half of the child didn't come from a man.

I'm also....slightly disturbed at how you would handle it if you weren't granted permission to have an abortion. Why would you take it out on your innocent child? That's almost as bad as having an actual abortion, and you're putting the child at great risk by smoking and drinking while pregnant. Is that fair at all?

Actually the drastic measures were merely for shock value, as I live in Iceland and the laws are different, so I were never compelled to do that.

You do know what alcoholic baby syndrome is? (Google it)


Tell me how many persons does it take to push out the child, how many of the people get ripped from vayvay to arse??

And may I remind you all young ladies out there, as my mom and teacher told me, use protection, and the morning after pill, unless your on the pill, but taking the morning after pill with the pill does not hurt, always use condom.

 

[Stronkadonk]

Why shouldn't a father have a say in it?
He was part of the one who created that baby.
If they were both willing, or were both reckless, then that's their problem.
It's called using 'protection'.
Or, have the direct intent of having a child.
Don't go bonkers and then expect to have even more handed to you: Getting rid of the kid that would seem a burden to you.
It's your fault if you and the father/wife got carried away, so since you were reckless, screw you, and deal with it.

 

[Metatron]

Actually it has been proved that the violent gene passes on, as does the gene that makes people become alcoholic, and you may ask what makes people become alcoholic, well it is more likely for people with ADHD to become addictive to something because a lack of the chemical Dopamine that causes happiness so that the person keeps seeking into some kind of comfort, such as dope, alcohol and others, it has been proven that the violent gene passes on, and yes I think it's fair seeing he might get that gene, I mean I'm not going to keep the baby, so why create a monster just send it away from me, well I must be really cold hearted to think like that, but so would the rapist be.

Oh, okay. So just kill it off because it could potentially be born with some sort of disease. That seems totally legit. I guess every kid with any sort of mental disability is a "monster" then too, huh? I'm bipolar, and I have ADHD. I guess I should never be allowed to have kids then, huh?
Oh, and the bold: Wanna tell me where you got that little piece of information? I had no idea that the lack of Dopamine influenced ADHD. In fact, I was always under the impression that it was the other way around. Plus, to the line stating "Dopamine causes happiness," you should probably do your homework before saying things like that. Depression and ADHD, although often seen together, are two entirely different mental health disorders.

And if crazy people want to have children then they can have them, but they'd just be spreading their decease, it doesn't matter to me if the people with mental health issues want to breed, so long as they don't use me for it.

ADHD=/= Crazy. Just thought I'd put that out there.

If I remember correctly then 4 months is too late to abort, after those months I believe their is a baby in there, so I would considered that murder, but I'd have it aborted anyway if it were possible.

Oh, so you're acknowledging that, after a certain point the child is alive, but you just don't care. I'm not even sure where you stand in this arguement any more. Typically, the counter-arguement for people who are pro-choice is that the child isn't living on its own, and relies on its mother's nourishment to survive, which is legit. You're just saying that, because you don't want it, you don't care whether or not it feels any pain at all, you're gonna have it killed anyways. And, sorry, I was wrong. In the US, abortions can still take place within 3 months of pregnancy, not 4. Regardless, the brain, heart, and spinal cord all begin to develop within 3 weeks of the pregnancy, the basic shape of a human embryo is noticeable by week 5, and the central nervous system begins to develop by week 9.

And again, while it is inside ME, then the father has no say.

I was just telling you that, legally, the father does have a choice in the fate of the pregnancy. But apparently you're above the law anyways, so...

Well I'm a stubborn woman so no court would tell me to have a baby, if they would then I'd just throw myself down a staircase or something, or smoke like crazy, or lie to a doctor and say that I was not married, my body my option, and if those fail then I'd drink to make sure the baby would be ugly since the father is going to take it away from me anyway.

I...don't even know how to counter that. Well, if you really think it's okay to just go throw yourself down a flight of stairs because you don't want to have to support a baby, then you should probably seek mental help. Which, according to your logic, means you should probably never have a baby anyways, seeing as you may pass down that "violent gene" to it.

Look, haven't changed my views at all since posting here, I still believe that a woman should be given the choice up to a certain point in the pregnancy, especially under the circumstances of rape and/or incest, or if it puts her own life in danger, but your logic here is seriously flawed.

 

[Virtual Chatot]

At least give the baby away to adoption, I don't see the logic in harming an innocent child just because you don't feel like having it.

That's like saying it was fine for the Holocaust to have happened, because the Nazi Germans did not want them to exist.

 

[Stronkadonk]

But if you are saying ALWAYS give it up for adoption, would you truly say the same if it were a raped women?

 

[Percy Thrillington]

Well I'm a stubborn woman so no court would tell me to have a baby, if they would then I'd just throw myself down a staircase or something, or smoke like crazy, or lie to a doctor and say that I was not married, my body my option, and if those fail then I'd drink to make sure the baby would be ugly since the father is going to take it away from me anyway.

I know call me a cold hearted woman, but my body, I decide what I do with it no one else!

Angela, I'm sorry, but what you're saying is ridiculous. First off, it's your body and even though the child wouldn't be inside of it without the male's sperm, the decision as to whether or not the abortion should take place lies completely with you? I'm sorry, but that sounds to me like you're just extremely bias against men and that you don't believe they possess any good form of judgement at all.

And Angela, the whole thing about killing the baby by throwing yourself down a flight of stairs or making it look ugly by drinking obsessively is just... sick. I'm sorry, but it's pretty obvious that no one would do that to themselves unless they were seriously messed up. The law is flawed in many aspects, but unfortunately that doesn't give you the right to rise above it and kill your child because things aren't going your way.

Are you honestly petty enough to wreck up your child's life in order to get back at the father? Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds, at all? Seriously, Angela, it's not fun reading psychotic posts.

Also, sorry guys, I'll post a huge tl;dr post about my views on abortion when I get the time.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

And what will you say when you get rapped and get pregnant, oh wait you can't your a boy (You can't get pregnant that is, never know what rapists are into so I can't say that about rape), so let me ask you, do you hate the morning after pill since it kills a "form" of life that enters the woman?

I don't consider sperm anything more than sex cells. If contraception is used to prevent conception, that's one thing. If it's used to terminate it, that's another thing. I believe life begins at conception because it's scientifically true and I believe that's when the spirit of life is breathed into mankind. So if you're using pills to kill a child in the womb, yeah I have a problem with that. If contraception is being used to stop the sperm from even getting near the eggs, that's not as big a deal because the components of life haven't even come into contact yet.

I would never spoil my body just because some loser downtown couldn't keep it in his pants, I would want to wake up and see the scared on my lower are just to remind me off what happened, but I would be willing to spoil my body when I'm older and have a husband.

What? Could you rephrase that?

And a woman never knows what will happen to a baby ones given away, does it get a good home, is it being treated better, is it happy, is it hungry is it crying is it sick, will it hate me when it grows up because I gave it away, will it blame me for being put into the care of a neglectful family, so I would never give away a child, so I would not be carry a child just to give it away.

So because you don't know for sure that the child would live like a king with no burdens in life, you'd rather just pull the plug? What's more important- the child living with someone that wants and can care for it or your feelings being hurt over thoughts that your child that is being raised by another family might resent you for putting its best interests ahead of your own? Look, we all like to think that a parent's job is to be loved by their child rather than make sure their child gets love from them; we like to think parents are meant to be their child's friend first. Well it's not your job to worry about being liked by your kid. You're supposed to be their parent first and their friend second, so if giving them up for adoption is the only way you know they'll have a chance because you know you're not going to be able to provide for them, you do what's best for your child and to hell with any ill will the child might bear towards you years later. So they might not slobber over you when they're older because they learn you gave them up. At least you'll live knowing you put your child's future before your own selfish feelings or self-pity, and eventually the child might come around and realize this too. A parent should put their kids before their feelings. Maybe it sounds harsh, but if being hated by your kid is the price you have to pay to give them a shot at life, so be it.

And you know the violent gene the father has, the one that makes him rape, the burst of violence he momentarily had when he did the thing he did, it passes on to the child, and I would not be comfortable knowing that I was making a caring a baby that may some day do what his father did too me to another young girl.

Violent gene? What? Seriously.

Now I'm going to sound like a total godoholic, like some members have been sounding in this thread *Note that I say this with a sarcastic tone*

Maybe god didn't plan for them to have children, since that people can't have children then it's god's doing, I'm totally going to ignore the fact that it's biological and say god did it.

*Okay sarcastic loony hour over, I'm sorry the person I'm quoting I know you didn't talk about god, so that wasn't aimed at you, but it was aimed at some of the MALES on here that think a rape is god's doing*

Well let's bring up God then. I assume you're talking about the Lord, my God. Let's take a look at what the Bible has to say about this.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

Psalm 139:13-16 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Exodus 21:22-25 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

The Bible states that God knows us in the womb and knows us before birth, and that anyone that harms a pregnant woman and kills her child should be treated no differently than a murderer that killed a grown man. Seriously, I'm not a theologian, but I at least try to learn what the Bible and my God have to say on a topic. And that's not a response to you because I didn't even get what you were saying. <=/

Your sure were right about that, a c-section for a rape, that sounds like the tRADE OF A LIFE TIMe, thank god that you will never have any say in anything about abortion, thank god that it's entirely up to the woman to decide if the baby get's aborted or born, thank god that there is no law that says the father has a say in the abortion, actually I would do a c-section for a baby I would have with a man I loved.

Oh yes, thank God some jerk on the internet that suggested that it's better to get an operation to birth birth to a child and live with a scar than to just kill the child out of inconvenience will never dictate policies on unnecessary child smothering. I mean, you're so right! Why let the child be born if it means you'll have to live with a harmless scar on your gut? Your image way is more important than a human life after all.

And yeah, screw those selfish dads that don't want their partners ending the lives of their children! They only contribute half the chromosomes to create the kid and are just as much the child's parent as the mother, so it's not like they should have a say in the matter or anything right? For God's sake...

I'm actually going to focus more on the fact that you think it's right to abort when the child is attached to the tubes, I mean stick with your arguments, you think it's okay to kill a child when it's stuck to the tubes, are you sick or something (No offence),,,,,,,,

...WHAT? Do you even know what an ectopic pregnancy is? Instead of growing in the uterus, the fertilized egg ends up sticking to the fallopian tubes and growing there. If the child isn't moved then the child will die and the mother will as well. It's not an abortion in my view to intervene in that situation where both lives will end up being lost. But maybe I'm sick for not wanting to lose two lives instead of (regrettably) one. Maybe I'm sick for not wanting the child to get crushed in the tubes and leave the mother to endure the destruction of her innards. Yeah, it's sick to not want a literal explosion in a person to kill her. I'm messed up alright.

Now with it in mind that you think it's justable to abort when the baby is killing both the mother and the baby, then I want you to keep this in mind, feel the feeling that you feel when you claim that that kind of abortion is justable, then multiple it with two, and then you'll see how us woman's feel about rape abortions,

So it is sick to move the child from the fallopian tubes to save one of the lives rather than lose both, but it's not sick to kill a child unnecessarily when no one's life is in danger because of how the woman got pregnant? Yeah, that's consistent.

Now I think I may have widen you horizon gotten you to feel what other's feel about another kind of a abortion, your lucky I was able to do that, you admitted something that gave me a chance to communicate with you, some boys on here haven't had that benefit.

Are you kidding? No, yeah, you're very generous to take time out of your schedule to educate me. You've opened my eyes.

Abortion is not murder.

I don't think I said it was. I said it was killing. Murder is the illegal killing of another person, which invokes the law. Currently thanks to judicial activists abortion is legal and not technically murder, which is odd since a man can be charged with second degree murder for killing a pregnant woman, but that's the law. But it is still killing human life.

What is a feuds suppose to be old to be considered having a soul according to Christianity? anyone?

What?

My final words in this posts are,

Boys, the woman's opinion is the only opinion that matters, the boy/male has no saying in if she has it born or not, there is no law stating the father of the child has any say in the abortion so until that changes you'll just have to face the cruel cold world, that she's not going to carry your mistake, and you can't do anything to change her mind, you can't force her to do anything.

Well it's only your opinion that the only opinion that matters is the woman's opinion. It's my opinion that my opinion is just as valid an opinion as any woman's opinion regardless of my inability to get knocked up. And it's just my opinion that being a woman shouldn't give you a monopoly over life. It takes two to tango, and I think that if the father doesn't want the body of his offspring ripped apart with medical appliances, maybe he should be consulted since it's just as much his child as it is the mother's child. Kind of goes back to what I said- it's a child, not a choice.