100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Simple Abortion Question | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
the man could use a condom thats his choice And botht he man AND the owman could choose not to have sex, thus refraining from having an issue in the first place, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, some people are gonna be angery about this. My belief is that the 'baby' is alive at the moment of conception. Abortion should only be allowed if the mother is going to die if the pregancy is carried out to full term. If the mother AND the father does not want the child it should be placed for adoption. Personal note: My wife and I wanted to adopt a child because she was not able to have one. One of those aborted fetusus could have been our child. You have the right to feel how you do, just do not force it on others. As a woman, if another woman choses to bring the child into the world with all that entails then good for her, but if she choses not to bring the child into the world, she has a right to chose that also. Noone should tell a woman whether or not to have or not have an abortion. If you have a problem with it go to the abortion clinic and offer to take the child off her hands and pay her hospital bills and care she needs while pregnant and then adopt the child from her. Then you have saved one of these lives you go on about. If you are not willing to care for the child for the rest of it's life then stay out of it. Also another thing this woman does decide not to have an abortion and gets on assistance and all these (except lex)men on here will be screaming about the welfare and how their tax dollars are raising all these welfare kids, mom's just keep having more kids, etc........LOL it is crazy. Don't want em aborted but don't want em pinching your taxes either. LOL Just stupid it is, no offense of course. Isn't it sad that our society doesn't considered the murder of a child "everyone's" business? Isn't it sad that adoption agencys and couples already agree to take care of the mother's medical bills, but some pretend that isn't the case? Isn't it sad that so many couples must adopt from foreign countries to get healthy newborns, when so many children are murdered in the USA every year? Right and most of these families are very particular about what they want, as the cost incurred come directly from their pocket when done in this manner, so they want white anglo saxon children, or even go so far as to say what they do and do not want the biological parents educational history to be. Again, until you have all your facts straight, don't talk about things you don't know about. And you have all your facts straight? hmmmmm suonds like another double standard to me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the man could use a condom thats his choice And botht he man AND the owman could choose not to have sex, thus refraining from having an issue in the first place, But that would require self control and the realization that there are consequences and possibilities when having sex, even if protected. IMPOSSIBLE! According to their theories humans are non-sensical sexual animals who do not have the will to have the mindpower to consider the results of their actions. They want to push we are mindless sex zombies. Point can be argued.....but I'd like to think a clear mind most of the time wins out, if alcohol isn't involved...haha. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again someone has enlightened me, it's not about abortion it's about choice. So glad you cleared that up Silly me what was I thinking anyway. 
Women have a choice, they chose to engage in sex even though the obvious consequence of that act could be pregnancy. They chose not to practice restraint or birth control or insist that their partner does. In the heat of passion they forgot to take adequae precautions, but they chose not to use "morning after" pill in the cold light of dawn. Why is it that the only time they are able to exercise their choice is when it involved the termination of that pregnancy which more than likely would not have occurred if they had availed themselves of the choices they had prior to the conception? I know that there are many who will want to jump in here with tales of instances where bith control methods didn't work save it, you can't use the exception to justify the rule. Some people think the morning after pill is murder.I recall wal mart wouldnt sell it. That's a joke, they won't sell music that is rated R, but they will sell guns and amo, explain that one? The "facts" are, walmart DOES sell rated are cd's. I used to work at walmart and I can remember the hassle and the threats from teenagers when I had to tell them I could not sell them a cd because they were underage. Wlamart (then anyway) even went so far as to say that if the same teenager came in with their parent within a certain amount of time of being turned away for the parent ot purchase it, that they would not sell to the parent on the basis that it was being provided fro the child. Now not selling to the parent may have changed, as it is up to the parent wether a teenager sees or hears rated r material. And as far as guns and ammo go, they follow state and federal regualtions on gun control and do NOT sell to those that they can not legally sell to. Guns and ammo, seeing you brought it up, can be used for hunting (to provide food for the family), for personal safety (in case of an intruder)... Abortion only removes the unwanted child. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again someone has enlightened me, it's not about abortion it's about choice. So glad you cleared that up Silly me what was I thinking anyway.
Women have a choice, they chose to engage in sex even though the obvious consequence of that act could be pregnancy. They chose not to practice restraint or birth control or insist that their partner does. In the heat of passion they forgot to take adequae precautions, but they chose not to use "morning after" pill in the cold light of dawn. Why is it that the only time they are able to exercise their choice is when it involved the termination of that pregnancy which more than likely would not have occurred if they had availed themselves of the choices they had prior to the conception? I know that there are many who will want to jump in here with tales of instances where bith control methods didn't work save it, you can't use the exception to justify the rule. Some people think the morning after pill is murder.I recall wal mart wouldnt sell it. That's a joke, they won't sell music that is rated R, but they will sell guns and amo, explain that one? The "facts" are, walmart DOES sell rated are cd's. I used to work at walmart and I can remember the hassle and the threats from teenagers when I had to tell them I could not sell them a cd because they were underage. Wlamart (then anyway) even went so far as to say that if the same teenager came in with their parent within a certain amount of time of being turned away for the parent ot purchase it, that they would not sell to the parent on the basis that it was being provided fro the child. Now not selling to the parent may have changed, as it is up to the parent wether a teenager sees or hears rated r material. And as far as guns and ammo go, they follow state and federal regualtions on gun control and do NOT sell to those that they can not legally sell to. Guns and ammo, seeing you brought it up, can be used for hunting (to provide food for the family), for personal safety (in case of an intruder)... Abortion only removes the unwanted child. well as long as they follow state regulations to sell something legal...you know like the morning after pill is not legal. you make no arguement that comes from facts, all of your arguements come from what you THINK should happen. Not on any real world statistics about what ACTUALLY happens Nice reality. You keep repeating the same flawed statistics over and over and really a true anti-choice person would be embarrased to use your facts and figures. If you are going to argue, make sure you at least sound as if know what the fact of the matter is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he had a child with a psycho crazy women that would put him in jail just becuase he lost his job or whatever, well it serves him right for having sex with someone who is unstable.
the reverse of this coin would have to be true then also. If she "had a child with a psycho crazy..." who decided to leave her and the baby, "well it serves her right" for having sex with someone who is nt willing to be a responsible adult. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pregnancy is the NATURAL result of sexual activity; it is what you have sex for. Only if you abide by a Judeau (sp) Christian belief system. Again here we go with pushing your value and belief system (I am speaking about the part that says "it is what you have sex for" so when you argue with me, it is clearly stated what i was refering to) There are hundreds of other religions that sex is an act of love, not an act of pro-creation. It is seen as a right and a privledge and an honor, not a responsibility to populate the earth. I never said that procreation was the only reason we had sex. I said that pregnancy is the natural results of having sex. Yes you are right, in that sex can be a form of great love and respect. However you still can not deny that pregnancy is a natural result of all that love and respect. So if you (man or woman, not any one person in specific)do not want to bring a child into this world, you need to find other ways to show your love and respect to the opposite sex. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is still a woman's body regardless to your wanting to make it more. She has the choice. Once children can be carried and birthed by men then they to will know the joy and pain involved. Until then, a woman has a right to chose to bring a life into the world or not
You are absolutely right, a woman DOES have the right to choose wether or not to bring a child into this world. Here-in lies the misunderstanding. If the woman (or the man that will run away if the woman becomes pregnant) does not want to bring a baby into this world, then you should be CHOOSING to not have sex in the first place. Pregnancy is the NATURAL result of sexual activity; it is what you have sex for. Now, for those that will argue for the instance of rape, I am sorry, but in my opinion, it is simply another issue to bring against the rapist, although I can definitely understand and sympathise the resent and even hatred some might feel towards delivering the child. And for those that argue for the case of imminent death for the mother, I am sorry, but you chose to have sex, then you need to be prepared for the consequences of that action. About the ONLY time I can possibly think of condoning an abortion would be if it was able to be proven beyond a doubt, that the child would be born dead anyway. But generally speaking, it all boils down to when the woman (or man) should be making their choice, which is BEFORE a pregnancy occurs, not after. So if a woman is raped she should raise the child? You won't even give her the morning after pill, which by the way most pregnancies happen 24-48 hours after sex and what the morning after pill does is prevent a pregnancy and not abort one, just so you all have your facts straight on this now. These argument simply go back to my previous statements that again certain men have been emasculated and now want total control of women to get back at the woman who did them wrong. It's a good thing people in congress don't listen to the ravings of lunatics. I agree that a woman should not have to raise a child, wehter it is from rape or not. I can also understand how a pregnancy on top of rape would be emotionally devestating for some women(and yes I say some women. I know one lady in particular that was impregnated due to rape, and she is extremely joyous to have the child in her life now, ten years later). But hte fact is, in my opinion, liofe starts at conception. It does not matter how the conception came about, it started, which means life started. And it would be wrong to abort (I use the term abort instead of kill or murder because someone resented my using that term before) the child, just because you did not have a choice in the matter. There is always adoption, adn no it does NOT cost the parent giving up for adoption, anything at all to adopt out, as adoption clinics and would-be odopters are almost always more than willing to pay all costs to have the child delived and brought to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
daniel48706
on
Sun 01/27/08 05:08 PM
|
|
Once again someone has enlightened me, it's not about abortion it's about choice. So glad you cleared that up Silly me what was I thinking anyway.
Women have a choice, they chose to engage in sex even though the obvious consequence of that act could be pregnancy. They chose not to practice restraint or birth control or insist that their partner does. In the heat of passion they forgot to take adequae precautions, but they chose not to use "morning after" pill in the cold light of dawn. Why is it that the only time they are able to exercise their choice is when it involved the termination of that pregnancy which more than likely would not have occurred if they had availed themselves of the choices they had prior to the conception? I know that there are many who will want to jump in here with tales of instances where bith control methods didn't work save it, you can't use the exception to justify the rule. Some people think the morning after pill is murder.I recall wal mart wouldnt sell it. That's a joke, they won't sell music that is rated R, but they will sell guns and amo, explain that one? The "facts" are, walmart DOES sell rated are cd's. I used to work at walmart and I can remember the hassle and the threats from teenagers when I had to tell them I could not sell them a cd because they were underage. Wlamart (then anyway) even went so far as to say that if the same teenager came in with their parent within a certain amount of time of being turned away for the parent ot purchase it, that they would not sell to the parent on the basis that it was being provided fro the child. Now not selling to the parent may have changed, as it is up to the parent wether a teenager sees or hears rated r material. And as far as guns and ammo go, they follow state and federal regualtions on gun control and do NOT sell to those that they can not legally sell to. Guns and ammo, seeing you brought it up, can be used for hunting (to provide food for the family), for personal safety (in case of an intruder)... Abortion only removes the unwanted child. well as long as they follow state regulations to sell something legal...you know like the morning after pill is not legal. you make no arguement that comes from facts, all of your arguements come from what you THINK should happen. Not on any real world statistics about what ACTUALLY happens Nice reality. You keep repeating the same flawed statistics over and over and really a true anti-choice person would be embarrased to use your facts and figures. If you are going to argue, make sure you at least sound as if know what the fact of the matter is. The only "fact" i seem to have to keep repeating is the fact that pregnancy is the natural result of having sex. As I agreed with you before, sex is fun. it is a way in which we can show and recieve immense love and respect. However the fact remains the same: if you chose not to have sex, then you would not become pregnant, thus negating most issues of abortion. Please tell me how this is not a fact. I would dearly love to see this proven wrong. Also, to the best of my knowledge, I have not stated a single statistic. Other people have, but to my knowledge I havent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistics- those are numbers right?
wow, unborn babies being turned into numbers before our very eyes, amazing the science and technology we have now adays. this is a taboo topic. Men dont have to carry a baby so a lot of people would say we shouldnt have an opinion on it. Although I do not agree with it as another form of birth control I do have to say it is better than the days of coat hangers and girls bleeding to death. where does life begin, where does it end? do me a favor- if I happen to get lucky enough to have gotten you pregnant, and you decide that a child isnt something you want, at least give me the oppertunity to talk to you about it and maybe I can keep it. but it the end you're going to do what you're going to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he had a child with a psycho crazy women that would put him in jail just becuase he lost his job or whatever, well it serves him right for having sex with someone who is unstable.
the reverse of this coin would have to be true then also. If she "had a child with a psycho crazy..." who decided to leave her and the baby, "well it serves her right" for having sex with someone who is nt willing to be a responsible adult. EXACTLY, hence the abortion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistics- those are numbers right? wow, unborn babies being turned into numbers before our very eyes, amazing the science and technology we have now adays. this is a taboo topic. Men dont have to carry a baby so a lot of people would say we shouldnt have an opinion on it. Although I do not agree with it as another form of birth control I do have to say it is better than the days of coat hangers and girls bleeding to death. where does life begin, where does it end? do me a favor- if I happen to get lucky enough to have gotten you pregnant, and you decide that a child isnt something you want, at least give me the oppertunity to talk to you about it and maybe I can keep it. but it the end you're going to do what you're going to do. Thank you Doc, that is so very true. All questions on legality aside, a woman should still give the would be father a chance to be a father (outside of the case of rape, yes people). I am sure most fathers would be more than willing to take sole custody and even allow some form of contact if the mother did not want to be a mother, and stated so from the beginning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is still a woman's body regardless to your wanting to make it more. She has the choice. Once children can be carried and birthed by men then they to will know the joy and pain involved. Until then, a woman has a right to chose to bring a life into the world or not
You are absolutely right, a woman DOES have the right to choose wether or not to bring a child into this world. Here-in lies the misunderstanding. If the woman (or the man that will run away if the woman becomes pregnant) does not want to bring a baby into this world, then you should be CHOOSING to not have sex in the first place. Pregnancy is the NATURAL result of sexual activity; it is what you have sex for. Now, for those that will argue for the instance of rape, I am sorry, but in my opinion, it is simply another issue to bring against the rapist, although I can definitely understand and sympathise the resent and even hatred some might feel towards delivering the child. And for those that argue for the case of imminent death for the mother, I am sorry, but you chose to have sex, then you need to be prepared for the consequences of that action. About the ONLY time I can possibly think of condoning an abortion would be if it was able to be proven beyond a doubt, that the child would be born dead anyway. But generally speaking, it all boils down to when the woman (or man) should be making their choice, which is BEFORE a pregnancy occurs, not after. So if a woman is raped she should raise the child? You won't even give her the morning after pill, which by the way most pregnancies happen 24-48 hours after sex and what the morning after pill does is prevent a pregnancy and not abort one, just so you all have your facts straight on this now. These argument simply go back to my previous statements that again certain men have been emasculated and now want total control of women to get back at the woman who did them wrong. It's a good thing people in congress don't listen to the ravings of lunatics. I agree that a woman should not have to raise a child, wehter it is from rape or not. I can also understand how a pregnancy on top of rape would be emotionally devestating for some women(and yes I say some women. I know one lady in particular that was impregnated due to rape, and she is extremely joyous to have the child in her life now, ten years later). But hte fact is, in my opinion, liofe starts at conception. It does not matter how the conception came about, it started, which means life started. And it would be wrong to abort (I use the term abort instead of kill or murder because someone resented my using that term before) the child, just because you did not have a choice in the matter. There is always adoption, adn no it does NOT cost the parent giving up for adoption, anything at all to adopt out, as adoption clinics and would-be odopters are almost always more than willing to pay all costs to have the child delived and brought to them. well it's a good thing you've never been raped and pregant. Oh that's right you have no idea in the entire world what that would be like. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he had a child with a psycho crazy women that would put him in jail just becuase he lost his job or whatever, well it serves him right for having sex with someone who is unstable.
the reverse of this coin would have to be true then also. If she "had a child with a psycho crazy..." who decided to leave her and the baby, "well it serves her right" for having sex with someone who is nt willing to be a responsible adult. EXACTLY, hence the abortion. wrong "hence" woman and men both should step forwad and say I do not want a child, so I will not have sex. If you choose to jump from an airplane at 5000 feet with no parachute, knowing you will go splat at the end, do you think you will get a second chance to change your decision after you already jumped? So, if you choose to have sex with an immature, irrisponsable person, and get pregnant, why should you have the opportunity to say, no I made a bad decision in having sex with this person, so I should not have to go through with being a parent (at least until the child is born and can be adopted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is still a woman's body regardless to your wanting to make it more. She has the choice. Once children can be carried and birthed by men then they to will know the joy and pain involved. Until then, a woman has a right to chose to bring a life into the world or not
You are absolutely right, a woman DOES have the right to choose wether or not to bring a child into this world. Here-in lies the misunderstanding. If the woman (or the man that will run away if the woman becomes pregnant) does not want to bring a baby into this world, then you should be CHOOSING to not have sex in the first place. Pregnancy is the NATURAL result of sexual activity; it is what you have sex for. Now, for those that will argue for the instance of rape, I am sorry, but in my opinion, it is simply another issue to bring against the rapist, although I can definitely understand and sympathise the resent and even hatred some might feel towards delivering the child. And for those that argue for the case of imminent death for the mother, I am sorry, but you chose to have sex, then you need to be prepared for the consequences of that action. About the ONLY time I can possibly think of condoning an abortion would be if it was able to be proven beyond a doubt, that the child would be born dead anyway. But generally speaking, it all boils down to when the woman (or man) should be making their choice, which is BEFORE a pregnancy occurs, not after. So if a woman is raped she should raise the child? You won't even give her the morning after pill, which by the way most pregnancies happen 24-48 hours after sex and what the morning after pill does is prevent a pregnancy and not abort one, just so you all have your facts straight on this now. These argument simply go back to my previous statements that again certain men have been emasculated and now want total control of women to get back at the woman who did them wrong. It's a good thing people in congress don't listen to the ravings of lunatics. I agree that a woman should not have to raise a child, wehter it is from rape or not. I can also understand how a pregnancy on top of rape would be emotionally devestating for some women(and yes I say some women. I know one lady in particular that was impregnated due to rape, and she is extremely joyous to have the child in her life now, ten years later). But hte fact is, in my opinion, liofe starts at conception. It does not matter how the conception came about, it started, which means life started. And it would be wrong to abort (I use the term abort instead of kill or murder because someone resented my using that term before) the child, just because you did not have a choice in the matter. There is always adoption, adn no it does NOT cost the parent giving up for adoption, anything at all to adopt out, as adoption clinics and would-be odopters are almost always more than willing to pay all costs to have the child delived and brought to them. well it's a good thing you've never been raped and pregant. Oh that's right you have no idea in the entire world what that would be like. wether I have a personal knowledge of how being raped or pregnant feels does not matter. what matters is whether or not it is right for a woman to be able to choose not to have a child after she has sex. I have already stated that it is something else to bring against a would-be rapist, but it would still be unjustified in denying a person the chance to have a life. two wrongs dont make a right. And as a side, if you are right (and I dont know much about it, I will say so right now *) and the morning after pill prevents a pregnancy from occuring, then yes it is a viable source of birth control (in my opinion). However I can not ever agree with abortion as a form of birth control. * I have always been under the impression that the morning after pill stops a pregnancy, not that it prevents one. I think you can agree there is a major differance between stopping and preventing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
LauraLynn08
on
Sun 01/27/08 05:41 PM
|
|
daniel, this argueing is wearing thin,
Go look up the things you are argueing about, stop using your "ideal world" to answer in an arguement, and I will continue with you. abotion is legal as of right now. You can want it to be illegal all you want, but it's not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can any one else hear the 'Battle hymn of the Republic"?
I can go on and on.
glad you have a sense of humor.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
daniel48706
on
Sun 01/27/08 05:42 PM
|
|
daniel, this argueing is wearing thin, Go look up the things you are argueing about, stop using your "ideal world" to answer in an arguement, and I will continue with you. First off, dopnt tell me to do anything you are nto willing to do yourself, which leads into number two. secondly, you still have not answered my question of how no sex equals no pregnancy equals almost no need for abortions is not a fact. You claimed I kept spouting off inconsistent facts and wrong information. Again the only thing I have insisted on at this point is that no sex equals no pregnancy equals almost no need for abortions. So once again, please answer my question and tell me how that statment is not a fact, instead of refusing to acknowledge my side of the debate and ordering me to go elsewhere. edit: forgive me, I have also emphasized that adoption is a viable option instead of abortion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here's a good point. For one if your going to argue then know how to spell, its spelled arguing. Two these are supposed to be debates not attacking someone b/c they state their opinion. I for one am PRO LIFE and I believe abortion is murder. Yes I know there are a lot of homeless kids in the US, but if people didn't have unprotected sex there wouldn't be a problem. This is my own opinion and I would appreciate if the other side didn't attack me for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question to add to your question. If someone kills the fetus or unborn child other than a doctor doing an abortion is it still murder? This assumes the pregnant woman lives thru some sort of assualt. If the answer is yes someone please explain to me when doctors became exempt to the law of the land. If the answer is no please explain how two counts of murder can be charged. Abortion is legal.Not all men get charged with double murder.as leahmarie stated the law is not comsistent thru out the land as far as when life begins.The marine being sought for double homicide is under military law because he killed a fellow soldier. |
|
|
|
|
