Pro-Choice. If a woman is not ready to take on the burden of supporting a child, she should not be forced to.
If you are Pro-Life for religious regions, please keep your beliefs out of government, thank you.
Also, there is nothing "sacred" about life. There are 7 billion of us, and the human race will do just fine without the to-be-aborted children (probably better actually, considering overpopulation).
Sacred or not... With that logic why can't anyone just go around killing people at will then?
I was trying to think of a response to this earlier as it seemed like you were implying it then.
I still can't think of the response...
Basically along the lines of society and survival, aka it's in our best interests as a whole to not kill anyone whenever we feel like it.
From another viewpoint though, because those people have rights and in a civilized society we respect people's rights.
Could make a convincing case for either side of this, so it's an endless debate.
Almost every pregnancy, with the exception of rape victims, could have been avoided if caution was exercised. Sexual intercourse is how we reproduce. From a pro-life standpoint, no one should practice the process of reproduction without the intent to reproduce, I don't care how good it feels.
From the other point of view, why should any woman be forced by law to carry a child that she doesn't want to deliver, given that it can safely be terminated? Any of you remember being in the womb in the first trimester? BUT W8 U CULD ADOPT! You can save years of trauma and teach a valuable lesson with a simple procedure.
The concept of sexual intercourse for only reproduction is ridiculous beyond comparison.
He put that out there for pro-lifers.
I don't care who/why he put it out there, it was a ridiculous proposition to assert.
So you're pro-choice and you see nothing wrong with abortions but if you have too many you're doing something wrong (in terms of birth control) or just unlucky? What if the person just doesn't want a kid at that time and this is the easiest way for her to deal with it?
Yes, if you have many abortions you're doing it wrong because there is literally a smorgasbord of options regarding birth control from rubbers to IUDs to pills. Choose one. This stuff is all mainstream and easily accessible for anyone willing to take the steps to use it and there really is no excuse.
I'm pro-choice because ultimately the choice lay with the woman (my opinion is just that - my own) but that doesn't mean I'm going to nominate a woman who gets an abortion 6 times for an award or anything. She's free to do as she pleases but such a scenario would be isolated to persons who are irresponsible, lazy, accident prone or some combination of the three.
Properly educated individuals who give a damn about themselves will make use of the pregnancy control options available to us in the 21st century and use abortions as a last resort.
Pro-Choice. If a woman is not ready to take on the burden of supporting a child, she should not be forced to.
If you are Pro-Life for religious regions, please keep your beliefs out of government, thank you.
Also, there is nothing "sacred" about life. There are 7 billion of us, and the human race will do just fine without the to-be-aborted children (probably better actually, considering overpopulation).
Sacred or not... With that logic why can't anyone just go around killing people at will then?
I was trying to think of a response to this earlier as it seemed like you were implying it then.
I still can't think of the response...
Basically along the lines of society and survival, aka it's in our best interests as a whole to not kill anyone whenever we feel like it.
From another viewpoint though, because those people have rights and in a civilized society we respect people's rights.
Survival or self preservation? In most cases our decisions come down to what is best for ourselves not the whole. I don't want to get murdered so I make it illegal for people to be murdered... I can't be a baby anymore so what does that matter? Over simplification indeed but you get my drift. A lot of people probably don't care because it doesn't affect them at all. When it comes to getting killed in general well that can affect all of us.
Many people go hungry every year. Some because there is not enough and others because they don't have the means to obtain what there is. Should we just rid them from the world because well in the end they're not really contributing and they're suffering anyways. I just see some of the views put out here and I can't comprehend them. Maybe I'm just looking at it all wrong...
Could make a convincing case for either side of this, so it's an endless debate.
Almost every pregnancy, with the exception of rape victims, could have been avoided if caution was exercised. Sexual intercourse is how we reproduce. From a pro-life standpoint, no one should practice the process of reproduction without the intent to reproduce, I don't care how good it feels.
From the other point of view, why should any woman be forced by law to carry a child that she doesn't want to deliver, given that it can safely be terminated? Any of you remember being in the womb in the first trimester? BUT W8 U CULD ADOPT! You can save years of trauma and teach a valuable lesson with a simple procedure.
The concept of sexual intercourse for only reproduction is ridiculous beyond comparison.
He put that out there for pro-lifers.
I don't care who/why he put it out there, it was a ridiculous proposition to assert.
Ridiculous that by practicing the only method of reproducing, you submit to the possibility of reproducing?
Pro-Choice. If a woman is not ready to take on the burden of supporting a child, she should not be forced to.
If you are Pro-Life for religious regions, please keep your beliefs out of government, thank you.
Also, there is nothing "sacred" about life. There are 7 billion of us, and the human race will do just fine without the to-be-aborted children (probably better actually, considering overpopulation).
Sacred or not... With that logic why can't anyone just go around killing people at will then?
I was trying to think of a response to this earlier as it seemed like you were implying it then.
I still can't think of the response...
Basically along the lines of society and survival, aka it's in our best interests as a whole to not kill anyone whenever we feel like it.
From another viewpoint though, because those people have rights and in a civilized society we respect people's rights.
Survival or self preservation? In most cases our decisions come down to what is best for ourselves not the whole. I don't want to get murdered so I make it illegal for people to be murdered... I can't be a baby anymore so what does that matter? Over simplification indeed but you get my drift. A lot of people probably don't care because it doesn't affect them at all. When it comes to getting killed in general well that can affect all of us.
Many people go hungry every year. Some because there is not enough and others because they don't have the means to obtain what there is. Should we just rid them from the world because well in the end they're not really contributing and they're suffering anyways. I just see some of the views put out here and I can't comprehend them. Maybe I'm just looking at it all wrong...
our conscience ones sure, as for the rest of that I'm not sure where you're going with it and I'm way too tired to think that hardcore right now.
So you're pro-choice and you see nothing wrong with abortions but if you have too many you're doing something wrong (in terms of birth control) or just unlucky? What if the person just doesn't want a kid at that time and this is the easiest way for her to deal with it?
Yes, if you have many abortions you're doing it wrong because there is literally a smorgasbord of options regarding birth control from rubbers to IUDs to pills. Choose one. This stuff is all mainstream and easily accessible for anyone willing to take the steps to use it and there really is no excuse.
I'm pro-choice because ultimately the choice lay with the woman (my opinion is just that - my own) but that doesn't mean I'm going to nominate a woman who gets an abortion 6 times for an award or anything. She's free to do as she pleases but such a scenario would be isolated to persons who are irresponsible, lazy, accident prone or some combination of the three.
Properly educated individuals who give a damn about themselves will make use of the pregnancy control options available to us in the 21st century and use abortions as a last resort.
At what point does one become irresponsible, lazy, accident prone or some combination of the three? 2? 3? Who decides that? You? You really have no clue about what kind of person this is, what she has done with her life (besides the abortions) or who she will be. Yet, you will judge her based on taking a step that you approve of.
To me, it seems that while you support abortion you also have a limit or at least you reach a point where you still support her right to do it but disapprove of the persons actions. I could be wrong though.
Could make a convincing case for either side of this, so it's an endless debate.
Almost every pregnancy, with the exception of rape victims, could have been avoided if caution was exercised. Sexual intercourse is how we reproduce. From a pro-life standpoint, no one should practice the process of reproduction without the intent to reproduce, I don't care how good it feels.
From the other point of view, why should any woman be forced by law to carry a child that she doesn't want to deliver, given that it can safely be terminated? Any of you remember being in the womb in the first trimester? BUT W8 U CULD ADOPT! You can save years of trauma and teach a valuable lesson with a simple procedure.
The concept of sexual intercourse for only reproduction is ridiculous beyond comparison.
He put that out there for pro-lifers.
I don't care who/why he put it out there, it was a ridiculous proposition to assert.
Ridiculous that by practicing the only method of reproducing, you submit to the possibility of reproducing?
ridiculous because it's draconian thinking.
that's just as bad as the situation earlier where I said somebody I met today thought that there should be an age restriction on condoms...
Could make a convincing case for either side of this, so it's an endless debate.
Almost every pregnancy, with the exception of rape victims, could have been avoided if caution was exercised. Sexual intercourse is how we reproduce. From a pro-life standpoint, no one should practice the process of reproduction without the intent to reproduce, I don't care how good it feels.
From the other point of view, why should any woman be forced by law to carry a child that she doesn't want to deliver, given that it can safely be terminated? Any of you remember being in the womb in the first trimester? BUT W8 U CULD ADOPT! You can save years of trauma and teach a valuable lesson with a simple procedure.
The concept of sexual intercourse for only reproduction is ridiculous beyond comparison.
He put that out there for pro-lifers.
I don't care who/why he put it out there, it was a ridiculous proposition to assert.
It's really not all that ridiculous. People do practice that even today.
For your own personal life, and I'm sure others, it may be a ridiculous thought.
So you're pro-choice and you see nothing wrong with abortions but if you have too many you're doing something wrong (in terms of birth control) or just unlucky? What if the person just doesn't want a kid at that time and this is the easiest way for her to deal with it?
Yes, if you have many abortions you're doing it wrong because there is literally a smorgasbord of options regarding birth control from rubbers to IUDs to pills. Choose one. This stuff is all mainstream and easily accessible for anyone willing to take the steps to use it and there really is no excuse.
I'm pro-choice because ultimately the choice lay with the woman (my opinion is just that - my own) but that doesn't mean I'm going to nominate a woman who gets an abortion 6 times for an award or anything. She's free to do as she pleases but such a scenario would be isolated to persons who are irresponsible, lazy, accident prone or some combination of the three.
Properly educated individuals who give a damn about themselves will make use of the pregnancy control options available to us in the 21st century and use abortions as a last resort.
At what point does one become irresponsible, lazy, accident prone or some combination of the three? 2? 3? Who decides that? You? You really have no clue about what kind of person this is, what she has done with her life (besides the abortions) or who she will be. Yet, you will judge her based on taking a step that you approve of.
To me, it seems that while you support abortion you also have a limit or at least you reach a point where you still support her right to do it but disapprove of the persons actions. I could be wrong though.
yeah, this is why I responded in the manner in which I did...
Could make a convincing case for either side of this, so it's an endless debate.
Almost every pregnancy, with the exception of rape victims, could have been avoided if caution was exercised. Sexual intercourse is how we reproduce. From a pro-life standpoint, no one should practice the process of reproduction without the intent to reproduce, I don't care how good it feels.
From the other point of view, why should any woman be forced by law to carry a child that she doesn't want to deliver, given that it can safely be terminated? Any of you remember being in the womb in the first trimester? BUT W8 U CULD ADOPT! You can save years of trauma and teach a valuable lesson with a simple procedure.
The concept of sexual intercourse for only reproduction is ridiculous beyond comparison.
He put that out there for pro-lifers.
I don't care who/why he put it out there, it was a ridiculous proposition to assert.
Ridiculous that by practicing the only method of reproducing, you submit to the possibility of reproducing?
ridiculous because it's draconian thinking.
that's just as bad as the situation earlier where I said somebody I met today thought that there should be an age restriction on condoms...
The condoms thing is out there. Why would someone want an age limit put on those?
Could make a convincing case for either side of this, so it's an endless debate.
Almost every pregnancy, with the exception of rape victims, could have been avoided if caution was exercised. Sexual intercourse is how we reproduce. From a pro-life standpoint, no one should practice the process of reproduction without the intent to reproduce, I don't care how good it feels.
From the other point of view, why should any woman be forced by law to carry a child that she doesn't want to deliver, given that it can safely be terminated? Any of you remember being in the womb in the first trimester? BUT W8 U CULD ADOPT! You can save years of trauma and teach a valuable lesson with a simple procedure.
The concept of sexual intercourse for only reproduction is ridiculous beyond comparison.
He put that out there for pro-lifers.
I don't care who/why he put it out there, it was a ridiculous proposition to assert.
It's really not all that ridiculous. People do practice that even today.
For your own personal life, and I'm sure others, it may be a ridiculous thought.
no it is a ridiculous concept.
people do practice all sorts of ridiculous things even today, it doesn't make them less ridiculous.
Could make a convincing case for either side of this, so it's an endless debate.
Almost every pregnancy, with the exception of rape victims, could have been avoided if caution was exercised. Sexual intercourse is how we reproduce. From a pro-life standpoint, no one should practice the process of reproduction without the intent to reproduce, I don't care how good it feels.
From the other point of view, why should any woman be forced by law to carry a child that she doesn't want to deliver, given that it can safely be terminated? Any of you remember being in the womb in the first trimester? BUT W8 U CULD ADOPT! You can save years of trauma and teach a valuable lesson with a simple procedure.
The concept of sexual intercourse for only reproduction is ridiculous beyond comparison.
He put that out there for pro-lifers.
I don't care who/why he put it out there, it was a ridiculous proposition to assert.
Ridiculous that by practicing the only method of reproducing, you submit to the possibility of reproducing?
ridiculous because it's draconian thinking.
that's just as bad as the situation earlier where I said somebody I met today thought that there should be an age restriction on condoms...
The condoms thing is out there. Why would someone want an age limit put on those?
I'm going to assume because they think it would promote children having sex, which is two things: 1. stupid because they will anyway. 2. draconian thinking, because they think sex is "taboo" along the same lines of people shouldn't be taught sex education etc...
Could make a convincing case for either side of this, so it's an endless debate.
Almost every pregnancy, with the exception of rape victims, could have been avoided if caution was exercised. Sexual intercourse is how we reproduce. From a pro-life standpoint, no one should practice the process of reproduction without the intent to reproduce, I don't care how good it feels.
From the other point of view, why should any woman be forced by law to carry a child that she doesn't want to deliver, given that it can safely be terminated? Any of you remember being in the womb in the first trimester? BUT W8 U CULD ADOPT! You can save years of trauma and teach a valuable lesson with a simple procedure.
The concept of sexual intercourse for only reproduction is ridiculous beyond comparison.
He put that out there for pro-lifers.
I don't care who/why he put it out there, it was a ridiculous proposition to assert.
Ridiculous that by practicing the only method of reproducing, you submit to the possibility of reproducing?
ridiculous because it's draconian thinking.
that's just as bad as the situation earlier where I said somebody I met today thought that there should be an age restriction on condoms...
I really don't understand how it seems unfounded to you.. this is factual.
a)Sex makes babies.
b)You can live without sex.
In so far as you consciously decide to have sex, it's too late to argue for not wanting to reproduce. That said, I'm pro-choice. over n out~
Could make a convincing case for either side of this, so it's an endless debate.
Almost every pregnancy, with the exception of rape victims, could have been avoided if caution was exercised. Sexual intercourse is how we reproduce. From a pro-life standpoint, no one should practice the process of reproduction without the intent to reproduce, I don't care how good it feels.
From the other point of view, why should any woman be forced by law to carry a child that she doesn't want to deliver, given that it can safely be terminated? Any of you remember being in the womb in the first trimester? BUT W8 U CULD ADOPT! You can save years of trauma and teach a valuable lesson with a simple procedure.
The concept of sexual intercourse for only reproduction is ridiculous beyond comparison.
He put that out there for pro-lifers.
I don't care who/why he put it out there, it was a ridiculous proposition to assert.
Ridiculous that by practicing the only method of reproducing, you submit to the possibility of reproducing?
ridiculous because it's draconian thinking.
that's just as bad as the situation earlier where I said somebody I met today thought that there should be an age restriction on condoms...
I really don't understand how it seems unfounded to you.. this is factual.
a)Sex makes babies.
b)You can live without sex.
In so far as you consciously decide to have sex, it's too late to argue for not wanting to reproduce. That said, I'm pro-choice. over n out~
In no way was I arguing these two points.
I already stated what I was arguing against, because it is indeed a silly assertion.
At what point does one become irresponsible, lazy, accident prone or some combination of the three? 2? 3? Who decides that? You? You really have no clue about what kind of person this is, what she has done with her life (besides the abortions) or who she will be. Yet, you will judge her based on taking a step that you approve of.
Condoms boast an 85%-98% pregnancy prevention rate.
IUDs boast a 99% pregnancy prevention rate.
Birth control pills boast a 91-99% pregnancy prevention rate.
(Assuming proper use)
I think I already stated that "***is situational" as it were and that ultimately the choice lay with the woman with regards to how she lives her life and what she does with her body. I'm judging someone who in our little hypothetical scenario has had 5-6 abortions. If birth control has failed you that often perhaps you should start buying lotto tickets and put that incredible misfortune to better use.
Quote:
To me, it seems that while you support abortion you also have a limit or at least you reach a point where you still support her right to do it but disapprove of the persons actions. I could be wrong though.
Everything has limits and I'm aware that accidents do happen along with lapses in good judgment but people taking abortions to the extreme - using the process as birth control - put themselves at risk of becoming sterile. I doubt most rational individuals would be using the process so freely and would choose the less invasive way of prevented unwanted pregnancies.
This is the welfare argument all over again. We know some people abuse the system but overall it's designed to help individuals out of a logjam and the deeds of the few should not condemn everyone to being penalized.
If she wants to continue having abortions? Her choice, her life.
Would I think it was an intelligent decision? Probably not.
I am pro-choice, even in the more extreme circumstances.
But you all are kidding yourselves if you don't think aborting a baby/fetus/egg after conception is akin to anything other than killing an innocent human life. Adoption is a much better option in 100% of circumstances.
I am pro-choice, even in the more extreme circumstances.
But you all are kidding yourselves if you don't think aborting a baby/fetus/egg after conception is akin to anything other than killing an innocent human life. Adoption is a much better option in 100% of circumstances.
Except the adoption system is already inundated with children, most would-be parents completely dismiss the option (I want 'my' child, not someone else's discarded creation) and as you age within the system your chance of being adopted plummets.
I didn't even get into the racial factor.
A cluster of cells is not yet a human life and mid-late term abortions are universally shunned.
Adoption is nice on paper but in reality it becomes a mess with as many happy endings as disastrous ones. It's not "100%" better.
I am pro-choice, even in the more extreme circumstances.
But you all are kidding yourselves if you don't think aborting a baby/fetus/egg after conception is akin to anything other than killing an innocent human life. Adoption is a much better option in 100% of circumstances.
Except the adoption system is already inundated with children, most would-be parents completely dismiss the option (I want 'my' child, not someone else's discarded creation) and as you age within the system your chance of being adopted plummets.
I didn't even get into the racial factor.
A cluster of cells is not a yet a human life and mid-late term abortions are universally shunned.
Adoption is nice on paper but in reality it becomes a mess with as many happy endings as disastrous ones. It's not "100%" better.
like he said: it's not a human life.
also I've been a ward of the state, adoption is a bad option.
Even told my gf if it were between having a child and adoption I'd rather have the child. The mental strain of knowing your child is out there somewhere is beyond comparison. I wouldn't be able to deal with it anyway and to each their own.
Condoms boast an 85%-98% pregnancy prevention rate.
(Assuming proper use)
If the proper use of condoms only had a 85%-98% chance of working, there would be a lot more pregnancies.
I assume you got that info from the wiki, which states:
"With proper knowledge and application technique—and use at every act of intercourse—women whose partners use male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate with perfect use and a 15% per-year pregnancy rate with typical use."
Whoever is getting that 15% chance has to be doing something very very wrong. Which is pretty messed up considering how simple condoms are to use.
Also it would take some major craziness to actually make abortion illegal. The whole issue is more of a personal belief than what side of the issue you are on.
My wife recently had an abortion. Something we thought we would never decide on as we are highly against it, but as our situation stands we feel we made the right choice...in short, we already have 4 kids under 8, the second oldest has a learning disability and aspergers, my wife is going through post natal depression and post traumatic stress and if we had a 5th child, well, its a game changer, new car, new house etc etc, something we aren't prepared for..... while feeling guilty and upset about it we still feel like we did the right thing.... very touchy subject though...... When it comes to women using abortion as a means of contraception i feel its a disgusting thing to do, but when girls get pregnant, around the ages of 12-17 and they have no support - family/money etc then i do feel abortion is the right way to go, best thing for the baby, unless the mother to be can stomach the idea of adoption then that is the best. in humblest of opinions ^
In my sex ed class they made us fondle humongous rubber testicles to see if we could feel the cancer lump. :-( But at least we didn't have to hear about 50 year old having sex.
Not sure how they got away with that.. If they did that down here, parents would flip the *** out..
I don't even really remember what we got for Sex-ed.. All I remember is everyone laughing every time a medical/technical term was used.. I know by the time we got it though.. I already knew more than the class would teach..
um...dear....they DID do that down here...
i don't remember which grade of high school i was in, but it was when they had those lil storage building lookin things over in the front of the school for a coupla classes while they were building that new science building. anyway...they put boys in one room, girls in another. talked to guys later and they had to feel a fake nut. us girls had to feel a fake boob. i couldn't find but one of the five lumps in the fake boob. :( then they made us watch a vid of a live birth. which, i might add, was kinda unrealistic to what i experienced when having our lil demon....cuz woman in the vid was a mother of five already, and her sixth shot out like a torpedo w/no long labor or pushing....
tl;dr: they did do that here and no *** were given LOL
I have very mixed feelings about pro life vs pro choice. On one hand, abortion just feels wrong to me. I don't know why. It could have something to do with being a father, or just the compassion I have for all kids. It just feels wrong to me.
However, on the other hand, that is not my decision to make for someone else. I cannot say that someone else shouldn't do something because of the way I feel.
Now, I do say there should definitely be a time limit. I say that someone considering an abortion should have to make a decision before the sixteen week mark. Most people know well before week 10, and 6 weeks is plenty of time to make a decision. No need to drag it out.
I can't really say.. I still kinda doubt it though..
i'm reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally possessive...and we're poor as it is...so i'm used to it. grew up poor even. money is nice, but keeping my hubby to myself is nicer.
im kind of a waffle on the topic, and not to sound like a right wing broken record... but why can we kill these babies/fetuses/whatever you want to call them and not kill prisoners convicted of multiple violent homocide and or sexual crimes?
more on topic though, i find if it will complicate a womans life, they should have a right to rid of the child. if theyre doing it just because theyre a selfish *** who got knocked up and doesnt want to own up, sounds like an easy cop out to responsibility, and THAT should be illegal.
i also dont like partial births, those should be examined for legality as well.
more on topic though, i find if it will complicate a womans life, they should have a right to rid of the child. if theyre doing it just because theyre a selfish *** who got knocked up and doesnt want to own up, sounds like an easy cop out to responsibility, and THAT should be illegal.
more on topic though, i find if it will complicate a womans life, they should have a right to rid of the child. if theyre doing it just because theyre a selfish *** who got knocked up and doesnt want to own up, sounds like an easy cop out to responsibility, and THAT should be illegal.
Pretty much how I feel.
Yes... because no child ever born has complicated their parents life.
--
The fact that society has become so desensitized in life to the point of arguing legalized murder of babies is pathetic.
Purely intellectual...
Why is it that if a man beats a pregnant woman to death, he gets charged with DOUBLE murder. Yet if a woman kills the baby inside its 'their right'?
