Abortion

[pjdude1219]

as far as I'm concerned, til a man can get pregnant, he has no say in it. men can get a women pregnant and walk away. We are left with the mess they left behind.

I don't know why some of you think us pro-choice people want abortions. I just want it to be legal in case my daughter ever gets pregnant she's not getting a coathanger shoved up in her in some filthy hovel. I want it to be safe. Keeping it legal is the only way that is going to happen for my daughter, my grand-daughters, etc.

You wanna think of the fetus? How about thinking of the person who is actually breathing.

i agree i call it the i am sorry you have penis therefore don't get an opinion on this stance

 

[shorty_37]

That was definitely not our experience. Even at one month the doctor would being doing the ultrasound and say, "Let's see how the babie's doing".

Same here, I don't recall them ever using the term fetus when talking to me.

 

[shorty_37]

My apologies for minimizing your discomfort. But would you say the pregnancy or the years of raising the children was the greater responsibility and had a greater impact on your life?

I accept Of course the yrs of raising them. Sometimes I love them to death and sometimes they make me feel like ripping my hair out!
I don't beleive in abortion .......unless under certain circumstances. Ultimately it is up to the woman, since it is her body.

Personally it would have to take a pretty extreme situation for me to ever consider having an abortion. In that I mean a condition that threatened my own life, or some extreme medical abnormalites or condition of the fetus (baby)

 

[Kadark]

Preliminary estimates from AFCARS suggested that as of September 30, 2005, there were 114,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted.

Other numbers, based on data from the states as of January, 2007, indicated the following trends:

So instead of encouraging people to use their head before spreading their legs, you want to patch up their mistakes by terminating their developing babies? That can only work to a certain point. Teach people self-responsibility, and that it is deplorable to commit to creating life, and then stopping it cold in its tracks. Allowing the liquidation of developing babies because of the bearer's promiscuity, irresponsibility, and stupidity is a blatant indicator of a society's downfall.

 

[pjdude1219]

i have said it once i will say it again the only arguements not in favor of choice are based on religion

 

[Kadark]

i have said it once i will say it again the only arguements not in favor of choice are based on religion

So the only arguments in favor of abortion are based on irreligion?

 

[Repo Man]

So instead of encouraging people to use their head before spreading their legs, you want to patch up their mistakes by terminating their developing babies? That can only work to a certain point. Teach people self-responsibility, and that it is deplorable to commit to creating life, and then stopping it cold in its tracks. Allowing the liquidation of developing babies because of the bearer's promiscuity, irresponsibility, and stupidity is a blatant indicator of a society's downfall.

So you would punish children who had the misfortune to have parents who were nowhere near ready to have children? Sentence them to be raised by people who were poor financially, immature, and very likely to be abusive to children they did not want, and resented being forced to bear?

And in most cases, it would be a single mother forced to go it alone, since the father would likely leave her. A woman likely to be desperate enough to resort to drastic measures (coat hanger) to avoid having a child she did not want, and was in no position to raise.

And I've shown the result of the draconian measures necessary to prevent abortions if it were criminalized. Ceasescu's Romania isn't a model to be emulated.

 

[pjdude1219]

So the only arguments in favor of abortion are based on irreligion?

no medical opinion

 

[Kadark]

So you would punish children who had the misfortune to have parents who were nowhere near ready to have children? Sentence them to be raised by people who were poor financially, immature, and very likely to be abusive to children they did not want, and resented being forced to bear?

And in most cases, it would be a single mother forced to go it alone, since the father would likely leave her. A woman likely to be desperate enough to resort to drastic measures (coat hanger) to avoid having a child she did not want, and was in no position to raise.

And I've shown the result of the draconian measures necessary to prevent abortions if it were criminalized. Ceasescu's Romania isn't a model to be emulated.

I believe all life is worth living. I also believe that in order to reverse the "single-mother" situation that we see in abundance nowadays, we need to reform our lifestyles to discourage people from, essentially, screwing who they want, when they want to. Aborting the babies that are the backwash of an irresponsible lifestyle does nothing to acknowledge the other flaws of such a society. It merely encourages it, offering "insurance" for those who were stupid enough in the first place to have unprotected sex with a person they're not fully committed to (as in, not married).

 

[pjdude1219]

i do not think it is realistic to expect people to completely supress there biologicial urges

 

[Tiassa]

Absolutely disgusting, Kadark

So instead of encouraging people to use their head before spreading their legs, you want to patch up their mistakes by terminating their developing babies?

No, I find it interesting that anti-abortionists scream and cry about babies when they don't give a damn what happens to them after they make it to the world.

Seems rather quite hypocritical, ridiculous, and generally stupid.

Additionally, I would ask how it is you come to ask such a warped question? The statistics came in response to a request for those numbers, and that request came in response to a prior point:

Anti-abortion supporters can cover their ears and scream as much as they want, but it doesn't change the underlying reality that you're seeking to avoid. Your continued attempts to distract attention from that point—that anti-abortionists aren't about "life" and "babies", but about misogyny—only suggest that you can't come up with a genuine, proper, rational response.

Take LA's point, for instance:

to me abortion is wrong because if your old enough (not including the people who are raped) to lie down and open your legs then your old enough to reap the rewards.

It's not actually about the "baby", but about rebuking women.

There are over 100,000 children in the United States, right now, who need homes. If this was about the children, the "pro-life" crowd would be doing something about that.

Every child a wanted child. What the hell is so objectionable about that? I don't know. The "pro-life" crowd refuses to answer that question. (#1735370/174)

Were you not paying attention? Or did you simply decide to try to avoid that point? Because once again, what the anti-abortionist comes up with is specific misogyny ("use their head before spreading their legs") and bigoted assignations ("you want to patch up their mistakes by terminating their developing babies?"). Pay attention to what people are saying, instead of making it up for them. Hatred, Kadark, does nothing to help your cause.

 

[Kadark]

i do not think it is realistic to expect people to completely supress there biologicial urges

Nobody is telling you not to have sex. Rather, the point is to graciously accept the ramifications of unprotected sex with uncommitted individuals. If you can't agree to that, then you shouldn't be having that type of sex in the first place. The goal isn't to strip people of their rights to have sex - it's to inform them of the potential consequences, and how it's disreputable to terminate a developing life because of your irresponsibility and cowardice.

 

[Kadark]

No, I find it interesting that anti-abortionists scream and cry about babies when they don't give a damn what happens to them after they make it to the world.

Where did I indicate I felt this way? You've got the wrong impression of me.

 

[Repo Man]

I believe all life is worth living. I also believe that in order to reverse the "single-mother" situation that we see in abundance nowadays, we need to reform our lifestyles to discourage people from, essentially, screwing who they want, when they want to. Aborting the babies that are the backwash of an irresponsible lifestyle does nothing to acknowledge the other flaws of such a society. It merely encourages it, offering "insurance" for those who were stupid enough in the first place to have unprotected sex with a person they're not fully committed to (as in, not married).

How do propose to reform those who do not want to be "reformed"? You are talking about imposing religious values on people who do not necessarily want them. Sex is a natural biological urge. If pregnancy is not the desired result, then more thorough education in methods of birth control, and availability of the same, would be good methods for reducing the number of abortions. And ever more research towards more effective forms.

But at least you are honest enough to admit your underlying position. You do not like the idea of people freely engaging in sex without consequences. It is the ideology that saw religious authorities in the nineteenth century condemning effective medical treatment for syphilis as an attempt to thwart the will of god, since venereal diseases were viewed by these small minded, superstitious men as punishment for promiscuity.

 

[Repo Man]

Nobody is telling you not to have sex. Rather, the point is to graciously accept the ramifications of unprotected sex with uncommitted individuals. If you can't agree to that, then you shouldn't be having that type of sex in the first place. The goal isn't to strip people of their rights to have sex - it's to inform them of the potential consequences, and how it's disreputable to terminate a developing life because of your irresponsibility and cowardice.

So you want to encourage homosexuality?

 

[Kadark]

How do propose to reform those who do not want to be "reformed"? You are talking about imposing religious values on people who do not necessarily want them. Sex is a natural biological urge. If pregnancy is not the desired result, then more through education in methods of birth control, and availability of the same, would be good methods for reducing the number of abortions. And ever more research towards more effective forms.

Those who won't want to reform will be told that abortion is out of their realm. This means that people who exhibit this careless lifestyle will have embedded in their minds that they agree to serve the consequences of any and all undesired results for such approaches to sex. Show some self-control, and refrain from giving into sexual temptation at its every invitation.

But at least you are honest enough to admit your underlying position. You do not like the idea of people freely engaging in sex without consequences. It is the ideology that saw religious authorities in the nineteenth century condemning effective medical treatment for syphilis as an attempt to thwart the will of god, since venereal diseases were viewed by these small minded, superstitious men as punishment for promiscuity.

You're putting words in my mouth like you always do, Repo Man. When did I say anything like what I have quoted above? I don't care what religious authorities did in the nineteenth century. Stick to what I'm actually saying or shut the fuck up.

 

[Bells]

Of course it's about the baby. I couldn't care less about whether or not the mom is a slut. I care about human life. As I said, at some point in the pregnancy the "fetus" comes a baby. We can argue at when that is.

You can say it's only when the "fetus" has passed thru the magical birth canal. Or 24 weeks. Or six weeks. Or even conception.

But because I define life at one point, and you define it at another, doesn't mean I want to "control" women.

You don't? You do not view the prospect of denying women the right to abortions is not a manner of control? You don't think telling a woman that she has no say in regards to her womb once she finds herself pregnant is not in any way controlling?

You do care about whether she is a slut or not. For example:

Women get abortions because they do not want to have a baby. They're not ready, they can't afford it, it's too big a change in their life, whatever. Check the studies. And every one of those reasons applies to the man just as much as the woman. He's on the hook, at least financially, just as much as the woman. So long as she remembered to get his name, that is.

Do you think we keep a list and time of who we slept with just in case?

So instead of encouraging people to use their head before spreading their legs, you want to patch up their mistakes by terminating their developing babies? That can only work to a certain point. Teach people self-responsibility, and that it is deplorable to commit to creating life, and then stopping it cold in its tracks. Allowing the liquidation of developing babies because of the bearer's promiscuity, irresponsibility, and stupidity is a blatant indicator of a society's downfall.

And what of the case where the woman 'spreads her legs', finds herself pregnant and then finds out it is an ectopic pregnancy? What then? Is it ok to terminate the developing baby then?

Just when would an abortion be palatable to you? Is it ok to "liquidate" a foetus if the mother's life is at risk?

And why in the hell does everyone assume it is only promiscuous women who get abortions? You don't think married women who have had a few children and then finds herself pregnant will not get abortion? If it is either have another child or lose the house and find yourself with your husband and kids out on the street, most will choose to have an abortion because they simply cannot afford to have another child.

You and many others have this warped perception that only single women get abortions. I think you would find the rate of abortions for married or partnered women to be fairly on par to that of single women. Is a woman irresponsible if she is raped for example? Is a young girl irresponsible if a male family member rapes her and gets her pregnant? Would abortion be acceptable then? I mean if you are going to use the hypocritical argument, why not go the whole hog?

Do you think a victim of incest should show some self control when her daddy forces her to have sex with him?

 

[Kadark]

Bells

I guess my reply is that I'm more of a "selective" anti-abortionist. If two people knowledgeably consent to sex, and the result is a healthy pregnancy, then it is imperative that they accept the result and make the most of it. In rare but unfortunate circumstances of rape or incest, the decision is at the sole discretion of the baby's bearer. If the woman's life is at risk, and it's a situation where one or the other is going to die, then it is for the mother to decide. My posts dealt with sex that had formal consent, and I believe you know that.

Aside from those uncommon scenarios, however, abortion is a no-go with me (as it should be with everybody else). I feel being at either end of the spectrum for this issue is closed-minded. Let's only result to using abortion when it's truly needed.

 

[Tiassa]

Over and over and over again ... what are people supposed to think?

Where did I indicate I felt this way? You've got the wrong impression of me.

It's the point you missed. You asked a twisted, bigoted question based entirely on your own superstitious assignations:

"So instead of encouraging people to use their head before spreading their legs, you want to patch up their mistakes by terminating their developing babies?" (#1735460/184)​

And I answered that truck full o'manure:

"No, I find it interesting that anti-abortionists scream and cry about babies when they don't give a damn what happens to them after they make it to the world." (#1735490/191)​

In other words, Kadark, I was correcting your warped, hateful characterization by simply answering the question you asked.

To the other, your behavior is indicative. Given the specific misogyny and bigoted assignation of your response in #184, one would not be unreasonable to wonder what your priorities really are. Don't be surprised if people don't believe your protestations.

After all—

So instead of encouraging people to use their head before spreading their legs, you want to patch up their mistakes by terminating their developing babies? That can only work to a certain point. Teach people self-responsibility, and that it is deplorable to commit to creating life, and then stopping it cold in its tracks. Allowing the liquidation of developing babies because of the bearer's promiscuity, irresponsibility, and stupidity is a blatant indicator of a society's downfall.

—that post focuses on castigating women and abortion while ignoring the children in need of homes.

Which is, after all, the underlying point you appear to have missed. By miles. And miles. And miles.

 

[Repo Man]

Those who won't want to reform will be told that abortion is out of their realm.

Who will they be told by? Who will investigate the miscarriage? Doesn't really matter, this isn't happening in the U.S., Canada, or western Europe.

This means that people who exhibit this careless lifestyle will have embedded in their minds that they agree to serve the consequences of any and all undesired results for such approaches to sex. Show some self-control, and refrain from giving into sexual temptation at its every invitation.

Condoms break. People make mistakes. Children don't have to be the result. People can show self control if they choose. If they choose to give in to sexual temptation, that is their choice.

You're putting words in my mouth like you always do, Repo Man. When did I say anything like what I have quoted above? I don't care what religious authorities did in the nineteenth century.

It is quite obvious that you do not like sex without consequences. Every post you've made in this thread makes that clear. You think people who have casual sex should have to face the consequence of having a child if a pregnancy results.

Stick to what I'm actually saying or shut the fuck up.

If you've a problem with my posts, take it up with a moderator. Or deal with it. Put me on your ignore list if you like. I'm certainly not shutting up. You come here because you choose to, and so do I. I have no problem posting within the rules, and I've never even so much as received a PM from a moderator regarding any of my posts. I believe you have been banned more than once.