|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:50 am
marshjazz band4ever101 I know that all of this may seem like jabber and failure to make a point but all of this confusion is why I'm moderate. The only thing about abortion being legal is that I don't believe the woman should use it as her only birth control. That is when it gets out of hand. Thats where rules and regulations would come in. Limits, qualifications, and other standards that would have to be kept. Which is why the whole "ONLY form of birth control" doesn't apply. It's cheaper just to get the pill or condums, so how many people are that retarded? And of those people who are that retarded, set some limit. You can have a max of ___ abortions in ____ amount of time. Right. Thanks for clearing that up where I left off. Good point. <3
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:10 pm
I think it depends. This issue is NEVER one-sided For me,
PRO-CHOICE if
The pregnancy is at an early stage--as in you can't even recognize any normal human feature.
PRO-LIFE if
The pregnancy is already at a late stage--as in the baby is almost due.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a very touchy issue for me, because I have a friend whose mother initially decided to have an abortion, but backed out a day before the procedure. The guy literally begins to cry when this issue is touched upon.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:44 am
Actually this issue can be compelety one sided.
That is where rules and regulations come in.
Also, cute avi.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:53 am
I am totally agains abortion. If it ever happened to me that I didn't want a child and I got pregnant, I'd give it up for adoption. I myself am adopted and I think what would of happened if my mom would of got an abortion. I wouldn't be here that's what. When you really get down to it, it is the womens choice. The only reason a woman should get an abortion is if it's life threatening for the mom. Even then, it depends on the woman. There's probably a small percentage out there that would give their life for their child. Abortions should stay legal because if they don't, women will go out and do the abortion anyway. For the mothers to be safety, it should remain legal.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:07 am
So your against abortion, but you want it to remain illegal and you think it is the womans chioce. Ummm...?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:33 am
Coming from a Christian faith, abortion is wrong. You're destroying potential life, some say actual life, and that child does not have a say? Well then, why does the mother have a say? But that was kinda' pounded into my head at the age appropriate time the school said "we can show the kids dead things".
But from my in grown beliefs, I think people have to choose for themselves. The woman has to know what she can and cannot handle. There's all the duties of pregnancy as well as school and family pressures.
And what about the man's choice, if he is there? We know the situation, guy gets a girl pregnant and coerces her to have an abortion. But what if the man wants the child? What then? Can we ignore his voice and say it's the right thing?
This topic is so hectic and everyone has strong points. Leave it up the parents, never have someone make up your mind for you.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:27 pm
@Marsh: Kmjmom said that they don't agree with abortion, believes it's the mother's choice and that it should stay legal to prevent women from getting dangerous, unsafe abortions. That's pretty logical because it's saying, while you don't believe that something's morally right, you're not going to impose your morals on anyone else.
@Fairy: About the guy thing, for me, if I got pregnant and the father wanted to keep the baby, I'd tell him to give birth to it himself. Seeing as he can't, I won't be having the baby. Of course this may seem wrong and whatever, but I'm not going to be going through the pain of labor and childbirth for a child I don't want. Sounds cold, I know, but there's no way to sugarcoat it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:54 pm
Xyloid Personally, I am a moderate on the situation. I believe that a woman's right to choose should be her own. By taking away the right to an abortion, the government would be taking away a right protected by the basic foundations this government was founded upon. At the same time, I think that there should be stricter policies and regulations on the abortions. There needs to be a limit to how many can be done in a certain time frame, because I think it's wrong when women use abortion as their ONLY form of birth control.
This is exactly how I feel. Women should have the choice, but they should also learn from it and in appropriate occasions, be more cautious in future situations.
I also feel that people should be more informed about the subject. I'm sure a lot of people have no idea that at the legal abortion time, the fetus is barely recognizable.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:11 pm
Aakiyana @Marsh: Kmjmom said that they don't agree with abortion, believes it's the mother's choice and that it should stay legal to prevent women from getting dangerous, unsafe abortions. That's pretty logical because it's saying, while you don't believe that something's morally right, you're not going to impose your morals on anyone else.
@Fairy: About the guy thing, for me, if I got pregnant and the father wanted to keep the baby, I'd tell him to give birth to it himself. Seeing as he can't, I won't be having the baby. Of course this may seem wrong and whatever, but I'm not going to be going through the pain of labor and childbirth for a child I don't want. Sounds cold, I know, but there's no way to sugarcoat it. Ah, I was just unsure what her position was. That is what I wold do. I'm not going to give birth for someone else, unless I'm getting paid a large chunck of money, and probably not then either.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:15 am
I'm moderate in my views, leaning towards pro-choice. I believe that women should be allowed to make their own decisions and in certain circumstances, abortion can be the right choice. For example, if a rape victim gets pregnant, it was not of their own will or not due to carelessnesss and she should have the right to decide what to do. As well as in cases with young or weak mothers. If the situation takes a turn and becomes a "Your life vs. your fetus' life" situation, you should have the right to abort the developing fetus in favor of your own life.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:42 am
I'm not quite sure where I stand. If it's your fault you got pregnant, then you should birth the child. Even if the protection just failed. You were the one who had sex, you're the one who has to deal with it. but I beleive if you were raped, then you should have the choice. It wasn't your fault, it was the man's. You didn't choose to have sex. The child wouldn't be if you were raped and you wouldn't have to worry about it.
So I've got no clue what this would be called, but I stated my opinion. Maybe someone can tell me.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:34 pm
I am 100% pro-choice. I think that abortion should be available for the asking to any woman who seeks one, no reason needed, no explanation required, no questions asked, no judgment passed. It is the right of every woman to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy, regardless of how she became pregnant. Consensual sex, rape, failed protection, no protection at all, whatever. Everyone makes bad decisions, and a child should never be used as a punishment. Nobody who is not totally committed to caring and nurturing a child should ever be made to bear one. I don't believe in this 'certain circumstance' crap. First of all it is WAY too difficult to even enforce the rape exception. You make a 'rape only' exception and millions of women will come forward claiming they had been raped to get an abortion, either that or they'll take the dangerous way in back-alley abortions and now you'll have not one but two people dead (woman and fetus). Also I don't even get the rape exception. Regardless of how the fetus was created it is still a human fetus, the same as any other human fetus. I question every pro-lifer who makes a rape exception: what makes a rape fetus less worthy of life than the fetus conceived through consensual sex? As for incest, don't get rape incest confused with consensual incest. Forced incest = rape, so you can just call it rape. If two relatives of consenting age want to do it I don't really care and if they are totally devoted to caring for their resulting offspring regardless of deformities/retardation then by all means, I think they should be allowed to produce said offspring if they really want to. And you can complain that it makes deformities/retarded babies but it shouldn't matter to a pro-lifer, a life is a life right? And even people who aren't related can have retarded children, does that make it ok for them to abort all of a sudden? Here's an example of consensual incest btw: Consensual Sibling IncestSummarized Story It's a long story, but in short incest is illegal in Germany and these two siblings who found each other after being separated and never meeting as children became lovers. They had four children together, 2 are mentally and physically disabled. The man has paid many sentences in prison for openly expressing his relationship with his sister (not sure why the sister hasn't been sentenced...) But even though they are in complete denial that their two kids are quite obviously disabled they are dedicated to caring for them and staying together. Their children have been taken from them as they are seen to be unfit as parents I guess. The guy got a vasectomy finally because the reason the law is in place is because incest makes deformed children, but even though he got it they are still going to punish him for staying with his sister. The two things I don't understand are, basically people are saying that the retarded kids and maybe even the ones who aren't retarded should have never been born, as though as if they aren't worthy of life because of their parents relationship and the second thing I don't get is, he got a vasectomy so who cares now? He's not going to be making anymore babies now so get over it. What else, what else...adoption. It solves unwanted parenting not unwanted pregnancy, not to mention that for every shiny new baby you add to the system that's one less family that will consider adopting say an older child like these adorable twin sisters Kara and KaylaOr maybe this cute boy and his siblings, Kyle, Ryan, and RajeneI think a fetus should be given the same rights as all other humans as well and no human has the right to use another human's body without their express and ongoing consent. So to give the fetus this right (the right over my personal bodily integrity) would just be giving it special rights that no other human has. Well that's just part of my opinion. There are lots of other aspects to this debate that I haven't covered but I think those are some of the more major ones.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Wow! *jaw drop*
I had never even looked at in in some of those angles.
I agree 100%.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:53 pm
marshjazz Wow! *jaw drop* I had never even looked at in in some of those angles. I agree 100%. lol I've been in this debate for over a year and have done a fecking lot of research. xd I'll have to post my sources and stuff.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:04 pm
Well, I was mainly refering to giving a fetus control over your body. Your completely right about that. And about adoption solving unwanted parenting not pregnency. I'm complete pro-chioce as well, so you don't have to prove anything to me. It seems like pro-chiocers are controling most of the abortion debates. We've only had maybe 3 pro-life people come into the thread.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|