|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:56 pm
On a side note-
I think that anyone who has abandoned a child; or is deadbeat to their child; gets pregnant just to turn around and have an abortion as a form of BC; or who lives on welfare; or has had repeat felony offenses, should have to have their reproductive functions halted, by vasectomy, or tubal.
I know it's harsh, but it would considerable lessen the call for abortion. It would also lessen a large burden on outsiders. Especially now that abortion is going to be paid for by taxpayers in the new health care system.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:58 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia So, I have came to a solid conclusion that abortion "just because" a person doesn't want a baby yet is a bad thing and an easy out, and a way for people to act irresponsibly. Sometimes true. But so is keeping the child. Every pregnant person in my school (bout 1/3 of the girls in every grade) uses pregnancy as a way to drop out, or act like a whore all day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:56 pm
buggsie blue Eltanin Sadachbia So, I have came to a solid conclusion that abortion "just because" a person doesn't want a baby yet is a bad thing and an easy out, and a way for people to act irresponsibly. Sometimes true. But so is keeping the child. Every pregnant person in my school (bout 1/3 of the girls in every grade) uses pregnancy as a way to drop out, or act like a whore all day. True, but obviously, they have come to terms with having a kid. That is why I feel that if these girls are just planning on living off of the state for their life, then it should be mandatory for them to get their tubes tied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:08 pm
seeing as i have already blown up at least once, and have just stopped crying reading this batch of responces, i'm going to opt out of responding to this thread anymore. i'll take these emotional responces as a sign that i still can't handle this topic...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:14 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia On a side note- I think that anyone who has abandoned a child; or is deadbeat to their child; gets pregnant just to turn around and have an abortion as a form of BC; or who lives on welfare; or has had repeat felony offenses, should have to have their reproductive functions halted, by vasectomy, or tubal. I know it's harsh, but it would considerable lessen the call for abortion. It would also lessen a large burden on outsiders. Especially now that abortion is going to be paid for by taxpayers in the new health care system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 9:03 pm
I am only going to say the following on this topic:
1. I am pro-choice and I believe it is the choice of the said parents, but it is ultimately the woman's choice. It should not be anyone else's business, not even the parents of the woman (or man).
2. I believe (and this may seem very harsh) that abortion is necessary for not only the woman's circumstances (whether it be rape, incest, health issues, etc.), but also for the sake of population control. Like I said it seems harsh, but the world is already over-populated and abortion is a somewhat helping factor in non-overpopulation. There are already too many suffering babies throughout the world, so why create more children who, in all likelyhood, suffer in some way? In my opinion, It may ultimately be better to the human populace to have abortion.
With that said, I do not think it is right for women to get an abortion as a form of birth control. If you don't want a child, and are too lazy to get condoms or whatever the issue with contraception may be, get your freakin' tubes tied or try to convince your partner to get a vasectomy. If you change your mind on having a child, adopt one because there are many children looking for a home.
3. As for the issue of whether a fetus is living or not, biologically speaking, a fetus is not a living being. There are seven factors that need to be met in order for something to be called a living entity (if you don't know what those 7 factors are, look it up on google). Usually, when most abortions occur, the fetus is about 8 weeks. At this point in the pregnancy the fetus is not alive, again this is from a biological point of view. If you do not think this is true, then the only other evidence I have is that my own biology teacher (mind you she is several months pregnant with her first child) said that a fetus is NOT a living thing. I personally asked her about this issue and she answered my question plain and simple: no. A fetus is not alive.
Other than what I've just stated above, I have nothing more to say. I will, however, politely discuss these issues with anyone who will not insult my intelligence or any other form of rudeness. I will not bother arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:08 am
Aakosir Eltanin Sadachbia On a side note- I think that anyone who has abandoned a child; or is deadbeat to their child; gets pregnant just to turn around and have an abortion as a form of BC; or who lives on welfare; or has had repeat felony offenses, should have to have their reproductive functions halted, by vasectomy, or tubal. I know it's harsh, but it would considerable lessen the call for abortion. It would also lessen a large burden on outsiders. Especially now that abortion is going to be paid for by taxpayers in the new health care system. How would you decide who does and does not get sterilised then? Would it be just those babies sent out for adoption, or a random sample of the new-born population? Are you suggesting we start a raffle? The tickets drawn getting sterilised before they can comprehend the words they hear, let alone the biological choice that's been taken away from them. I'm sorry, but once we start sterilising children, we're tip-toeing towards eugenics, and a whole lot more besides. You're taking away the choice, and limiting the gene pool, which though it could use chlorine in places, is limited enough as it is. If you want a sterile kid, adopt one with a genetic condition that renders them such (trisonomies for example), don't sterilise them just because you can. As a friend of mine once said "I'm not adopting, because I don't want to raise someone elses mistake, I'd rather raise my own mistake, at least I'll know what's likely to go wrong with it." Compulsory open adoption is the biggest c**k-up my country (New Zealand) ever made. I'm sorry, but if I'm raising your child, it's now my child, and you can butt out until the kid wants to see you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:32 am
divineseraph Tourniquet Static divineseraph You would mandate abortion? Disgusting. Also, you seem to not know how pregnancy works- At the time of abortion, fetuses have developed bone and brain, and even fingers, though they may still be webbed. This is not a "recently joined cell", it is a growing, developing human being taking its natural, biological course. Most abortions occur around 8 weeks, and by this point it is far from a "clump of cells", unless you're referring to the fact that all life is a compilation of cells, from humans to birds to elephants. A fetus is a human life, as defined by basic biology. It is impossible to draw lines after conception as of when "life" begins because the growth of an individual does not happen in direct steps- It is a slow progression. If you are going by memory and awareness, then a toddler is fair game to be killed- It does not have the awareness of you or I. If we are going by the dependence on another, those in comas are no longer people, nor are those with more severe mental disabilities. If we are going by legal personhood status, legal personhood has been denied to all sorts of born people, and the law is by no means an objective unit of determining right and wrong. You're actually quite dumb aren't you? Looking at your argument with the other person before I, you seem to know anything about having a child. If you can't look after it, you can't look after it. How could a man understand? Seriously, you can never be pregnant, and even though male rape exsists, you would have emotional scars but you wouldn't have a psychical reminder of it! If you have been raped, you wouldn't want the thing inside you to exsist. Want to know something about sexual abuse? I couldn't leave the house for three months, terrified he would see me again, that I would have to see HIM again. What would that have been if that was a rape? If I had been impregnated? At THIRTEEN YEARS OLD? I was, and am, too young. The consequences of a child is crippling at that age. And as for your very weak argument on toddlers, of course they know who you are. A fetus is barely a human, it's not got any memory, or awareness yet. So therefore you're causing less pain than a life in adoption or a life of hatred and shortcomings from parents who didn't want you. I didn't mean I would enforce it, and I can see how I come across as meaning that down to poor wording, but I would be thorughly disgusted seeing someone way too young with a kid. It's a kid having a kid. Can you not see the problems there? Are you too blinded by your made-up authority to see that? Bottom line is, it's not your choice. Women can choose. So argue away, it's legal, honey. No, buy it seems you might be. That's not relevant in the least, for two reasons- Firstly, because it is an ad hominem logical fallacy. Secondly, because I never argued from the point that anyone should be able to take care of a child. If a woman has a child and suddenly loses her job, should she kill the child since she can no longer care for it? I never argued against abortion in the case of rape. Strawman logical fallacy. You're looking dumber and dumber by the sentence. Do you remember being two? If you do, that's quite impressive. How about one? You didn't remember jack. So what's the difference, if consciousness is the key to when a person becomes a person? And can you really decide for someone else which life is worth living? Would you want someone to decide for you? It's a kid having a kid, or a kid killing a kid. Neither situation is desirable, but given the two, and knowing that adoption exists, I would say that the first is less evil. Bottom line, n*ggers are property. It's legal, argue away honey. (Argument made from the perspective of a slave owner. Refute it. Go ahead, try.) Yay, copying is the highest form of flattery. Call me dumb all you want, it's laughable. And way to ignore every point I made. rolleyes And needless racism? Wow. You're like, totally my idol. Of course I didn't remember anything when I was two. But the point is I was born. I was outside the womb. I had consciousness, just not a very good memory. I was actually a breathing, moving, occasionally talking member of society. An unwanted fetus still in the womb isn't yet. I respect that you believe in adoption but if you look at the age of children having their own, you would see girls at that age may be able to conceive but giving birth will have a whole load of problems. This is why I think it's a bad idea. I don't know if you're motivated by religion or by morals, but I'm not going to drop mine just because some stranger on a Gaia guild tells me I'm an idiot. I'm not telling you to change yours, and I'm sure as hell not changing mine. But I can see your point, and accept some people are just like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:58 pm
Tourniquet Static I was actually a breathing, moving, occasionally talking member of society. An unwanted fetus still in the womb isn't yet.yes it is. do the freaking research before you say things like that that you don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:09 pm
suprgrl12 I am only going to say the following on this topic:
1. I am pro-choice and I believe it is the choice of the said parents, but it is ultimately the woman's choice. It should not be anyone else's business, not even the parents of the woman (or man).
2. I believe (and this may seem very harsh) that abortion is necessary for not only the woman's circumstances (whether it be rape, incest, health issues, etc.), but also for the sake of population control. Like I said it seems harsh, but the world is already over-populated and abortion is a somewhat helping factor in non-overpopulation. There are already too many suffering babies throughout the world, so why create more children who, in all likelyhood, suffer in some way? In my opinion, It may ultimately be better to the human populace to have abortion.
With that said, I do not think it is right for women to get an abortion as a form of birth control. If you don't want a child, and are too lazy to get condoms or whatever the issue with contraception may be, get your freakin' tubes tied or try to convince your partner to get a vasectomy. If you change your mind on having a child, adopt one because there are many children looking for a home.
3. As for the issue of whether a fetus is living or not, biologically speaking, a fetus is not a living being. There are seven factors that need to be met in order for something to be called a living entity (if you don't know what those 7 factors are, look it up on google). Usually, when most abortions occur, the fetus is about 8 weeks. At this point in the pregnancy the fetus is not alive, again this is from a biological point of view. If you do not think this is true, then the only other evidence I have is that my own biology teacher (mind you she is several months pregnant with her first child) said that a fetus is NOT a living thing. I personally asked her about this issue and she answered my question plain and simple: no. A fetus is not alive.
Other than what I've just stated above, I have nothing more to say. I will, however, politely discuss these issues with anyone who will not insult my intelligence or any other form of rudeness. I will not bother arguing for the sake of arguing. And is murder up to a murderer? Theft up to the thief? A fetus is alive. It has all of the requirements, though not necessarily to the same degree as you or I.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:18 pm
Tourniquet Static divineseraph Tourniquet Static divineseraph You would mandate abortion? Disgusting. Also, you seem to not know how pregnancy works- At the time of abortion, fetuses have developed bone and brain, and even fingers, though they may still be webbed. This is not a "recently joined cell", it is a growing, developing human being taking its natural, biological course. Most abortions occur around 8 weeks, and by this point it is far from a "clump of cells", unless you're referring to the fact that all life is a compilation of cells, from humans to birds to elephants. A fetus is a human life, as defined by basic biology. It is impossible to draw lines after conception as of when "life" begins because the growth of an individual does not happen in direct steps- It is a slow progression. If you are going by memory and awareness, then a toddler is fair game to be killed- It does not have the awareness of you or I. If we are going by the dependence on another, those in comas are no longer people, nor are those with more severe mental disabilities. If we are going by legal personhood status, legal personhood has been denied to all sorts of born people, and the law is by no means an objective unit of determining right and wrong. You're actually quite dumb aren't you? Looking at your argument with the other person before I, you seem to know anything about having a child. If you can't look after it, you can't look after it. How could a man understand? Seriously, you can never be pregnant, and even though male rape exsists, you would have emotional scars but you wouldn't have a psychical reminder of it! If you have been raped, you wouldn't want the thing inside you to exsist. Want to know something about sexual abuse? I couldn't leave the house for three months, terrified he would see me again, that I would have to see HIM again. What would that have been if that was a rape? If I had been impregnated? At THIRTEEN YEARS OLD? I was, and am, too young. The consequences of a child is crippling at that age. And as for your very weak argument on toddlers, of course they know who you are. A fetus is barely a human, it's not got any memory, or awareness yet. So therefore you're causing less pain than a life in adoption or a life of hatred and shortcomings from parents who didn't want you. I didn't mean I would enforce it, and I can see how I come across as meaning that down to poor wording, but I would be thorughly disgusted seeing someone way too young with a kid. It's a kid having a kid. Can you not see the problems there? Are you too blinded by your made-up authority to see that? Bottom line is, it's not your choice. Women can choose. So argue away, it's legal, honey. No, buy it seems you might be. That's not relevant in the least, for two reasons- Firstly, because it is an ad hominem logical fallacy. Secondly, because I never argued from the point that anyone should be able to take care of a child. If a woman has a child and suddenly loses her job, should she kill the child since she can no longer care for it? I never argued against abortion in the case of rape. Strawman logical fallacy. You're looking dumber and dumber by the sentence. Do you remember being two? If you do, that's quite impressive. How about one? You didn't remember jack. So what's the difference, if consciousness is the key to when a person becomes a person? And can you really decide for someone else which life is worth living? Would you want someone to decide for you? It's a kid having a kid, or a kid killing a kid. Neither situation is desirable, but given the two, and knowing that adoption exists, I would say that the first is less evil. Bottom line, n*ggers are property. It's legal, argue away honey. (Argument made from the perspective of a slave owner. Refute it. Go ahead, try.) Yay, copying is the highest form of flattery. Call me dumb all you want, it's laughable. And way to ignore every point I made. rolleyes And needless racism? Wow. You're like, totally my idol. Of course I didn't remember anything when I was two. But the point is I was born. I was outside the womb. I had consciousness, just not a very good memory. I was actually a breathing, moving, occasionally talking member of society. An unwanted fetus still in the womb isn't yet. I respect that you believe in adoption but if you look at the age of children having their own, you would see girls at that age may be able to conceive but giving birth will have a whole load of problems. This is why I think it's a bad idea. I don't know if you're motivated by religion or by morals, but I'm not going to drop mine just because some stranger on a Gaia guild tells me I'm an idiot. I'm not telling you to change yours, and I'm sure as hell not changing mine. But I can see your point, and accept some people are just like that. Really? You're the one ignoring my points- Namely, your brutalization of basic logical process. The racism was sarcastic and ironic. Were slavery legal, as it was, your argument would work the exact same way for a racist slave owner. That was the point. "women are legally able to abort, so there." "Slave owners are legally able to own slaves, so there"- It's logically invalid. Try again. And the fetus was conceived. Birth is just a difference of location. A fetus inside the womb can move, and "speak", though being in amniotic fluid kind of hinders that. You were no different five minutes after you were removed from your mother than the five minutes before. If birth is really that magical, what do we consider birth? Complete removal? What if only the head of the fetus/child is inside the mother? A single toe? If the whole fetus is out, but still connected by the umbilical cord? Which specific point makes a FETUS into a CHILD, and what magical properties make it so? Again, there is a difference in cases of serious health risks. Learn something, seriously. I am calling you an idiot not because you hold a different opinion, but because your justification and logic behind your opinion is terribly designed. Were you pro-life because "God luvs teh babbehs n wimens need 2 lern to not be babbeh killaz", I'd call you an idiot, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:01 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia buggsie blue Eltanin Sadachbia So, I have came to a solid conclusion that abortion "just because" a person doesn't want a baby yet is a bad thing and an easy out, and a way for people to act irresponsibly. Sometimes true. But so is keeping the child. Every pregnant person in my school (bout 1/3 of the girls in every grade) uses pregnancy as a way to drop out, or act like a whore all day. True, but obviously, they have come to terms with having a kid. That is why I feel that if these girls are just planning on living off of the state for their life, then it should be mandatory for them to get their tubes tied. I agree. Sadly, in america, you have to be 35 or have at least 2 or 3 kids. Wish I could get mine tied, I could never take care of kids. I'm the one lady that's gonna be 80 and have 30 cats. Cause they are like kids to me, but they aren't as annoying...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:53 pm
Aakosir Eltanin Sadachbia On a side note- I think that anyone who has abandoned a child; or is deadbeat to their child; gets pregnant just to turn around and have an abortion as a form of BC; or who lives on welfare; or has had repeat felony offenses, should have to have their reproductive functions halted, by vasectomy, or tubal. I know it's harsh, but it would considerable lessen the call for abortion. It would also lessen a large burden on outsiders. Especially now that abortion is going to be paid for by taxpayers in the new health care system. NO! NO! Sterilization of people at birth is going WAY TO FAR! HOW IN THE HELL can ANYONE decide for a BABY that they will never have the opportunity to have a child of their own?! Population control is a load of BS! Plain and simple. It is totally unethical for children to be altered before they have been able to do something to merit that adjustment. I don't think there should be adoption costs. I think that there should be extensive background checks, and determination that those who are wanting to adopt have the ability to support a child. I know the reason for adoption costs, to recover some of the costs for keeping the kids, but they are already paid for. It's more important that they find families and homes than for the government to recoup costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:22 pm
buggsie blue I agree. Sadly, in america, you have to be 35 or have at least 2 or 3 kids. Wish I could get mine tied, I could never take care of kids. I'm the one lady that's gonna be 80 and have 30 cats. Cause they are like kids to me, but they aren't as annoying... Actually the 35 thing has to do with a doctor's individual ethics, and it just seems to be a rule that many doctors claim as their own. I know a doctor who will perform tubals on younger women if they consent to counseling that will help them prove that they really don't want children. He advises against it, but he feels that most women wouldn't resort to something so final if there was a chance that they would want a kid later. Those that he does consent to sterilize when they are younger, he gives information on adoption right before they go through the procedure. He feels that it helps women realize that having their tubes tied is meant to be a final thing, and it also helps remind them that there are still children out there who need families, if they ever change their minds about children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:25 am
divineseraph Tourniquet Static divineseraph Tourniquet Static divineseraph You would mandate abortion? Disgusting. Also, you seem to not know how pregnancy works- At the time of abortion, fetuses have developed bone and brain, and even fingers, though they may still be webbed. This is not a "recently joined cell", it is a growing, developing human being taking its natural, biological course. Most abortions occur around 8 weeks, and by this point it is far from a "clump of cells", unless you're referring to the fact that all life is a compilation of cells, from humans to birds to elephants. A fetus is a human life, as defined by basic biology. It is impossible to draw lines after conception as of when "life" begins because the growth of an individual does not happen in direct steps- It is a slow progression. If you are going by memory and awareness, then a toddler is fair game to be killed- It does not have the awareness of you or I. If we are going by the dependence on another, those in comas are no longer people, nor are those with more severe mental disabilities. If we are going by legal personhood status, legal personhood has been denied to all sorts of born people, and the law is by no means an objective unit of determining right and wrong. You're actually quite dumb aren't you? Looking at your argument with the other person before I, you seem to know anything about having a child. If you can't look after it, you can't look after it. How could a man understand? Seriously, you can never be pregnant, and even though male rape exsists, you would have emotional scars but you wouldn't have a psychical reminder of it! If you have been raped, you wouldn't want the thing inside you to exsist. Want to know something about sexual abuse? I couldn't leave the house for three months, terrified he would see me again, that I would have to see HIM again. What would that have been if that was a rape? If I had been impregnated? At THIRTEEN YEARS OLD? I was, and am, too young. The consequences of a child is crippling at that age. And as for your very weak argument on toddlers, of course they know who you are. A fetus is barely a human, it's not got any memory, or awareness yet. So therefore you're causing less pain than a life in adoption or a life of hatred and shortcomings from parents who didn't want you. I didn't mean I would enforce it, and I can see how I come across as meaning that down to poor wording, but I would be thorughly disgusted seeing someone way too young with a kid. It's a kid having a kid. Can you not see the problems there? Are you too blinded by your made-up authority to see that? Bottom line is, it's not your choice. Women can choose. So argue away, it's legal, honey. No, buy it seems you might be. That's not relevant in the least, for two reasons- Firstly, because it is an ad hominem logical fallacy. Secondly, because I never argued from the point that anyone should be able to take care of a child. If a woman has a child and suddenly loses her job, should she kill the child since she can no longer care for it? I never argued against abortion in the case of rape. Strawman logical fallacy. You're looking dumber and dumber by the sentence. Do you remember being two? If you do, that's quite impressive. How about one? You didn't remember jack. So what's the difference, if consciousness is the key to when a person becomes a person? And can you really decide for someone else which life is worth living? Would you want someone to decide for you? It's a kid having a kid, or a kid killing a kid. Neither situation is desirable, but given the two, and knowing that adoption exists, I would say that the first is less evil. Bottom line, n*ggers are property. It's legal, argue away honey. (Argument made from the perspective of a slave owner. Refute it. Go ahead, try.) Yay, copying is the highest form of flattery. Call me dumb all you want, it's laughable. And way to ignore every point I made. rolleyes And needless racism? Wow. You're like, totally my idol. Of course I didn't remember anything when I was two. But the point is I was born. I was outside the womb. I had consciousness, just not a very good memory. I was actually a breathing, moving, occasionally talking member of society. An unwanted fetus still in the womb isn't yet. I respect that you believe in adoption but if you look at the age of children having their own, you would see girls at that age may be able to conceive but giving birth will have a whole load of problems. This is why I think it's a bad idea. I don't know if you're motivated by religion or by morals, but I'm not going to drop mine just because some stranger on a Gaia guild tells me I'm an idiot. I'm not telling you to change yours, and I'm sure as hell not changing mine. But I can see your point, and accept some people are just like that. Really? You're the one ignoring my points- Namely, your brutalization of basic logical process. The racism was sarcastic and ironic. Were slavery legal, as it was, your argument would work the exact same way for a racist slave owner. That was the point. "women are legally able to abort, so there." "Slave owners are legally able to own slaves, so there"- It's logically invalid. Try again. And the fetus was conceived. Birth is just a difference of location. A fetus inside the womb can move, and "speak", though being in amniotic fluid kind of hinders that. You were no different five minutes after you were removed from your mother than the five minutes before. If birth is really that magical, what do we consider birth? Complete removal? What if only the head of the fetus/child is inside the mother? A single toe? If the whole fetus is out, but still connected by the umbilical cord? Which specific point makes a FETUS into a CHILD, and what magical properties make it so? Again, there is a difference in cases of serious health risks. Learn something, seriously. I am calling you an idiot not because you hold a different opinion, but because your justification and logic behind your opinion is terribly designed. Were you pro-life because "God luvs teh babbehs n wimens need 2 lern to not be babbeh killaz", I'd call you an idiot, too. In the case of racism and slavery, I am perfectly entitled to hold a different view. They're two different laws, two different issues. So it's not me that's failing. lol We don't know where a fetus stops being a fetus and becomes a child. To do that we would need to be able to study them developing, to psychically see them in the womb at every moment, which we can't do. We have no clue where a fetus stops being developed and starts flourishing. There's too many conflicting opinions and there's too many different issues and definitions. And as for health risks, I don't mean ectopic pregnancy- which is fatal- I mean this, which is more common in young girls after giving birth.I really hate arguments, so please, take the hint you're really not changing my mind. I'm not encouraging abortion, but I believe in some cases it's the best thing to do. You may think I've no justification but the truth is this is a view my entire community holds, and perhaps that's just what I've been raised with, but I agree with it, and there are many learned men and women with these morals, not only I. Your point is valid, and as much as you might not like it, so is mine. People differ. I think that "God luvs teh babbehs n wimens need 2 lern to not be babbeh killaz" is the real threat to people here, as that sums up exactly my cousins, who know even less about the subject than you seem to think I do. Feel free to reply angrily again, but I'm offering a hand of peace here and a "Let's agree to disagree".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
