|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:11 am
I notcied many prolifers believe that a women should not have sex until she wants to have children. However there are many fallacies in this arguement.
Sex is not just about creation for many people.
Many women seeking abortions do have children. (54%)
Many women do not want children, but still want fulfilling adult relationships (which is about 10% sexual, in a healthy relationship).
Any rebuttals?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:40 pm
Now, I know you said *many* pro-lifers, but you should consider us liberal pro-lifers. Yes, there is such a thing.
I believe that sex before marriage is perfectly fine, as long as it's done with maturity and handled well. As long as the people involved understand the consequences that sex can bring about, and if it's safe, then I see no problem at all with it. Sex is natural and beautiful.
Many women seeking abortions do have children, I'm sure. But how many of these simply "didn't want anything to do with the child." And how many made "a mistake."? There is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy, and in having sex there is always going to be a certain level of risk. Responsibility needs to be utilized, and taking the easy way out (abortion) is not the option that should be looked at first.
It is fine to have healthy adult relationships, and not want children. Homosexual couples often do this, and I support the right to want or not want children-- But abortion is something I cannot support, because that "mistake" that was made is inside you, it's a part of you, and you can't escape it, because there's no turning back from an abortion. Casual abortion, and abortion as birth control is not something I support, as It's misusing a medical procedure, and that's not right.
Sorry if it's a bit of a rant, but I wanted to get some of my views out there.
~First post... Alright!~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:51 pm
For many of us, it's not that we think she shouldn't have sex until she wants children, but rather that she should think of the fact that children are a possibility, and add that to the equation before deciding to have sex. They should know that children are a possibility of sex, and not just go, "Well I can just have an abortion if the BC fails." I mean, it seems like people really don't even think about the possibility of pregnancy before having sex; They decide it's "love" and if they get pregnant they can just have an abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:00 pm
Mcphee Now, I know you said *many* pro-lifers, but you should consider us liberal pro-lifers. Yes, there is such a thing. I believe that sex before marriage is perfectly fine, as long as it's done with maturity and handled well. As long as the people involved understand the consequences that sex can bring about, and if it's safe, then I see no problem at all with it. Sex is natural and beautiful. Many women seeking abortions do have children, I'm sure. But how many of these simply "didn't want anything to do with the child." And how many made "a mistake."? There is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy, and in having sex there is always going to be a certain level of risk. Responsibility needs to be utilized, and taking the easy way out (abortion) is not the option that should be looked at first. It is fine to have healthy adult relationships, and not want children. Homosexual couples often do this, and I support the right to want or not want children-- But abortion is something I cannot support, because that "mistake" that was made is inside you, it's a part of you, and you can't escape it, because there's no turning back from an abortion. Casual abortion, and abortion as birth control is not something I support, as It's misusing a medical procedure, and that's not right. Sorry if it's a bit of a rant, but I wanted to get some of my views out there. ~First post... Alright!~ Interesting point. However the same could be said about car accidents. When you get in a car, you have a certain percent chance of being in a car accident. Even if you use a seatbelt, you still have a chance to be injured in an accident (which it is actually higher chance that you will be injured in a car accident, wearng a seatbelt then get pregnant on most contraceptives). While you have lower your risk of being in an accident by wearing a seatbelt, you still have a chance to be injured. Should you then expect to be injured and accept the consequence by not receiving medical treatment (equivolent to an abortion in this situation). Most women do not have repeated abortions (and many that do are for health reasons, i.e. want a child, but body can't support it). Also, abortion is taking responisbility. Perhaps it's not a choice you like, but its not your body. Abortion is not an easy descision to make, before Roe v. Wade, the desperation may women went through to decide to abort (and put their lives in danger) is something none of us pro-choicer want women to go through again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:35 pm
What about guys? Shouldn't they consider the fact they they might impregnate their partner? Shouldn't they take the responcibility for the child, should it come about? But no, they always have the option of ditching; practically no rebuttles for most cases if they live on the lower end of life.
Now, I know this is not the case everywhere, but it does happen. And as long as it does happen, women should have the option of 'ditching' the prospect of a child.
It takes two to tango, and if the male can ditch once they realize they are about to run into a brick wall, the woman should have the choice as well. domokun
Edit: All hail my spelling mistakes! scream
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:33 pm
I.Am For many of us, it's not that we think she shouldn't have sex until she wants children, but rather that she should think of the fact that children are a possibility, and add that to the equation before deciding to have sex. They should know that children are a possibility of sex, and not just go, "Well I can just have an abortion if the BC fails." I mean, it seems like people really don't even think about the possibility of pregnancy before having sex; They decide it's "love" and if they get pregnant they can just have an abortion. Pro-homeless:"Don't buy a house, someone might break into it!" Me: "It's fine, I'll buy one at the end of a street where almost no one goes." Pro-homeless: "But someone could still break in!" Me: "I'll get locks on the doors!" Pro-homeless: "But someone could still break in!" Me: "Shut up. It's my house, not yours." Pro-homeless: *prays for my 'selfish' soul* ---Some time later--- Me: "HEY! Some jerk just broke into my house and is telling me I have to feed him or he's gonna stab me with a knife!" Pro-homeless: "I warned you." Me: *Gets out gun* "Be right back." Pro-homeless: "Don't! He's alive!" Me: "He broke into MY house and he's gonna injure me if not kill me." Pro-homeless: "But it's MURDER!" Me: "It's self defense. Now step aside." Pro-homeless: *prays for my 'selfish' soul* Sense a corrolation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:57 pm
Personally I believe that sex shouldn't be used before marriage, but that's most likely because I'm Catholic. Xanaphia00 Sex is not just about creation for many people. True, it also for the unitive purpose between the man and the woman. But part of sex is children. Xanaphia Many women seeking abortions do have children. (54%) Yes, I know. It's really sad to see someone at the abortion clinic drive up in a minivan with Barney stickers stuck to the windows. Xanaphia Many women do not want children, but still want fulfilling adult relationships (which is about 10% sexual, in a healthy relationship). It is possible to have sex withing the fulfilling adult relationship and not have children for sure. Yep, it's called abstinence. I'm partially kidding. Abstinence, yes, but no at the same time. You may have heard of NFP, Natural Family Planning. This is a natural birth control that measures when the woman is fertile, and the couple simply abstains from sex during that time. Very low failure rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:59 pm
Xanaphia00 Interesting point. However the same could be said about car accidents. When you get in a car, you have a certain percent chance of being in a car accident. Even if you use a seatbelt, you still have a chance to be injured in an accident (which it is actually higher chance that you will be injured in a car accident, wearng a seatbelt then get pregnant on most contraceptives). While you have lower your risk of being in an accident by wearing a seatbelt, you still have a chance to be injured. Should you then expect to be injured and accept the consequence by not receiving medical treatment (equivolent to an abortion in this situation). Most women do not have repeated abortions (and many that do are for health reasons, i.e. want a child, but body can't support it). Also, abortion is taking responisbility. Perhaps it's not a choice you like, but its not your body. Abortion is not an easy descision to make, before Roe v. Wade, the desperation may women went through to decide to abort (and put their lives in danger) is something none of us pro-choicer want women to go through again. Hm. The car accident analogy doesn't really work for me. They're not really comparable, unless the car accident was your fault, like if you had gotten drunk, and started driving. But in this case, they don't work. Sure, each time you get into a car, you take a risk. And each time you have sex, you take a risk, as well, but these two are miles apart. There's quite a huge difference between getting your injuries treated during the aftermath of a car accident, and having a life inside you destroyed. Abortion, in this situation, would be comparable to, say, getting in a car accident, being injured, and then having someone kill the person who crashed into your car. Abortion is not taking responsibility. That's a fact. It's running away from your problems, It's obliterating something that would have had a chance at life if not for the fact that you didn't want to be reminded of something you did, that could've changed your life. It's sort of like doing heroin to forget about everything else, except that this is something that you can't turn back from. There's probably always going to be regret over an abortion, and there's probably going to be regret over not having an abortion either. That's human nature, regret. But which is better, regret over something you did that you can't change, or regret over something that now has a chance to experience their own life? Even if it's a lot of regret, I'd say that at least the child got to experience something. At least they recieved an opportunity to try their hand at life's circumstance, instead of having the early stages of their new life cut-off, and not having a chance, because abortion doesn't dole out second chances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:27 pm
Veled I.Am For many of us, it's not that we think she shouldn't have sex until she wants children, but rather that she should think of the fact that children are a possibility, and add that to the equation before deciding to have sex. They should know that children are a possibility of sex, and not just go, "Well I can just have an abortion if the BC fails." I mean, it seems like people really don't even think about the possibility of pregnancy before having sex; They decide it's "love" and if they get pregnant they can just have an abortion. Pro-homeless:"Don't buy a house, someone might break into it!" Me: "It's fine, I'll buy one at the end of a street where almost no one goes." Pro-homeless: "But someone could still break in!" Me: "I'll get locks on the doors!" Pro-homeless: "But someone could still break in!" Me: "Shut up. It's my house, not yours." Pro-homeless: *prays for my 'selfish' soul* ---Some time later--- Me: "HEY! Some jerk just broke into my house and is telling me I have to feed him or he's gonna stab me with a knife!" Pro-homeless: "I warned you." Me: *Gets out gun* "Be right back." Pro-homeless: "Don't! He's alive!" Me: "He broke into MY house and he's gonna injure me if not kill me." Pro-homeless: "But it's MURDER!" Me: "It's self defense. Now step aside." Pro-homeless: *prays for my 'selfish' soul* Sense a corrolation? Please, don't mock me. You know that to me it's legalized murder, and that thusly you are committing what my religion considers to be a mortal sin. It's really hard to have an intelligent, polite debate when one side starts making fun of the other. Alright. So now to show why what you are saying is mistaken; The fetus doesn't hurt you, except in that it causes some discomfort for the nine months. A better version of your story would have the robber grab some valuable stuff and leave. Are you going to kill them? Of course not. Is it going to make life less comfortable for a while? Yes. But you still can't legally kill him, because he isn't going to harm you anymore-He's gone. You can try and get him caught and put him jail, but not kill him. Or perhaps a story where your boyfriend brings a guest, and the guest, for whatever reason, ends up unable to leave the house for the next nine months, or he'll die. Any person I can think of would take care of him until he can leave, and I know that there isn't a single person who would look well on you for killing him to get him out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:33 pm
Mcphee Abortion is not taking responsibility. That's a fact. It's running away from your problems, It's obliterating something that would have had a chance at life if not for the fact that you didn't want to be reminded of something you did, that could've changed your life. It's sort of like doing heroin to forget about everything else, except that this is something that you can't turn back from. There's probably always going to be regret over an abortion, and there's probably going to be regret over not having an abortion either. That's human nature, regret. But which is better, regret over something you did that you can't change, or regret over something that now has a chance to experience their own life? Even if it's a lot of regret, I'd say that at least the child got to experience something. At least they recieved an opportunity to try their hand at life's circumstance, instead of having the early stages of their new life cut-off, and not having a chance, because abortion doesn't dole out second chances. It is not a fact, it is a point-of-view. You might think that abortion is irresponsible from your perspective, but from my own, it is indeed a responsible solution to a problem. You could bring another child into the world who would not be cared for by yourself and thrown into the system, or you could simply have the fetus removed and spare both yourself and the child from future difficulties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:46 pm
Sensedog Mcphee Abortion is not taking responsibility. That's a fact. It's running away from your problems, It's obliterating something that would have had a chance at life if not for the fact that you didn't want to be reminded of something you did, that could've changed your life. It's sort of like doing heroin to forget about everything else, except that this is something that you can't turn back from. There's probably always going to be regret over an abortion, and there's probably going to be regret over not having an abortion either. That's human nature, regret. But which is better, regret over something you did that you can't change, or regret over something that now has a chance to experience their own life? Even if it's a lot of regret, I'd say that at least the child got to experience something. At least they recieved an opportunity to try their hand at life's circumstance, instead of having the early stages of their new life cut-off, and not having a chance, because abortion doesn't dole out second chances. It is not a fact, it is a point-of-view. You might think that abortion is irresponsible from your perspective, but from my own, it is indeed a responsible solution to a problem. You could bring another child into the world who would not be cared for by yourself and thrown into the system, or you could simply have the fetus removed and spare both yourself and the child from future difficulties. By responsibility, I meant accepting that you've made a mistake, and dealing with it. Taking life as it is, and handling your decisions and your choices. Abortion by definition is not taking resposibility. You are "aborting" your "problem". Which in this case is the baby. You are deciding to destroy it, so that it's simply no concern of you anymore. I never said that it was irresposible, though it certainly is. But that's not the discussion at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:01 pm
Mcphee Sensedog Mcphee Abortion is not taking responsibility. That's a fact. It's running away from your problems, It's obliterating something that would have had a chance at life if not for the fact that you didn't want to be reminded of something you did, that could've changed your life. It's sort of like doing heroin to forget about everything else, except that this is something that you can't turn back from. There's probably always going to be regret over an abortion, and there's probably going to be regret over not having an abortion either. That's human nature, regret. But which is better, regret over something you did that you can't change, or regret over something that now has a chance to experience their own life? Even if it's a lot of regret, I'd say that at least the child got to experience something. At least they recieved an opportunity to try their hand at life's circumstance, instead of having the early stages of their new life cut-off, and not having a chance, because abortion doesn't dole out second chances. It is not a fact, it is a point-of-view. You might think that abortion is irresponsible from your perspective, but from my own, it is indeed a responsible solution to a problem. You could bring another child into the world who would not be cared for by yourself and thrown into the system, or you could simply have the fetus removed and spare both yourself and the child from future difficulties. By responsibility, I meant accepting that you've made a mistake, and dealing with it. Taking life as it is, and handling your decisions and your choices. Abortion by definition is not taking resposibility. You are "aborting" your "problem". Which in this case is the baby. You are deciding to destroy it, so that it's simply no concern of you anymore. I never said that it was irresposible, though it certainly is. But that's not the discussion at hand. "Not taking responsibility" is the meaning of "irresponsible". So that is what you were talking about when you were talking about abortion as "not taking responsibility". How is abortion not dealing with the problem? Because you are destroying a "baby"? It's not a baby, it's a fetus. There is a difference. By aborting the fetus, you are dealing with the problem through your own choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:58 pm
[quote="Sensedog"Not taking responsibility" is the meaning of "irresponsible". So that is what you were talking about when you were talking about abortion as "not taking responsibility".
How is abortion not dealing with the problem? Because you are destroying a "baby"? It's not a baby, it's a fetus. There is a difference. By aborting the fetus, you are dealing with the problem through your own choice.
Abortion isn't dealing with the problem because you are aborting it. I've said that. It's not because you're destroying the baby, it's because you are making a decision to get rid of your baby. You aren't dealing with the problem by making a choice ABOUT the baby, you are making it in spite of the child. You are disregarding it. You are making a decision where you don't have to make a choice about the child anymore, because it's gone.
And please, cite the difference between a fetus and a baby. A fetus is simply a baby in the stages of development. Because it becomes a baby, and because it has potential to live a life like the ones we live everyday, It's a human being that deserves a chance.
And by the way, I use the term "irresponsible" to refer to acts that could potentially be reckless or dangerous. Abortion fits that criteria. I suggest we both just drop the picking at grammar, and the dissection of my word usage, though. It's a distraction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:31 pm
Mcphee And please, cite the difference between a fetus and a baby. A fetus is simply a baby in the stages of development. Because it becomes a baby, and because it has potential to live a life like the ones we live everyday, It's a human being that deserves a chance. And by the way, I use the term "irresponsible" to refer to acts that could potentially be reckless or dangerous. Abortion fits that criteria. I suggest we both just drop the picking at grammar, and the dissection of my word usage, though. It's a distraction. Yes, a potential baby. It's not a baby yet. It's just a ball of cells inside of a larger organism. Abortion is potentially reckless and dangerous? Well, so is carrying another lifeform inside of you. I'd let the woman decide which she would rather do. I never meant to pick at your grammer or word usage. I just felt like debating at the time. But if you don't want to anymore, I can accept that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:14 pm
Sensedog Mcphee And please, cite the difference between a fetus and a baby. A fetus is simply a baby in the stages of development. Because it becomes a baby, and because it has potential to live a life like the ones we live everyday, It's a human being that deserves a chance. And by the way, I use the term "irresponsible" to refer to acts that could potentially be reckless or dangerous. Abortion fits that criteria. I suggest we both just drop the picking at grammar, and the dissection of my word usage, though. It's a distraction. Yes, a potential baby. It's not a baby yet. It's just a ball of cells inside of a larger organism. Abortion is potentially reckless and dangerous? Well, so is carrying another lifeform inside of you. I'd let the woman decide which she would rather do. I never meant to pick at your grammer or word usage. I just felt like debating at the time. But if you don't want to anymore, I can accept that. No, I'd like to debate. This is good. Anyway. A fetus is a human being, because it contains human cells. It does have it's own habitat, and lives inside the mother until it is ready to come out. That makes it a human.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
