Abortion Issues: Are You Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?
Abortion is regarded as the most controversial issue in bioethics, law and politics worldwide. This issue has been subjected to fervent debates in many legal and ethical fora around the world. This is so because the issue at stake is not only human life, but also the many underlying complicating results in human affairs.
If there are arguments in favor of abortion, there are also arguments to oppose it. The PRO-LIFE advocates who are against abortion and the PRO-CHOICE advocates who are in favor of abortion.
Are you Pro-Life or are you Pro-Choice? Please post your point of view for a discussion in this forum.My point of view is that it is none of my business. The choice is between the one expecting and their thoughts on the matter. Those thoughts I will always respect on an individual basis.
Dale Hyde, SimeyC and Paul Wingert what if the child is yours? Do you still say it's none of your business?
Actually Karanda, that is not what this post is about. At least not to me. This is about the overall stance one has on the issue, not on an individual level. Again, on an individual level, it would still be a personal choice between the two individuals.
When the child is yours there has to be a discussion between the couple - and personal preferences will come in to play - but that's part of being a couple and nothing to do with me making decisions for someone who has nothing to do with me.
I cannot make a decision for someone else when I know nothing about the circumstances etc.
Of course, there's another whole debate about when a child becomes a child....
Those aren't necessarily the only two options.
Oh, this is such a hard question. I recently read a hub about abortion and it had some video's of abortions (animated). It was the most horrible thing I've seen, I had no idea that an abortion involved basically ripping pieces of the fetus out of the uterus. You can go to you tube and see several videos on how abortions are done. Now, I see why there is so much controversy. I think if I was to get pregnant, and not wanting to be, I don't think I could do an abortion. You don't know you're pregnant until you're like 6 weeks into it!! I would just keep the baby or put it up for adoption to a family who can't have children.
The OP statement is more than a call for personal, independent, and random opinions. It is asking how the society in which we now live should deal with abortion. Clearly, it is a serious issue with many social, legal, and ethical facets.
The discussion can not be limited to just the rights and responsibilities of the mother. It must also include the rights of the unborn child, the rights and responsibilities of both the father and our society as a whole. Therefore, society must design a carefully balanced approach that considers all of these aspects. While the rights of the mother are important, they should not be the only consideration. Furthermore, who in the process will speak for the rights of the child?Certainly not the ones who want to criminalize abortion...
They could care LESS once the baby is here....
And they DON'T care once the child is here!!
All these people who scream abortion is a crime have CUT planned parenthood, which prevents abortion!
They cut money for poor families, and cut medical programs for poor families when in power.
AND...the rich women will simply go to Europe to end their unwanted pregnancies.
Discrimination and masogyny.Have your males fixed at birth..that will show you are serious.
It's not about caring for children, it's about demonizing women, and having power over their sex lives.IMHO, and proven by history.The day that happens is the day I will consider supporting a full legal ban on abortion, shall I hold my breath?
And your moms breath and all your families breath!
But I have an idear...let's ban sex outside of procreation.
Oh, and let's make it illegal to impregnate a woman--unless the state approves.
Snip the boys...criminalize accidents.
Totally control a man's sex life. Bring on the male pill!Um, isn't that religion? I mean condoms aren't evil?
You know if we just kept men in cells and milked them for their sperm when a woman both wants a baby and is able to take care of it, there wouldn't be many abortions at all (only those rare cases when its the baby or the mother who will die). Whats more, there wouldn't be any more rape either. Two birds with one stone! When can we see male 'camps' being built I wonder?Hmmmm,now THERE'S an idea...barefoot and fertile.....men's lives at the whim of those in charge of morality...whose morals are themselves questionable.
Here's what I learned at AA: Live and Let Live.
Sunasia22, I see one flaw in the question that you have posed. Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. It means exactly what it says. I don't think my wife and I could ever have an abortion but, I am pro-choice because I can only imagine the circumstances that might lead one to consider having one. I could also never even pretend to understand the mental trama that this decision might have. I think a decision like this (in most cases) is not taken very lightly. The 'choice' should not be mine or yours or congresses or anyone other than those it will effect personally. That is the real question...Are you pro-choice or are you anti-choice?
How about pro-none-of-my-business! I really do not have the right to make any comment about what any woman does with her body - whether it's right or not, only she can make the decision that changes her life - not me.
I'm a woman and I do believe that my body is my own, and that I should be the one who decides what I do with it.
I also believe I have an innate responsibility as the gender who brings life into this world to understand the weight of the decisions I make about having sex and making sure that I don't get pregnant if I don't want to bear a child.
There are a very few cases when abortion would be the difficult yet only choice. They should be legal for those women who must make that decision.
The abortion issue is about our rights as women. Our bodies and the fetus developing inside of us are our personal property. We should be able to do with them what we want. No one should be able to tell us what to do whith our personal property.
That is exactly the argument the pro-slavery movement used 150 years ago.Abortion is really a multifaceted issue, which makes it a rather difficult topic to debate. Though, I favored the religious ethics on this subject, I still have to think about the autonomy of the individual -- which is an individual freedom of choice. Anyone adult who is not mentally incapable should have the right to think about the consequences of their choices, then make their own decisions. Let God be the judge -- not man!
correction:
Any Adult who is mentally capable of making his/her choice should have the right to think about the consequences of his/her choices, then make their own decisions. Let God be the judge - not man!I agree with you about not judging. Any woman who is put in the position to make such a decision has to be in a horribly difficult place. One that no male ever has to make or can really ever understand. She alone will have to deal with the repurcussions of that decision the rest of her life.
Don't the men get a choice about abortion too? Their sperm created the baby, it's half theirs too. Or, I guess it is left to the woman to make the choice, if the sperm donor is just that, a donor.
Right...which is why all men should have a vasectomy at birth,and only be allowed to impregnate a woman when the state says it's ok.
Problem solved.
I'm 'pro-its none of my business'
I am pregnant myself, my first hospital tests are next week so fingers crossed there is no bad news from them. Some would say that if I wanted an abortion it would be murder. I wonder if it is attempted murder when my husband stresses me out really badly as stress can cause a miscarriage...?
On the up side, he is happy to run out and get whatever food I am craving and does other sensitive things too, so this question is somewhat facetious as he isn't that bad
- Onusonusposted 12 years ago
0I believe it is important that we better educate people about Abortion and the obvious liberal agenda which is behind it. It is reprehensible that people in our own government are trying to shove this practice down our throats. Planned parenthood gets around 33% of it's income from the federal government according to a national report, and weather or not it was intended to directly fund abortion, in one way or another through legal loopholes 487.4 million of our tax dollars went to this billion dollar industry.
The polices at abortion clinics are never in favor of the child, the councilors are not expected to present alternative options, such as adoption, or welfare programs. Most professionals in the field feel that it is not advisable for patients to view the products of conception, to be told the sex of the fetus, or to be informed of a multiple pregnancy.
The phone operators at abortion clinics receive professional training by marketing directors in selling abortions over the phone. The over all objective of abortion clinics is to get the pregnant mother into the operating room as soon as possible so to avoid a long waiting period where she'd have time to think about what she is about to do.
If people were educated on the truth of this matter, and the psychological damage which occurs in the wake of such a decision, rather than being sold the fear of inconvenience, and that a person would be better off knowing that there isn't another person out there whom they created, that the number of abortions in America would decrease dramatically.
Unfortunately the opposite is true. The current sentiment of liberal progressives is that a child who might get neglected is better off dead. A child who might have a bright future with adopted parents is better off dead. A child who might grow up in poverty is better off dead. It's my body and the government shouldn't have a say, even though it's tax payer funded. I should be able to choose convenience over responsibility. If I break my arm it is my choice whether or not I go and get it fixed. If a women gets pregnant its her choice whether or not to take the so difficult decision to have an abortion.
Nope, not the man or the child. Only the mother gets to decide weather or not to murder her baby.
Well--men decide every day to murder womens babies..it's called war.
When do we start the prosecutions?Hmmm, how can I explain this in a simple way for you..... Ah! here you go;
I'm glad you mentioned in your first posting above that the Federal government is heavily funding Planned Parenthood -- a main vehicle for abortions. But this other posting of yours above has me puzzled. Where it says Liberal Lies and then mentions about Republicans.....and the sentence below it: It's the Democrats that for the main part support abortion. Republicans -- mainly -- support abortion only if the woman has been raped and wants to make that decision or in the case of incest -- if the woman deems that to be the best option for herself. Definitely it is up to the woman.
I agree that extreme circumstances such as rape and a threat to the life, (not livelihood), of the mother are something to consider. I believe the "liberal lies" in that picture are in the quotation marks.
So you will accept the murder of a baby, just because it was conceived in an act of violence, rape? Isn't that an innocent life, according to you? Where is your virtue?
There's really only one solution to this problem. It was generated through analyzing the rights of people.
The trespasser stance on abortion was generated by the understanding of the freedom of association.
Thanks for pointing out, Onusonus, that the 'liberal lies' are in quotations in the picture. Small printing and I don't get along. I don't see very good even with these glasses. Now I understand what it says.
1. They are not babies.
2. They are not innocent, they are born in sin.
3. You are placing the fetus above the life of a woman. You don't get to do that.
4. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
5. Ooops, you're a man....not qualified to discuss the issue.1. The waste bins at abortion clinics are full of body parts, not blood clots, or masses, or tumors. Instead you will see that they contain tiny elfin thorax's, a rib cage in parallel rows with tiny knobs of spine rounding upwards, translucent arms and hands, tiny heads and bodies, some pieces of legs, and other distinct body parts.
2. They are completely innocent, they are not born in sin. They are incapable of sinning and therefore are indeed completely innocent. To think otherwise would to assert that there are millions of babies who are burning in hell for lack of ability to repent of their nonexistent sins.
3. The only fetus' that threaten the life of a mother statistically come out to a few hundred annually that's a fraction of a percentage of the 1.5 million Johnnys who didn't want to wear a condom.
4. I don't like abortions and I want to see them outlawed.
5. I am a man and don't you forget it. This is what a man who doesn't shirk his responsibilities as a father looks like. When the going gets tough killing babies isn't the answer, that's the cowards way out.5. Ooops, you're a man....not qualified to discuss the issue.
What sexist drivel! Believe it or not, and like it or not, the father does have rights.He should have kept it in hs pants. How you like that sexist drivel?
The father has the right to do what? HE knows what the deal is too. He cannot carry the fetus....he cannot make her.
He should have used a condom.
Ohhh, will that be illegal too?Silly me! I forgot that contraception is only availble to men!
When we are debating making it a crime for men not to use it, then you will feel a smidgeon of what it's like to be a female under the control of tyrannical men.
Not your body, not your right, end of. Under no circumstances do you have a right to someone elses body, if you don't like it, keep your dick in your pants. That is the only thing you have a right to control, your own dick.
I think carrying a fetus to term, going though the birth process: a living hell, and giving the baby up is cruel and unusual punishment.
Much better to end it before it gets that far.
Stop punishing women for having sex! Geee, sorry--we like it too Viagra-Nation!Let us make a law forcing all males to be vasectomized. That will prevent abortions for sure, and it can always be reversed when the state says it can.
Why don't all you males show your real concern for preventing abortions and sign up? And your sons with you.
Put your money where your mouths are.Ah, reminds me of how Hitler enforced eugenics in Germany. Not unlike Margaret Sanger's "negro project".
What's the matter, only anti-abortion people can take a pass?
You really don't like abortion..do something about it on your side...it takes 2 to make a baby, step up, instead of walking away.
You take the precautions, and the blame, and the repercussions.
Oh, what's that? You're not the one to get pregnant?
Then really--you need to mind your own business.I will do something about it. I will litigate, I will sign petitions, I will support and donate to political organizations who are dedicated to upholding the constitution, and true American values such as LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I will speak out against it in written word, in churches, and in the public. Because it is the most terrible and destructive thing that a society can accept, to minimize the sanctity of life, and advocate the denial thereof.
Do you remember how ACORN went away? Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKgjCDe0BSc
That's how it is done and it can be done again to planned parenthood.And what will happen to those children...where will they end up?
Honestly, I don't get you. You say you care about children, but throw them into a life of poverty and abuse.
Your politicians want social programs CUT.
And do you KNOW what life as a ward of the state is like? Do you know anyone who has experienced it? I do. And let me just say that abuse is an understatement.
And ACORN was ended by stupid people running around with other stupid people, and blowing their mouths. Period.
It's a war on poor people and women. And they are using religion to do it.
Cause, if we want to talk about an organization that should be ended....we can start with one that covered up child sex abuse, and PROMOTED the enablers!Being poor isn't a fate worse than death. Your answer to everything seems to be either eugenics or cutting off dude's wieners. How about promoting dare I say virtue, abstinence, and self respect. Nope can't do that either, were not allowed to talk about those things in the class room because that would be counter intuitive to the liberal plan to eradicate morality, it has to be taught as a relative issue rather than teaching people about objective truths.
And ACORN was ended by their own stupidity. Sorry but giving tax advise to underage sex rings is illegal as much as you might not want it to be. The fact that you even try to defend the reprehensible actions of ACORN really says something about your character. The war on poor people started with Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood.See, here is where you are stating that your idea of morality is best for everyone. As an adult, I do not equate abstinence with virtue and self respect. Sex is fun, relaxing, and a basic human need. I do not need you to tell me, a grown woman, that I would be more "virtuous" if I refrain from having sex. Your values are not mine. I want to have sex, and I want to use birth control to avoid getting pregnant from having sex. If, by chance, I should get pregnant, it is solely my choice as to what to do about it.
You can say all you want that this issue is only about saving the life of a fetus, but by equating virtue with abstinence, as you just did, you revealed what this conversation is truly about, deep down, for many pro-lifers.It is an objective truth that liberty can not exist without virtue, something that the founding fathers of the United States knew from the beginning. Thus when they penned into law those immortal words, "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", they implanted into the hearts of the people the undeniable force of natural law. That is, the things which are evident in nature that mankind has denied each other since the first person discovered that they could exert unrighteous domain over others.
You simply can not have freedom without virtue, goodness, moral excellence, righteousness, or conformity of ones life to moral and ethical principles. In a virtuous society criminals are severely punished because their actions prey on the virtuous. But in our society you are a chump for behaving ethically. Thus more laws are passed to coerce people into behaving ethically.
Abstinence and monogamy are the epitome of virtue. They require people to take on their responsibilities as husbands and wives in order to preserve the central point to society, which is the family.
Now obviously I can't convince you that abstinence is virtuous. Since you advocate the murder of unborn babies it is quite clear that virtue does not truly exist in your frame of mind.I take full responsibility for my family, including love, loyalty, and respect toward my husband and children, as well as financial and emotional security. That does not mean that when I wasn't in a committed relationship that I felt I had to be abstinent in order to be virtuous. You are judging women based upon your own values, and expecting me and other women to live your values in order to avoid pregnancy. How dare you?
Oh, I dare. Killing babies is absolutely void of virtue no matter how you try to spin it. The fact that people hang on to extreme circumstances such as rape and death (which are stupendously low statistics), in order to justify the fact that millions of irresponsible teenagers aren't smart enough to keep it in their pants till they get married is ludicrous.
So what you are saying is a few hundred victims of violent crimes and people who's lives are at stake is comparable to the millions of people who abort babies out of shear inconvenience, because their idiot boyfriends didn't wrap it up.
Millions of people kill their children every year because it's inconvenient and disgraceful to have a kid after they've engaged in promiscuous behavior and our tax dollars have to support it. Tell me the government isn't involved in the abortion industry, and I'll show you a bridge for sale. Cheap.Fine. You admit you want to enact laws that force your values (derived from religion, I assume?) upon millions of women. According to our laws, a fetus is not a child. Therefore, abortion is not murder.
In your belief system, it is, but no one is forcing you to engage in abortion. You, however, would like to force your belief system upon those who disagree with you. Don't ever talk about religious freedom again; you have no credibility.So if a law was passed saying a fetus was a child, would abortion be murder in your eyes?
I am against abortion in almost all cases, but it is not my right to force anyone to chose what they do with their body. Just as it is not anyone else's right to choose what I do with mine. I only hope that someday, life will be important to all.
I had a friend who got his girl friend pregnant. She got an abortion because being pregnant was "inconveinent." Total self absorbtion. I did not think it was the right thing to do, but it was not my choice. I stated my opinion in a tactful manner and left it at that.
Education is always the key. The more we educate young people what the consequences of their actions may be, the less likely abortion will be an issue.No, it would not. When abortion was illegal, women found other means, didn't they?
I personally would not have an abortion unless my life was in danger, but I would never presume to tell another woman what choice she should make.Wondering a couple of things, Pretty Panther-
Seems odd to me that you would assume that values someone places on life are derived from religion. Is life not valued outside of religion?
Also the "belief system" you refer to in the "abortion is murder, abortion is not murder" argument. Why is that a belief system and not just an opinion.
Why is it not also a "belief system" (whether derived from your religion or not) being pushed upon women when they are told abortion is fine, doesn't have lasting effects, is NOT murder, and won't have long term repurcussions?
Logically, can't we make the assumption that life begins at conception and disagree without it being about a belief system?
I believe that. I do have a belief system. It is derived from my faith. It is still no less logical an argument than yours. Let's not patronize one another."Seems odd to me that you would assume that values someone places on life are derived from religion. Is life not valued outside of religion?" Where did I say that values placed on life are derived from religion? I believe that many people (not all) who refer to abortion as "murder" are doing so because they are taught by their religion that life begins at conception. I could be wrong, as I have not actually examined statistics. It has just been my experience.
"Also the "belief system" you refer to in the "abortion is murder, abortion is not murder" argument. Why is that a belief system and not just an opinion." Again, I am operating from the assumption that most (not all) people who believe that life begins at conception have adopted that belief due to their religion. While a belief system is not necessarily derived from religion, it often is in our culture. Again, I could be wrong.
"Why is it not also a "belief system" (whether derived from your religion or not) being pushed upon women when they are told abortion is fine, doesn't have lasting effects, is NOT murder, and won't have long term repurcussions?" Whoa, the only thing I have referred to as a belief system is whether or not life begins at conception. All that other stuff comes from you and I have never said it.
"Logically, can't we make the assumption that life begins at conception and disagree without it being about a belief system?" I think you are engaging in semantics now, since you admit your own assumption about life beginning at conception comes from your faith. And, sorry, a belief based upon "faith" is not necessarily logical.
I have no intention of patronizing you, as you have not yet passed any judgment on what is virtuous and what is not, as did Onusonus. He deserved to be patronized, if that is what you believe I did.No Pretty Panther-
I'm not engaging in semantics.I'm engaging in logic. And yes, I can have a faith and/or belief system and be logical at the same time. I can give you many examples.
I just think what is virtuous is something that ought to be defined. The constitution talks about being a virtuous nation. I do believe there are boundaries on what is and what is not virtuous behavior regardless of the belief system behind it. The Greeks believed this- and they believed that values and morality could be separate from religion.
Virtues, morality and goodness are not simply terms that Puritans or the bible thumpers came up with and defined. They are universally accepted as having to be present in a productive society. Again, the ancient Greeks. Our country was founded on the concept that we would heed to a system of values, morals, virtues and beliefs. It simply gave us the freedom to choose. Nowhere does it say we can be void of those things and have a thriving society.
My difficulty here is that I do think there is lack of credibility in saying that one argument(pro-life) is based on a belief system, but the other( pro-abortion) is objective and not based on a belief system. If you can tie up virtue, morality, and belief in the sanctity of life from conception, why is then the lack of virtue, morality, and belief in the sanctity of life also not qualified as a belief system?
And that is what I was referring to when I stated the belief system of the pro abortionists is to tell women that abortion was not murder, nor would it have lasting repurcussions. You didn't say that, you simply didn't recognize that side as trying to enact laws based on their "belief system"- and I think they have a definite belief system and are trying to enact laws based on it.
You say to this writer that he admits he wants to enact laws based on his belief system- and it's your opinion that because his belief system is Christianity, his ideas about what the laws should be are invalid. Would you say the same to a Jew? a Muslim? A Buddhist? They all have belief systems that guide them in what they think and about how society should be.
I would say that the pro-abortionists are trying to enact laws based on their belief system. An anti-belief system. A Godless belief system.
Wouldn't it be better to keep the religion out of it and talk about the ideas, the logic, the reasonableness of having virtue in a society? Having a structure of morality in society? Having a respect for the sanctity of life no matter where that life resides or how small? Those are debatable arguments-with or without being tied to my "belief system" . And that is what I was calling patronizing. Because I believe, because I'm a Christian, specifically, because my beliefs guide what I see as right and wrong, does not nullify my argument. You may not agree with the reasons behind why I believe what I do,and I may not agree with yours, but it doesn't matter. If our arguments are logical and reasonable and worthy of debate, then that is all that matters. Every side has a belief system. Some more obvious and easier to target. But no argument is made exclusive of a belief or system of beliefs.
That's all I was trying to say.I really am not interested in engaging in a philosophical discussion of the definition and necessity of virtue. It bores me.
I will only address this part: "If you can tie up virtue, morality, and belief in the sanctity of life from conception, why is then the lack of virtue, morality, and belief in the sanctity of life also not qualified as a belief system?"
I did not "tie up" virtue and morality with belief in the sanctity of life from conception. In fact, I reject that virtue, in the form described by Onusonus, should be part of any discussion about a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. Onusonus brought virtue into the discussion about contraception, not me. Of course, it is his personal notion of what is virtuous that he would use to judge others' actions, isn't it?Somehow we seem to be failing to communicate very effectively here. I apologize if I misrepresented what you were saying. I appreciate your willingness to clarify what you are trying to say, and I hope I made my point fairly clear, and that maybe we leave this with a little more understanding than we came in with.
Sorry if I come across as blunt, or even rude. It is common for people to fabricate points on the other side of a debate in order to make it easier to bolster their own arguments. I don't think you intentionally did so, but if you read carefully what you have said, you were arguing against a position that I did not state.
- Onusonusposted 12 years ago0
It is part of the dehumanization process to not consider the murder of a fetus the vial act that it is, but rather a good and merciful thing. The Nazis used to kill people in mass quantity when running their death camps, and the only way not to go insane during the process was to psychologically convince themselves that their victims were neither human or subhuman, just a mass of flesh to be disposed of. Compare this quote to some abortionist quotes;
"To tell the truth, one did become used to it...they were cargo. I think it started the day I first saw the Totenlager [extermination area] in Treblinka. I remember Wirth standing there, next to the pits full of black-blue corpses. It had nothing to do with humanity — it could not have. It was a mass — a mass of rotting flesh. Wirth said 'What shall we do with this garbage?' I think unconsciously that started me thinking of them as cargo....I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass. I sometimes stood on the wall and saw them in the "tube" — they were naked, packed together, running, being driven with whips." -Franz Stangl head of the Treblinka death camp, murdered over 900,000 people.
Here are a few quotes from abortionists who's job it was to lie to expectant mothers. Note how obvious it is that the abortionists were dehumanizing the fetuses by lying about their stage of development and refering to it as an "it" or a "mass", or a "blood clot".
"We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always wanted to know the sex, but we lied and said it was too early to tell. It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.'
--Abortion clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping
"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"
--Kathy Sparks
"Saline abortions have to be done in the hospital because of the complications that can arise. Not that they can't arise during other times, but more so now. The saline, a salt solution, is injected into the woman's sac, and the baby starts dying a slow, violent death. The mother feels everything, and many times it is at this point when she realizes that she really has a live baby inside her, because the baby starts fighting violently, for his or her life. He's just fighting inside because he's burning."
--Debra Harry
"One night a lady delivered and I was called to come and see her because she was 'uncontrollable.' I went into the room, and she was going to pieces; she was having a nervous breakdown, screaming and thrashing. The other patients were upset because this lady was screaming. I walked in, and here was this little saline abortion baby kicking. It had been born alive, and was kicking and moving for a little while before it finally died of those terrible burns, because the salt solution gets into the lungs and burns the lungs too. I'll tell you one thing about D & E. You never have to worry about a baby's being born alive. I won't describe D & E other than to say that, as a doctor, you are sitting there tearing, and I mean tearing- you need a lot of strength to do it- arms and legs off of babies and putting them in a stack on top of the table."
--Dr. David Brewer of Glen Ellyn Illinois This has nothing to do with Nazi's.
It's a personal freedom issue.
A self-determination issue.
And if I get pregnant, it's nothing to do with you.If we all became faithfully homosexual today, the problem would solve itself in roughly 70 years.
Abortion has been a rather sticky topic to debate with a lot of slippery slopes. I think this is really too broad of a topic. Let's be more specific ! What period of the embryo/fetus life should we consider it a child?
Hear, hear! A sane voice in this wilderness of emotion-based opinions and sparsely developed speculation! And I am base enough to think that most of the opinions and speculation would change when the embryo/fetus belongs to the opinionator/speculator.
wrong> We all know what is going on here...my pregnancy is still none of your business.
Respect life and a woman's right to care for her body. It takes two for a pregnancy to happen. Every one has an opinion but is not the point anymore. Now is a big responsibility to give life. Will the parent be able to provide for the child's needs?
Will the child be in the street begging like so many children are?
In that case respect for life would be an abortion. All of those who believe it is a sin to have an abortion, is it not a sin to bring a child into the world and not be able to provide for it's survival and education?
This is no longer a private issue world population is too large to worry about those things. Now we have to think about the excess of world population. One of you suggested have all the boys at birth be prevented from getting a girl pregnant and now with medical advances it can be reversed. When the couple is ready and able to provide for the child then they may give life.
Here is the solution for both sides.
All those against build a home for all the children. As anonymous parents they will have the responsibility to educate the the children, clothe them and feed them.
The rest of us will be responsible enough to prevent pregnancy.If you get a woman pregnant by not using contraception, you will go to jail, how's that?
That might stop abortion too.BUT the woman will still be pregnant and a child will be fatherless.
All those who are against a woman's right to choose MUST begin a home to educate and care for all those unplanned children.
LET US BEGIN A CAMPAIGN.
Bring ACORN back. What about all those women who are raped and cannot get an abortion, those children are.........what..... no, it would just increase the number of rusty coat hanger abortions, and pregnant woman beatings.
"Killing babies is absolutely void of virtue no matter how you try to spin it."
I do believe plenty of babies were killed in Operation Cast Lead....and I do believe you were for that action.
See--to MY morals, that was inexcusable murder. But you were OK with it.
Now--what do you say about that? You decide when it's ok to murder, and when you agree, it's ok!
Very typical.Don't you think you are projecting just a tad? I've never been in favor of operation cast lead, because I've never heard of it.
You still don't seem to be capable of differentiating between people who fight in defense of their freedom, their homes, their lives, and their families, and the flat out discriminate killing of babies.
Wars happen, as much as we as a society try to prevent them, they can at times be unavoidable. Abortions however, are easily avoidable yet because they have been legalized they occur on a scale with a stupendously higher body count than all the US wars combined.
But to say it isn't murder because one group of law makers has deemed it as socially acceptable is a farce.So you would gladly bring a baby into the world, only to ship them off to war, because wars just happen. You have an unusual perspective of what "freedom" means.
Operation Cast Lead was not in defense of anything. It was a brutal show of force which killed people...babies included.
And YOU said killing was never jusitifed, no matter what.
Obviously you don't believe that, as you just justified killing by war!
What I took from that is that women are not allowed to end a pregnancy, but men can kill all they want.
Discrimination. Women are second class.
ALEC is making laws behind the scense with our politicians....and getting favors in return.
Isn't this worse than ACORN?
ACORN was working for Americans...ALEC for International Corporations.
Another instance of whose virtues are virtues!!! Cause ALEC is not virtuous to me!- Lady_Eposted 12 years ago0
When a Teen, young mother, or old mother is pregnant. It affects the body and mental health. (either positively or negatively) depending on the circumstances.
This is a very sensitive issue and personally, it should come down to what the mother wants or what her and her partner wants.
I am Pro-LeaveThemBeOne of the best way to avoid living with guilt and other psychosocial issues, is for people to use form of contraceptive method (for those who have not been using any form of birth control). As for those who have been using birth control, but got pregnant because of the method was less safe, I sympathize with you all ! You guys at least believed in planned parenthood, but things just didn't turn out as planned. However, If you have to make a choice between abortion and keeping that child -- think carefully, because I have known cases where it seemed as if some people were blessed with only "one child" and unfortunately, after they have terminated the life of that child, for some strange reason they couldn't conceive again! I know that many people who tend to lean towards abortion do so simply because of socioeconomic reasons; But exhaust all other options out there,before you decide on abortion. In the case of rape, this is a real ugly and sticky situation here! Nobody wants to live with a child of a " horrible animal." This prompts me to poise this question to all women of childbearing age out there: What would you do if you were to become pregnant by a "Rapist"? This is one final thing I have to say about this debate on abortion: It's double standard, it's a tough choice and many us often say what we have to say because we are not in others shoes!
Yeah, but the R's want to take any choice away.
We would be forced to walk in theirs. Only.
Related Discussions
- 134
Do you favor planned parenthood?
by emdi 13 years ago
I am interested to know the general public opinion about planned parenthood. It is a hot topic as the government shut down is very much connected to this topic. Just one more thing to add: I found out that planned parent hood is more about funding millions for early and late term abortion...
- 15
What are your personal beliefs on abortion?
by Kristen Burns-Darling 7 years ago
What are your personal beliefs on abortion?Not the political side of whether it should or should not be legal, but how do you feel about it on a personal level? If you or your partner were faced with an unexpected pregnancy how would you feel about terminating? At what point do you believe that a...
- 25
To all pro-choicers out there, what those who are pro-lifers will
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
NEVER, EVER understand about a woman's unmitigated right to choose & control her reproductive destiny?
- 42
What are your opinions on abortion?
by Amber Verville 10 years ago
What are your opinions on abortion?
- 96
Regarding Human Conception:
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Presently, a woman has, by law, the freedom to end her pregnancy. After all, its her life and her body. Is this issue, free-choice abortion, a matter of politics? Social science/politics is about what is good for society as a whole. Is abortion good or bad in the light of what is best for...
- 143
Faux News update : America just became an anti-choice country.
by Stump Parrish 13 years ago
Did anyone get the e-mail on this?According to the Faux News network America became an anti-choice country recently. //The abortion debate has returned with vigor to Congress after many years of dormancy, and the result may be different this time around. That's because while Washington wasn't...