|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:15 AM GMT
Quote
Pro abortion say it is the woman's right to decide. Suppose the woman decide's to abort because she is a white woman who had sex with a black man and does not want a mixed race child?
Suppose she learns that the baby is a girl and she really wants a boy? So she aborts 10 female infants, zygotes, whatever, in a row? Suppose some day we get a prenatal test for gay kids? And Mother's abort them because they does not want gay kids?
We are there now, almost. If a woman aborts a baby because the child is a male, or half black, but for no other reason, we are not allowed to judge that. It is a choice. Killing a living breathing child with brain waves, which we know now start at 2 weeks, because Roe VS. Wade, based on 1960's technology says you can, does that make it right? Roe vs. Wade, dumb 1970's thinking like 8 tracks and disco. But since then, 40 miilion abortions. Probably a few Einstein's and Bill Gates and Picasso's sucked down the drain.
Why do liberals who fight so hard to save species from extinction like pup seals not care about abortion of pup humans?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:34 AM GMT
Quote
You are just itching to start a flame war with this one. I can just feel it.
I'm pro choice. It's not my body but it's not up to you nor me as to what one decides to do with their body. That's my belief system.
I'd personally like to see a plan in action where both men and woman could participate in voluntary sterilization. If I were straight I would have gotten a vasectomy. My brother did after having been pressured to marry his girlfriend whom he impregnated. After trying to make it work for 8 years they divorced, his son is 21 now and is considered a black sheep. All this because people like you belief in the pressures of honoring a life created from the "heat of the moment."
What's interesting is that people who have such stringent guidelines as to how we are to value human life have no regard for any other form of life. That's something that baffles me.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:43 AM GMT
Quote
I'm pro-life, but I'm also pro-choice. The option should be available as a safe alternative. If you make abortion illegal many women will still go to clandestine clinics to have them done.
I also think it's a woman's right to choose what goes on with her body and, ultimately, her life. She's the one who will have to raise that kid, since for the most part guys find it a lot easier to walk out when the going gets tough. (edit: ALSO, a woman who walks out on her kid is usually seen as "bad" and "unnatural". Men do this and it's like "he's a guy, he needed space". Single mothers are sluts, single dads are victims and self-sacrificing. A woman aborts, but where's the father when this happens? Usually he's NOT outside worried about the well-being of the woman he impregnated and the being that now has half of his DNA.)
You make some good points, but you're thinking of abortion as a luxury. Usually, it's not. In many cases, parents of the girl or the father of the unborn baby pressure the girl into having an abortion. Sometimes the girl feels that if anyone knows of her "error" she will be kicked out of her house or worse.
There's a lot that society has to change before demanding the banning of adoption.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:45 AM GMT
Quote
Wow. I don't even know where to start on this, because it's a bit all over the place. But, I've always been socially liberal, even when I was a Republican many years ago. Women should have control over their bodies, so the right to choose is theirs.
That said, do I take issue with those women who use abortion as a form of birth control rather than using it as a last possible measure? Absolutely. There are far too many abortions going on, and personally I'd like to see people exercise more responsibility up front than relying on abortion to get them out of their irresponsibility.
As for your trying to connect pup seals to human babies, it's way off the mark for so many reasons, but let's just use your "extinction" point. Humans are not nearing extinction. We're not even threatened. Quite the opposite, we're consuming this world's natural resources left and right, taking over habitats of other creatures and causing their extinction. If anything, there are too many humans on this planet.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:56 AM GMT
Quote
EricLA said If anything, there are too many humans on this planet. That's why I'd like to see programs for sterilization. We do it for dogs and cats. People are like animals and get caught up by their own hormones. Years ago, my geography teacher, a person who was a big disbeliever in the fact that the world is overpopulated stated that we could fit the entire world population in the state of Texas. He thought he was so clever. And I quickly responded by asking, "Well, what amount of square footage will each of the billion+ population have within this limited geography. And he dismissed me so fast - because he didn't give it any thought. Sure, we could all fit in the state of Texas and have roughly 2 square feet per human being. What he also didn't consider was the undeniable inevitability that all the resources we exhaust as populations across the globe continue to rise. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:56 AM GMT
Quote
Oh Please.
Remarks like 'there are far too many abortions going on' show a complete lack of understanding of the issue.
Having an abortion is a very tramatic event for a woman and any man who thinks that women are using abortions as a form of contraception obviously doesn't understand the procedure.
Women have abortions as a last resort, it is not an enjoyable experience.
A Woman has the right to chose, its her body, and she can do what she wants with it.
Lozx
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 9:26 AM GMT
Quote
I don't fight to save seal pups or the whales; a species' cuteness and anthropomorphic qualities won't hinder me from eating it. A danger of extinction would.
Why do I support the right of women to choose whether they want to be host to a developing human? Because carrying and giving birth to a child is risky business, can take an extraordinary toll on carrying mother, and because being told that *I* would be forced by the larger society to carry a parasite for nine months without full financial and emotional support is something that would piss me off.
If you want to end abortion, then eliminate the pre-conditions that prompt humans to have them: stigma of out-of-wedlock conception, the severe negative impact pregnancy has on the might-be-mother's financial livelihood, the lack of complete health insurance to ensure the maintenance of the pregnancy, the lack of government child support and support for mothers who put their children up for adoption, and the perspective that women are men's baby factories.
Heck, if you want to discourage abortion, change the government financial support rules to adequately reflect your baby worship, such as providing a government salary for parents.
Rendering abortion illegal is cheap (and convenient for those who do not wish to support, only control women and the financially poor), inconsistent with the ideal of equality between women and men in terms of control over their bodies, and dangerous to women's health (as criminalizing abortions fails to reduce the need for abortions).
***
The Einsteins, Gates'es, and Picassos are already being sucked down the social drain through a laughable education system increasingly dedicated toward test-taking in the name of "accountability." If your goal is promote an increase in "great persons," you're going to need a far more comprehensive series of changes.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 9:45 AM GMT
Quote
I don't think anything anyone writes or says here is going to make much of an impact on the opinion of anyone else on this topic. I'll go on record to say I'm pro-choice.
|
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Aug 21, 2008 9:46 AM GMT
Quote
muchmorethanmuscle saidYou are just itching to start a flame war with this one. I can just feel it. Yes, Muchmore, this is Triggerman trying to get everyone all riled up again. He gets off on it. He revels in his smugness, knowing that he is the only one with common sense, we are all idiots, yadda yadda yadda. His "arguments" here make as much sense as any of his other "arguments", and this time I'm just not going to bother. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 9:47 AM GMT
Quote
Your argument is flawed from the get-go
No one.... and that bares repeating no one is Pro-abortion
As President Clinton once said abortions should be available but RARE
The question isn't the things that you brought up
but what about the 16 year old girl who's been raped
at the homecoming football game
or... the 39 year old woman who had amnino and has been diagnosed with a Down's pregnancy?
or... a girl who's been repeatedly raped by her step father?
or... a the woman with a tubal pregnancy who is that baby is brought to term might very well bleed to death?
or... the mentally challenger girl in a group home who suddenly becomes pregnant?
or... the the woman in Kentucky who took fertilization drugs to get pregnant and now has eight implanted embryos?
You tell me?
You're the big Kahuna... what would you do?
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 10:03 AM GMT
Quote
[quote]
No one.... and that bares repeating no one is Pro-abortion
As President Clinton once said abortions should be available but RARE
[/quote]
I'm with GQ and pretty much everyone else that's posted, but what the hell do I know..I'm also all for euthanasia clincs.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 10:22 AM GMT
Quote
[quote][cite]GQjock said[/cite]Your argument is flawed from the get-go
No one.... and that bares repeating no one is Pro-abortion
As President Clinton once said abortions should be available but RARE
The question isn't the things that you brought up
but what about the 16 year old girl who's been raped
at the homecoming football game
or... the 39 year old woman who had amnino and has been diagnosed with a Down's pregnancy?
or... a girl who's been repeatedly raped by her step father?
or... a the woman with a tubal pregnancy who is that baby is brought to term might very well bleed to death?
or... the mentally challenger girl in a group home who suddenly becomes pregnant?
or... the the woman in Kentucky who took fertilization drugs to get pregnant and now has eight implanted embryos?
..Lets not forget all the white women that don't want a mixed baby.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 11:00 AM GMT
Quote
Apples and Oranges Barricade and Triggerman
... if it ain't a "BABY" for the rape victim
and you're willing to close your eyes to that one
IT AIN'T A BABY PERIOD
we're not talkin six months pregnancy here
you can't be just a little hypocritical here
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 12:23 PM GMT
Quote
This is not a black and white issue despite the attempts of people on both sides of the fence to paint it as such.
I only know one thing for sure. Regardless of what RJ members say, women will continue to get abortions around the world. The only question is will it be done safely or unsafely.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 12:25 PM GMT
Quote
The last thing women need is for men to tell them what they can or cannot do with their bodies. It should be their choice.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 12:29 PM GMT
Quote
Additionally, there should be a lottery of pregnant women. Those winners (or losers, depending), 50% of all pregnant women within a certain gestation period, every n months, would be the beneficiary of a choiceless abortion. It levels the playing field, somehow, and the human race lessens it's risk of producing yet more morons (you know who you are).
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 12:46 PM GMT
Quote
It. Is. Not. A. BABY.
Babies, are born.
It's a stretch to even call most abortions "fetuses" but they *are not babies.* Babies can live on their own. Until they can, they are "fetuses." Calling them "babies" is simply attempt at drama hounding to compare apple trees to grass seed.
But most abortions (and the millions upon millions of spontaneous miscarriages) are of little, largely undifferentiated balls of cells.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 12:50 PM GMT
Quote
muchmorethanmuscle saidThe last thing women need is for men to tell them what they can or cannot do with their bodies. It should be their choice. I totally agree. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 12:55 PM GMT
Quote
It's a stretch (not a joke), but imagine for a moment that MEN were the ones getting pregnant-would this topic have gone very far?
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 12:59 PM GMT
Quote
Ok, so I had this whole drawn out response and then decided... I just couldn't. It's like watching Bush on T.V. - I will simply change the channel. Ignorance.  |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 1:13 PM GMT
Quote
meninlove said
It's a stretch (not a joke), but imagine for a moment that MEN were the ones getting pregnant-would this topic have gone very far? I've tried to get pregnant in the past. Lord knows, I've tried.  |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 1:17 PM GMT
Quote
jaydub saidOk, so I had this whole drawn out response and then decided... I just couldn't. It's like watching Bush on T.V. - I will simply change the channel. Ignorance.
wow. i think you just responded, verbatim, what i was thinking. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 1:34 PM GMT
Quote
Obviously a touch subject. I think the Pro-choice people always like to bring up the same old justifications for it...what if the woman was raped...what if the mother is in danger if she carries to term...what if "this" and what if "that". see what I mean? All so they can say "see, you dont have an answer to that".
Who makes the determination when a baby inside a woman is no longer able to be aborted by her? I know there is a time when it ISN'T a woman's choice to abort any longer. Why is that? Is it maybe because it is really a life inside of her whether her pregnancy is in it's 1st week or 20th week?
Isn't there a 3rd trimester criteria or some arbitrary date, like past 60 days no more abortions? So how did that happen...where one day a baby inside a woman can be aborted and the next day "oops..you waited one day too long or 1 week too long" so now you can't have an abortion. It's circular (il)logic to me from the Pro-choice people.
Yes, it is a woman's body. And most of the time she is the one who purposely had sex which TA DA makes a baby inside of her. Thus, she did make a CHOICE. That choice created life inside of her. She should have the baby and then if she doesn't want the child, she can give it up for adoption. Is that really that hard?
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 1:58 PM GMT
Quote
bocaguyfl saidObviously a touch subject. I think the Pro-choice people always like to bring up the same old justifications for it...what if the woman was raped...what if the mother is in danger if she carries to term...what if "this" and what if "that". see what I mean? All so they can say "see, you dont have an answer to that".
Who makes the determination when a baby inside a woman is no longer able to be aborted by her? I know there is a time when it ISN'T a woman's choice to abort any longer. Why is that? Is it maybe because it is really a life inside of her whether her pregnancy is in it's 1st week or 20th week?
Isn't there a 3rd trimester criteria or some arbitrary date, like past 60 days no more abortions? So how did that happen...where one day a baby inside a woman can be aborted and the next day "oops..you waited one day too long or 1 week too long" so now you can't have an abortion. It's circular (il)logic to me from the Pro-choice people.
Yes, it is a woman's body. And most of the time she is the one who purposely had sex which TA DA makes a baby inside of her. Thus, she did make a CHOICE. That choice created life inside of her. She should have the baby and then if she doesn't want the child, she can give it up for adoption. Is that really that hard? there's no real definite for what makes a late term abortion. its pretty much relates to how viable the fetus will be outside of the mother. some strict states say 12 weeks and later is late term which is kind absurd because it implies that a baby of 13 weeks is viable outside of the womb. 25-28 weeks is the really grey area. frankly any infant born before 25 weeks gestation is going to have a really hard fight surviving if they do at all. There's actually a little of a debate going on about whether its ethical to even save these really premature babies because a lot of them don't do well at all. they have really long hospitalizations and all the issues that go with that, and only a small % actually do well after the age of 6. it creates this huge burden on the family, and they get this false sense of hope. a millions dollars ( no exaggeration) in NICU stays and rehab and home nursing services later and the kids still not doing well. I don't think anyone likes the idea of abortions taking place, but as guy its not my place to tell a woman what to do with her body. besides its that or force the woman to have the baby and put it into an over burdened social services system where he'll get lost in the system anyway. or seek out a dark alley back room abortion. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 2:00 PM GMT
Quote
Many, many problems with this original post, and I don't feel like getting into the obvious flame war, but let's take just one nondebatable issue:
"Killing a living breathing child with brain waves, which we know now start at 2 weeks, because Roe VS. Wade, based on 1960's technology says you can, does that make it right?"
You actually think it's breathing? The womb is a fluid-filled environment, where oxygen diffuses across the placenta from the mother's blood to the developing embryo/fetus' blood. (Mammalian fetuses actually have a different form of hemoglobin than they do later in life, specifically because the higher oxygen binding efficiency is necessary to get oxygen from the mother's blood supply.) A very large part of the reason for slapping a child just after birth is to trigger it to start breathing.
|
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Aug 21, 2008 2:17 PM GMT
Quote
Barricade said[quote][cite]GQjock said[/cite]Your argument is flawed from the get-go
No one.... and that bares repeating no one is Pro-abortion
As President Clinton once said abortions should be available but RARE
The question isn't the things that you brought up
but what about the 16 year old girl who's been raped
at the homecoming football game
or... the 39 year old woman who had amnino and has been diagnosed with a Down's pregnancy?
or... a girl who's been repeatedly raped by her step father?
or... a the woman with a tubal pregnancy who is that baby is brought to term might very well bleed to death?
or... the mentally challenger girl in a group home who suddenly becomes pregnant?
or... the the woman in Kentucky who took fertilization drugs to get pregnant and now has eight implanted embryos?
..Lets not forget all the white women that don't want a mixed baby.
Then they shouldn't be banging black guys. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 2:23 PM GMT
Quote
A woman should be allowed an abortion any time during her pregnacy and for any reason. All people, not potential people, have a right to control their body. Just because a woman becomes pregnant doesn't mean that she has an obligation to sacrifice her right to her body. Other people have no say in whether she needs to peoduce another person because people are not slaves.
To answer the original post, if a woman were to abort for eugenic reasons, her aweful reasons would not make the principle on which abortion is permisible invalid. A woman should not be obliged to any other person because she is olny responible for her living on her values not submitting to the standards of others even if her standard is irrational.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 2:33 PM GMT
Quote
Triggerman saidPro abortion say it is the woman's right to decide. Suppose the woman decide's to abort because she is a white woman who had sex with a black man and does not want a mixed race child?
Suppose she learns that the baby is a girl and she really wants a boy? So she aborts 10 female infants, zygotes, whatever, in a row? Suppose some day we get a prenatal test for gay kids? And Mother's abort them because they does not want gay kids?
We are there now, almost. If a woman aborts a baby because the child is a male, or half black, but for no other reason, we are not allowed to judge that. It is a choice. Killing a living breathing child with brain waves, which we know now start at 2 weeks, because Roe VS. Wade, based on 1960's technology says you can, does that make it right? Roe vs. Wade, dumb 1970's thinking like 8 tracks and disco. But since then, 40 miilion abortions. Probably a few Einstein's and Bill Gates and Picasso's sucked down the drain.
Why do liberals who fight so hard to save species from extinction like pup seals not care about abortion of pup humans? Just read your profile. Is this your idea of a "well-reasoned" argument against abortion?  |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 2:48 PM GMT
Quote
Triggerman saidPro abortion say it is the woman's right to decide. Suppose the woman decide's to abort because she is a white woman who had sex with a black man and does not want a mixed race child?
Suppose she learns that the baby is a girl and she really wants a boy? So she aborts 10 female infants, zygotes, whatever, in a row? Suppose some day we get a prenatal test for gay kids? And Mother's abort them because they does not want gay kids?
We are there now, almost. If a woman aborts a baby because the child is a male, or half black, but for no other reason, we are not allowed to judge that. It is a choice. Killing a living breathing child with brain waves, which we know now start at 2 weeks, because Roe VS. Wade, based on 1960's technology says you can, does that make it right? Roe vs. Wade, dumb 1970's thinking like 8 tracks and disco. But since then, 40 miilion abortions. Probably a few Einstein's and Bill Gates and Picasso's sucked down the drain.
Why do liberals who fight so hard to save species from extinction like pup seals not care about abortion of pup humans? Then that women would be a horrible, horrible person. But that doesn't change the fact that it is HER body and HER right to choice. Should she abort for any of those reasons? No! But that doesnt mean i wont support the right for her to do so. You could go on listing specifics for either side all day, but at the end of that, it's the woman who has the fetus growing inside her, and it is her decision to abort; whether it's legal or not, she still must make this choice. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 3:07 PM GMT
Quote
This line of thinking is the same that bars us from having equal protections under the law.
Someone from a majority who has never, and can not ever, experience a situation deems it "immoral", and proceeds to make decisions for the minority.
It should be the womans choice; middle aged, upper-middle class, men should have nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 3:35 PM GMT
Quote
I'm all for abortion. I think my 19 year old half-brother should be aborted.
What I have issues with is "unplanned" pregnancies that seem designed to receive an 18 year economic stimulus package from the man. I think if financial support was legally required to be agreed upon by both parties prior the end of the first trimester, there'd be a giant, 3-month spike in abortions and then a serious down turn both in abortions and women who were willing to put out without protection.
It'd certainly be interesting to see how many women were willing to do as they please with there own bodies without financial incentive.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 4:30 PM GMT
Quote
What has always bothered me about this debate is how the right-wing in this country has focused mainly on the question of when life exactly begins. That has obscured I think a more important issue: what happens after birth? In other words, celebrating life by honoring the well being of the baby should be the focus of when we discuss this issue. I love the following from Michael Lerner, author of the "Left Hand of God" (for more info on this you can go to: www.spiritualprogressives.org or www.myspace.com/spiritualprogressives). Here's the quote from him:
"Make it safe, legal, and rare … And make childbearing safe, economically supported, and surrounded by a loving community that celebrates the mystery and miracle of life and that honors and rewards the parent or parents who have undertaken the difficult and beautiful task of raising children."
I couldn't have said it better.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 5:29 PM GMT
Quote
Laurence saidOh Please.
Remarks like 'there are far too many abortions going on' show a complete lack of understanding of the issue.
Having an abortion is a very tramatic event for a woman and any man who thinks that women are using abortions as a form of contraception obviously doesn't understand the procedure.
Women have abortions as a last resort, it is not an enjoyable experience.
A Woman has the right to chose, its her body, and she can do what she wants with it.
Lozx
Lozx, I don't agree. I think for a great many women abortion has become a more casual experience. Yes, I'm sure for a majority of women abortion remains a traumatizing, once or infrequent occasion in their lives. But, increasingly women are having multiple abortions. If it's so traumatizing, why put themselves in the situation more than once? That's what I don't understand. However, let me make clear, that I don't believe this is an issue that can be legislated. A woman should not be limited to the number of abortions she may have, regardless of my thoughts on the matter. I think efforts should be made at the front end of the issue with better sex education. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 5:45 PM GMT
Quote
Like many other issues, its really none of anyones business what a woman is doing with her body. If she has 30 abortions, that is her issue to deal with. In reality, most women will not do that. Very few use it as a form of birth control.
Of course its not a great thing and people should be more responsible, but I will always support the right for a woman to make a choice.
There must be some form of population control - better education, bribes, force?. We are seeing now on the planet what is happening to our resources. We cant have billions of more people running around. We cant even take care of what we have now. It's basic biology and ecology. In the coming decades we will be seeing this becoming an issue. Perhaps China style control on how many babies are born? Whether we like it or not, do anything or not, nature at some point will set the limits on any popualtion that exceeds what resources are available to it. Liberal, conservative, does not matter.
But best to focus on your body, your life, surrounding yourself with like kinds of people, and not sit around mulling over what other people are doing with their lives and bodies.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:12 PM GMT
Quote
DiverScience saidIt. Is. Not. A. BABY.
Babies, are born.
It's a stretch to even call most abortions "fetuses" but they *are not babies.* Babies can live on their own. Until they can, they are "fetuses." Calling them "babies" is simply attempt at drama hounding to compare apple trees to grass seed.
But most abortions (and the millions upon millions of spontaneous miscarriages) are of little, largely undifferentiated balls of cells. I strongly disagree. A Fetus is an unborn baby, but it's a living breathing human nonetheless. That being said, this is such a complicated issue, and one that will likely NEVER be solved because there is simply so much passion on both sides of the issue. Personally, I am pro-life. Still, it can be very complicated in instances of rape, incest, threat to the mother's life, etc., but where do we draw the line when it comes to ending an unborn baby's life? It's just not an issue that will likely ever be solved. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:14 PM GMT
Quote
Hmm, it is perculiar that the introduction to this thread starts off with the supposition that a woman may decide to abort because she "had sex with a black man and does not want a mixed race child." Really, we can only go up from the gutter, people.
I'd like to merely suggest that until the gov. is ready to support mothers socially and economically, there's really no room for debate. The laissez-fair attitude some take to this issue/to the issue of women's reproductive rights is quite revolting...proving that gay men are quite un-exempt from the ignorant misogyny of their heterosexual counterparts.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:16 PM GMT
Quote
If there is such a push against abortion, there should be a means to fix the situation. The reason a woman tends to abort is because she doesn't want the child or doesn't have the means to take care of him/her, not because the child will be black/gay/whatever. There needs to be an alternative, you know, like allowing gays to adopt and increasing funding in adoption systems so that adoptions can happen faster than waiting years upon years.
It's total bullshit when half the people who are pro-life aren't out there adopting the non-aborted children.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:23 PM GMT
Quote
I'm pro-abortion and I'm pro-life. Who isn't pro-life?
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:25 PM GMT
Quote
Jackal69 said
I'd like to merely suggest that until the gov. is ready to support mothers socially and economically, there's really no room for debate. This is also complicated because where do we draw the line? How many moms are out there having babies (make that getting pregnant) simply because they are being irresponsible? Forget those who are victims of rape, etc. I'm talking about the ones who knowingly are out there having unprotected sex, end up getting pregnant, and then decide they'll just go end the pregnancy. It should not be so easy. Get responsible. STOP having unprotected sex because there can be consequences. I was watching this documentary the other day about Darfur and the horrible situation of all the starving people there and their plight, and it was heartbreaking. But, that said, you also see all these young mothers with multiple babies. All I could think of was "STOP HAVING BABIES FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!". |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:26 PM GMT
Quote
"I'm pro-abortion and I'm pro-life. Who isn't pro-life?"
Executioners? Or, to pull from another thread, there appear to be some on this site who would assume that supporters of large-scale conventional agriculture aren't...
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:29 PM GMT
Quote
At least I'm consistent...I'm against abortion AND the death penalty...and my OPINION has NOTHING to do with religious beliefs.
I've always struggled with the issue of abortion. I remember watching a documentary several years ago about the first open heart surgery conducted on a human in the womb.
I remember watching as the doctor made an incision into the womb and this little tiny arm and hand popped out.
From that moment on, I knew what I saw was a living breathing human being and not something to be sucked out with some tool at the request of the mother.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:30 PM GMT
Quote
Jackal69 said... The laissez-fair attitude some take to this issue/to the issue of women's reproductive rights is quite revolting...proving that gay men are quite un-exempt from the ignorant misogyny of their heterosexual counterparts. Unfortunately, some of the worst misogyny I've witnessed in my life has come from gay men. You'd think gay men would better understand the oppression of others, whether based on race or gender, but that's not always the case. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:32 PM GMT
Quote
bocaguyfl saidYes, it is a woman's body. And most of the time she is the one who purposely had sex which TA DA makes a baby inside of her. Thus, she did make a CHOICE. That choice created life inside of her. She should have the baby and then if she doesn't want the child, she can give it up for adoption. Is that really that hard? I don't know. You tell us when was the last time YOU got pregnant when you didn't want to (for whatever reason), were guilted into carrying the baby to term, and then gave it away? |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:34 PM GMT
Quote
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:41 PM GMT
Quote
People have been aborting pregnancies for centuries -- since the beginning of time. I think as a male you don't really have much say in a womans right to choose or not to choose.
Its a flawed system. But I do believe the legal right to abort a pregnancy should still be there for the situations that it would benefit.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:41 PM GMT
Quote
TigerTim saidI'm pro-abortion and I'm pro-life. Who isn't pro-life? Exactly. Which is why the correct terminology is pro-choice and anti-choice. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:42 PM GMT
Quote
EricLA saidJackal69 said... The laissez-fair attitude some take to this issue/to the issue of women's reproductive rights is quite revolting...proving that gay men are quite un-exempt from the ignorant misogyny of their heterosexual counterparts.
Unfortunately, some of the worst misogyny I've witnessed in my life has come from gay men. You'd think gay men would better understand the oppression of others, whether based on race or gender, but that's not always the case.
You're not seriously comparing the plight of the gay man fighting for equal rights vs. the plight of the unborn child's right not to have its life ended???? |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:53 PM GMT
Quote
Humans are at no risk of going extinct.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 6:56 PM GMT
Quote
I say we all get pregnant and then abort in order to better understand the process and the psychological consequences. It will be a bonding experience! =D
Or we can have a lottery and half of us will abort and the other will have the baby and we'll share and compare experiences.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:06 PM GMT
Quote
At the risk of igniting the flame war proper, how does one maintain an anti-abortion position on the grounds of the sanctity of life while also maintaining a pro-war position; specifically, is it possible to hold the latter and remain consistent with the view of human life as sacred?
At what point does life's sacrality give into life's pragmatism?
And, for that matter, where does all of this sacredness for the lives of other humans go once they're out of the fetus / adorable baby stage? Shouldn't this zeal convert to support for, say, health care for all children?
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:08 PM GMT
Quote
xanadude saidbocaguyfl saidYes, it is a woman's body. And most of the time she is the one who purposely had sex which TA DA makes a baby inside of her. Thus, she did make a CHOICE. That choice created life inside of her. She should have the baby and then if she doesn't want the child, she can give it up for adoption. Is that really that hard?
I don't know. You tell us when was the last time YOU got pregnant when you didn't want to (for whatever reason), were guilted into carrying the baby to term, and then gave it away? Gay guys get pregnant all the time--it's called contracting an STD. But we're fortunate: we can get rid of most STDs with a pill or a shot. One visit to the doctor and voilà--the baby's gone! Women, on the other hand, do not have that option when they get pregnant. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:12 PM GMT
Quote
BlkMuscleGent said
Gay guys get pregnant all the time--it's called contracting an STD.
That's kinda harsh. Being pregnant is not like getting a disease. I mean, they are both caused by having unprotected sex, but that doesn't mean they're the same. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:18 PM GMT
Quote
CuriousJockAZ saidEricLA saidJackal69 said... The laissez-fair attitude some take to this issue/to the issue of women's reproductive rights is quite revolting...proving that gay men are quite un-exempt from the ignorant misogyny of their heterosexual counterparts.
Unfortunately, some of the worst misogyny I've witnessed in my life has come from gay men. You'd think gay men would better understand the oppression of others, whether based on race or gender, but that's not always the case.
You're not seriously comparing the plight of the gay man fighting for equal rights vs. the plight of the unborn child's right not to have its life ended???? I just thought of something. What if the legalization of gay marriage and the continued legalization of abortion were both on the line, and you could have either but not both?
Would you go for gay marriage, thus leaving women to roast, so to speak?
My answer: I wouldn't. I would fight endlessly for a woman's right to choose, even if it resulted in not being able to marry a man legally. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:24 PM GMT
Quote
Well, to be fair, it's not inherently contradictory of people to oppose abortion and yet be pro war or pro death penalty. There's a logical middle ground between all and nothing being sacred. It's entirely internally consistent to argue that fetuses and babies are innocent, and thus to be protected, while certain criminal have given up their claims to life (in the case of the death penalty), or that a country has lost its claim on peace for a number of possible reasons (depending on who you're selling to, good choices are either the funding terrorist/developing weapons of mass destruction angle, or else the human right infringements/genocide angle) and thus should be brought in line by force if needed--preferably concentrating the force on the armed soldiers and minimizing the civilian casualties when possible.
Don't get me wrong: I'm personally pro choice, and I think the final decision needs to rest with the pregnant woman. But I also recognize that for the individual who truly believes that the wonders of conception carry with it the full status of personhood and the moral, ethical, and legal responsibilities that come with it, outlawing abortion is an overriding moral concern. That person and I have reached different positions based upon starting from different underlying beliefs, but that doesn't mean I can't see the internal logic of a position with which I happen to disagree. As a simple thought experiment, imagine you were placed into a society where it was legal to kill a child up to a year after its birth. Most likely, you yourself would find this concept repugnant, and would not be content let others say it is a private matter over which you shouldn't try to legislate morality. And you might well protest against this procedure and try to change the law. Conceptually, this is very similar to what many people who are firmly opposed to the legality of abortion feel. Just because I think they're wrong, and that the defining characteristics that make humanity worthy of special protection are part of a developmental pathway rather than an off/on switch of conception, doesn't mean that I can't appreciate what they feel and why it's such an important issue to them even if it doesn't directly concern them.
And I still say you shouldn't call something which isn't breathing "breathing". Collapsed lungs and a lack of air make it pretty clear that breathing isn't going to go on in the uterus.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 7:24 PM GMT
Quote
CuriousJockAZ saidEricLA saidJackal69 said... The laissez-fair attitude some take to this issue/to the issue of women's reproductive rights is quite revolting...proving that gay men are quite un-exempt from the ignorant misogyny of their heterosexual counterparts.
Unfortunately, some of the worst misogyny I've witnessed in my life has come from gay men. You'd think gay men would better understand the oppression of others, whether based on race or gender, but that's not always the case.
You're not seriously comparing the plight of the gay man fighting for equal rights vs. the plight of the unborn child's right not to have its life ended???? This is the age-old argument, where we could round and round. It depends on what your definition of a child is. I do not define a fetus as a child. I do not define a child as conception. A child comes further down the line. If you do define a child as existing at conception, then you're entitled to believe that. But, my statement above was not about comparing "the plight of the gay man fighting for equal rights vs. the plight of the unborn child's right not to have its life ended," my comment was about the ability of a gay man, based on his experiences being oppressed, to empathize with women, people of color, and other minorities. |
|
|
Aug 21, 2008 8:19 PM GMT
Quote
...but then the more specific argument (of the innocence of fetuses and newborns vis-a-vis the guilt of criminals) should be offered in the discussion rather than assumed under a more generalized "sacrality of life" argument. You include "preferably" with regards to minimizing human casualties; what then when the anti-choice & pro-war party shows little to no apparent regard for the innocent casualties of the war? (another lack of specificity problem?) As for understanding the alternative perspective of "life begins at conception and must be protected until it fails itself"...I have felt sympathy and empathy for it; however, I grew tired of being Mr. Understanding to its proponents (specifically when I no longer found understanding on their part for my position). I feel that it is a conflict I'm no longer interested in downplaying when discussing or arguing. As for the thought experiment: while that society's practice is disheartening, I'd work toward persuading those parents considering pedocide to give their offspring to me, with due compensation to them for the child (essentially buying the child). Then I work toward securing those children out of that society, to prompt a brain and workforce drain that would strengthen an outside society at the cost of original society. Of course, there might be those parents who did not want to sell their children and yet wanted to kill them. I'd work my hardest toward persuading them and eventually work on methods of tricking pedicidal parents into thinking their children were dead. MSUBioNerd saidWell, to be fair, it's not inherently contradictory of people to oppose abortion and yet be pro war or pro death penalty. There's a logical middle ground between all and nothing being sacred. It's entirely internally consistent to argue that fetuses and babies are innocent, and thus to be protected, while certain criminal have given up their claims to life (in the case of the death penalty), or that a country has lost its claim on peace for a number of possible reasons (depending on who you're selling to, good choices are either the funding terrorist/developing weapons of mass destruction angle, or else the human right infringements/genocide angle) and thus should be brought in line by force if needed--preferably concentrating the force on the armed soldiers and minimizing the civilian casualties when possible.
Don't get me wrong: I'm personally pro choice, and I think the final decision needs to rest with the pregnant woman. But I also recognize that for the individual who truly believes that the wonders of conception carry with it the full status of personhood and the moral, ethical, and legal responsibilities that come with it, outlawing abortion is an overriding moral concern. That person and I have reached different positions based upon starting from different underlying beliefs, but that doesn't mean I can't see the internal logic of a position with which I happen to disagree. As a simple thought experiment, imagine you were placed into a society where it was legal to kill a child up to a year after its birth. Most likely, you yourself would find this concept repugnant, and would not be content let others say it is a private matter over which you shouldn't try to legislate morality. And you might well protest against this procedure and try to change the law. Conceptually, this is very similar to what many people who are firmly opposed to the legality of abortion feel. Just because I think they're wrong, and that the defining characteristics that make humanity worthy of special protection are part of a developmental pathway rather than an off/on switch of conception, doesn't mean that I can't appreciate what they feel and why it's such an important issue to them even if it doesn't directly concern them.
And I still say you shouldn't call something which isn't breathing "breathing". Collapsed lungs and a lack of air make it pretty clear that breathing isn't going to go on in the uterus. |
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 1:54 AM GMT
Quote
I like what muchmorethanmuscle and Mikesw said about population control. Really, the main reason why I support abortion rights is that it is a form of population control. Even though unwanted pregnancies can happen to anyone, I think it's especially burdensome when it happens to poor people. Take the inner city for example. Teens get pregnant, women have multiple kids with multiple men, men don't stick around, women can't take care of them, go on state-funded welfare, can't raise the kids, so they grow up to commit crimes, etc...
But putting the cycles of poverty argument aside, one day the world WILL reach itscaring capacity. And even though this site has people from around the world, specifically talking my home country the USA, I think abortion rights along with the morning after pills, sterilization (good idea muchmore), quicker adoptions of native-born children and limiting if not prohibiting adoptions of foreign children (not saying they're bad, but i think we should take care of our own kids first), would all help ensure that the USA doesn't grow so fast that it can't feed itself, which I guess quite possibly could happen to China, India, Indonesia, etc...
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 2:02 AM GMT
Quote
The bottom line is that it's her body. If she can stick a coat hanger up there and do the job, she should probably just be able to see a professional and have it done in the safest possible manner.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 2:38 AM GMT
Quote
The Supreme Court made their decision on Roe vs wade for a reason. There was a thriving black market back alley abortion industry all across our country. We were using a great deal of resources to stop the abortions and it barely made a dent. Plenty of young ladies were dying from these procedures. It's like the war on drugs, prostitution or underage drinking. Just because we label something a crime, it doesn't prevent it from happening.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 2:54 AM GMT
Quote
MuslDrew saidThe Supreme Court made their decision on Roe vs wade for a reason. There was a thriving black market back alley abortion industry all across our country. We were using a great deal of resources to stop the abortions and it barely made a dent. Plenty of young ladies were dying from these procedures. It's like the war on drugs, prostitution or underage drinking. Just because we label something a crime, it doesn't prevent it from happening. Yes, and regulating and restricting types of abortions (such as the "throw in a bucket of acid" method) has led to much better results. HOWEVER, I still think it's murder. I'm not going to say it's OK, but I'm also not going to stand in the way of people who want to take that option legally and reduce the amount of trauma in their life by doing it right. I do wish we could do it in a more humane way (hypocritic as it is). Cutting open and sucking out the brain is just a bit too much to swallow when thinking about it. |
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 3:13 AM GMT
Quote
NickoftheNorth said
And, for that matter, where does all of this sacredness for the lives of other humans go once they're out of the fetus / adorable baby stage? Shouldn't this zeal convert to support for, say, health care for all children? This is such a good point that I've pondered in the past. It's such a big deal and everyone loves a baby. Well, then perhaps show some tenderness to the man or woman next to you that was once a baby. It seems like this affection simply dries up once you're no longer helpless and can wipe your own ass. |
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 3:13 AM GMT
Quote
The Roe v Wade decision was about privacy. In your person and papers. They ruled for privacy, in that a government could not intervene in an issue that was privately discussed between a woman and her doctor. A consequence of this decision (and the genesis of it) was the legalization of abortions.
No government can tell a woman how she is to tend to her body, or require a doctor to violate their privilege.
The OP casts this straw man (pro-abortion) as something profane and immoral. How holy of him. Few serious people are pro-abortion. In fact, even the words "pro-choice" are an obfuscation of the issue, meant to demonize those on that side of the issue. I'm going to clarify the language to say pro-privacy.
I support that the woman has a right to care for her body as she sees fit. Pregnancy doesn't invalidate her rights. It's a sad affair that a fetus will be aborted with her choice, but the alternative is making her a ward of the government, and her baby too.
Until the OP feels like financing the medical care of the woman and the fetus (and eventually the baby), he should come off of his horse. What, we should imprison pregnant women who don't want their baby? Force-feed them and chain them up until their baby comes to term? Yeah, that'll happen.
Fund condom drives, Planned Parenthood, the pill. Abortions will become so rare. This is the best alternative. Cheaper than imprisonment and orphanages.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 3:25 AM GMT
Quote
People aren't always going to wear condoms. That's just a waste of effort.
I think gynecologists should be able to volunteer in a program to perform procedures like tube tying or medical doctors perform vasectomies on men. Instead of being like China where you get penalized for having more than one baby we could have incentives for people who volunteer for sterilization. I'm not sure what they would be at the moment.
If I were straight I'd do it. We do it to cats and dogs and other pets. Sometimes I go shopping and I see all these foreign women who have had like 5 children on American soil as a way to stay in the United States I get wrapped up in how many times her offspring will multiply and so on and so on.
It's madness how people pump out so many babies. Good luck trying to send them all to a reputable and safe school, and feeding and clothing them.
I know I got sidetracked but sterilization would eliminate the possible need for an abortion. Screw all this sanctimonious crap about how premarital sex is bad. People always have, still do and will continue to have sex and get caught up in the heat of the moment and wind up with a "surprise" that they didn't think about beforehand.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 3:46 AM GMT
Quote
To the original poster, pro-choice is not pro-abortion, but what it says, pro-choice. If a woman decides to abort a child base upon race, sexuality, or whatever other reason, that is her choice. its not to say that its right or that i agree with her, but who am i to tell her that she cannot make the decision that she feels is best for her. it is her body and i do not think that anyone else has the right to tell her what to do with it (within reason).
to the second part of your question, the reason liberals fight so hard for issues such as these is because liberals understand that once you open up the door to taking away one right, then you open the door for multiple rights of yours to start disappearing.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 4:03 AM GMT
Quote
I'm just glad my mother didn't abort me...or my sister who is still alive and graduated high school this past may...wait...she was supposed to die like 12 years ago according to one post because she was a premature birth...also it's not the governments responsibility to pay for the mistakes of one person what would that be called? Accidental birth insurance?...after all this is said and done I am pro-choice...I do believe that a woman should be given that right...but when I sit down in the voting booth and I stare at that box to vote...I can never bring myself to vote for someone who would allow the murder of a baby...I seem to have this problem of having the mind of a Democrat and the heart/soul whatever you wanna call it of a Republican...
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 4:19 AM GMT
Quote
While a women can fall pregnant from a one night stand, and then hold the male up for financial ransom, all rights are not that of the women. For this to be so, alimony must me stopped immediately. So not all rights become the woman's, but the responsibility too, financial, and in all other matters..
But since this living thing, swims in the man first, this parasite, dose not Solly belong to the women, so not all rights can ever be the women's, for this living thing attached to her, belongs to another.
Yet the world already suffers from irresponsible breeding, and so do these children, imagine how much more would suffer, if there was no other alternative but to exterminate, something already unwanted, and unloved.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 5:16 AM GMT
Quote
Well I think a woman should have the right to choose whether she wants the baby or not. However, that doesn't mean I'm agree with taking away a life or a potential life like it was nothing. Having said that, people should really think carefully before choosing the abortion path, don't treat it as a way to escape your responsibilities.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 5:24 AM GMT
Quote
Pattison saidWhile a women can fall pregnant from a one night stand
LOL...I love the new colloquial usage of your verb formation for pregnancy. I just love it. My sister fell pregnant. My friend fell pregnant. Future tense: You will fall pregnant.....  |
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 5:30 AM GMT
Quote
Pattison said
But since this living thing, swims in the man first, this parasite, dose not Solly belong to the women, so not all rights can ever be the women's, for this living thing attached to her, belongs to another.
HALF of this living thing swims in the man first. HALF. And it's funny because at times abortions are left to be decided only by the woman because the father runs away as if running from the plague. Or the guy pressures her into having an abortion. It'd be interesting to know how and if the number of abortions would change if the decision was left to the guys, understanding that if they chose to not have an abortion, they wouldn't be able to walk out on the kid/teen/adult for any reason. What's been bugging me about this thread is that several people see women as this Witch-of-the-West-type characters, willing to kill as many babies as they are impregnated with, no matter the circumstances. These evil incarnates also itch to trick guys into impregnating them to then abort their children? I'm sorry, but if a girl wants to have a guy's baby in order to force him to marry her, or get money from him, wouldn't it make more sense to actually have the baby? It's not like a girl/woman is all "MMhh... I'm kinda BORED today... I think I will have unprotected sex to get pregnant and then have an abortion. They're like the new lypo! All my friends will be jealous!" Srsly, people. |
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 5:03 PM GMT
Quote
But that's the typical right wing knee jerk response... and think later
women do not use abortion as a contraceptive
they don't have one abortion after another
and If you believe that to be true...
You are woefully uninformed
abortions are not something people enter into lightly and they shouldn't
but to make the woman or the doctor performing the procedure "evil"
That makes it easier for them to take away civil rights and say the things that they do
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 5:21 PM GMT
Quote
Triggerman saidPro abortion say it is the woman's right to decide. Suppose the woman decide's to abort because she is a white woman who had sex with a black man and does not want a mixed race child?
Suppose she learns that the baby is a girl and she really wants a boy? So she aborts 10 female infants, zygotes, whatever, in a row? Suppose some day we get a prenatal test for gay kids? And Mother's abort them because they does not want gay kids?
We are there now, almost. If a woman aborts a baby because the child is a male, or half black, but for no other reason, we are not allowed to judge that. It is a choice. Killing a living breathing child with brain waves, which we know now start at 2 weeks, because Roe VS. Wade, based on 1960's technology says you can, does that make it right? Roe vs. Wade, dumb 1970's thinking like 8 tracks and disco. But since then, 40 miilion abortions. Probably a few Einstein's and Bill Gates and Picasso's sucked down the drain.
Why do liberals who fight so hard to save species from extinction like pup seals not care about abortion of pup humans? Ill only touch on your last question. maybe because there are 6 billion pup humans on the planet and only a few thousand (estimate) siberian tigers. |
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 5:36 PM GMT
Quote
It's already been said before, but it bears repeating:
Who the hell ever said "pro-choice" is the same as "pro-abortion?" I feel that it's ignorant to equate the two, because they are not the same. After all, doesn't "pro-choice" also mean allowing people the freedom to make the decision NOT to have an abortion just as much as it does invokes the freedom to make the decision to have one? To equate it with "pro-abortion" is just as ignorant as assuming that everyone who is pro-choice just thinks of abortion as another form of birth control. I don't know anyone who is pro-choice who has ever said that or even intimated it. It's people who equate the two that are the sandpaper on my soul when it comes to this topic; they trouble me more than this troubling issue itself.
And what the hell does abortion have to do with gay men's fitness?
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 5:54 PM GMT
Quote
NickOfTheNorthI don't fight to save seal pups or the whales; a species' cuteness and anthropomorphic qualities won't hinder me from eating it. A danger of extinction would. Very well said. Triggerman's comparison of babies to seal pups is simply an appeal to emotion not to logic, since the factors affecting the reasons why people care about those two issues are vastly different from each other. Triggerman's reasoning: Seal Pups are cute = Babies are cute, hence their issues are the same. TriggermanSuppose she learns that the baby is a girl and she really wants a boy? So she aborts 10 female infants, zygotes, whatever, in a row? Suppose some day we get a prenatal test for gay kids? And Mother's abort them because they does not want gay kids?
We are there now, almost. If a woman aborts a baby because the child is a male, or half black, but for no other reason, we are not allowed to judge that. It is a choice. Killing a living breathing child with brain waves, which we know now start at 2 weeks, because Roe VS. Wade, based on 1960's technology says you can, does that make it right? Roe vs. Wade, dumb 1970's thinking like 8 tracks and disco. But since then, 40 miilion abortions. Probably a few Einstein's and Bill Gates and Picasso's sucked down the drain. What if she has 3 years of college to go through? What if she was raped? What if the guy dumped her and she's left to deal with it alone? What if her parents will disown her? What if everyone laughs at her and drives her to suicide? What if the baby is deformed? What if the father is a relative? As for the Einstein and Picasso argument, think of the other way around, what if the child saved turns out to be psychotic? It's not so simple as you painted it, and women can't abort fetuses that easily. You make it sound like whores do it in lieu of contraceptives and line up every two weeks at the abortion clinic. I would infinitely prefer it for a woman to bear the baby and then give it up for adoption (as in the movie Juno, as others said, everybody is pro-life) if she really doesn't want it, but yeah, it's their choice and I respect that. The ~6 months of visible pregnancy plus the social impact of teenage pregnancy (the ostracization which is actually brought on by CONSERVATIVES) can destroy a woman's future. And how many of you can actually remember being inside a womb? Even your first few years? Nobody. Most (if not all) of people who claim to do that are actually doing it from false memories. Fetuses are more or less tabula rasas. The brain size and development alone is enough to know that fetuses (thankfully) do not even know their death. The sympathy generated by pictures of mangled fetal corpses is simply humans superimposing their own emotions over something that looks like them. The same way we say the loggerheads cry when they lay their eggs because they're saying goodbye to their children (when they're actually just saline excretions). Until you actually know what it's like to carry babies, your own views on it are simply irrelevant. It's a female issue. |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Aug 22, 2008 5:56 PM GMT
Quote
wrong
It's a human issue
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 6:01 PM GMT
Quote
I actually think this is a stupid subject to bring up on a gay man's website.
1st off, I will never have to face an abortion, due to the fact that I don't screw women..... anymore.
2nd, if my daughter had to face this issue, I would be there for love and support, but it would be her's to deal with.
This is a womans issue, I think the orginal poster just wanted to be a drama queen and stur up shit.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 6:02 PM GMT
Quote
JockMyka saidwrong
It's a human issue Sure, tell that to the sons of bitches who knock up their underage girlfriends then run off to la la land. Chauvinism in the guise of concern over new life? Males can still loom over women, hands over hips and say You MUST have that child, I don;t care about you or how you're gonna raise it, but you MUST have it! Because I'm the man, and I make the decisions for you! |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
Aug 22, 2008 7:32 PM GMT
Quote
No, it's about human life - period.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 7:37 PM GMT
Quote
JockMyka saidNo, it's about human life - period. You're not even gonna discuss why? Which human life you're talking about? And why if human life's so important do republicans love war so much? Or why people can reduce casualties to mere numbers? Vilify all women who undergo abortion as killers then call pregnant single mothers sluts? Like... End of discussion, honey! I'm the man of the house! kinda thing? |
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 9:24 PM GMT
Quote
AshLeon saidPattison said
But since this living thing, swims in the man first, this parasite, dose not Solly belong to the women, so not all rights can ever be the women's, for this living thing attached to her, belongs to another.
HALF of this living thing swims in the man first. HALF.
And it's funny because at times abortions are left to be decided only by the woman because the father runs away as if running from the plague. Or the guy pressures her into having an |
