Originally posted by Gay Guy
And I thought Spinner was the only one who could put the "spin" on the arguments within these boards. You've proved him wrong mister. 💃
I think you mean I proved you wrong.
What kind of personal pleasure do you get by coming on here under three different names and verbal masturbating each of your multiple personalities? I mean, I hope you at least actually get off on it.
I have a number of both pro-choice and pro-life friends. Many of my pro-choice friends are against abortion for themselves, but support it for other women.
Often, a devout pro-lifer signs up to the message board we all post at, and insults our opinions. We are often told that we are baby killers, pro murder, that abortion is murder and we should not deny that, and that victims of rape and incest should be forced to have children.
We ignore it. So what if someone calls you a baby killer? So what if someone holds the opinion that abortion is murder? That persons opinion does not affect my opinion, and has no effect on the abortion debate whatsoever. I am one of those who believe abortion to be murder. My pro-choice friends disagree with me, but say I am free to believe whatever I wish.
I have always believed abortion to be murder. Ever since I can remember I have always believed this. I have listen to many people explain to me why they believe abortion is not murder, and, while I respect their opinions, I cannot believe what they believe.
Even though I am personally against abortion, I would not descibe myself as being pro life. I am pro life for myself, because I would find it very hard to have an abortion. Obviously, it would depend on the circumstances.
The thing that really pisses me off, however, is the number of abortions performed each year. Here, one in four pregnancies are aborted. One in four. That's 25%. If it were one in ten abortions, that wouldn't be perfect, but it would be more satisfactory.
Contraception does not fail one time out of ten-if it did, we wouldn't rely on it.
So why do so many women find themselves pregnant with an unwanted child?
Is it because contraception really does fail one time out of four?
Is it because they were raped, or were/are a victim of incest?
Is it because they do not use birth control properly?
Or could it be that birth control is more often than not, ignored?
I'd guess it is the latter. But why? Is it so hard to buy? Is it so hard to use? Is it so hard to remember to take a pill at the same time each day?
It would be interesting to survey all sexually active women, asking them if they have had an abortion, and whether they were using contraception when they became pregnant. That may enlighten us the reasons women abort.
Rape and incest, and contraception failure cannot account for one in four pregnancies being terminated.
Pro-choicers don't like abortion any more than I do. They certainly don't sit around clapping their hands whenever a woman walks into an abortion clinic. But they support her. They support her decision even though they may not necessarily agree with it. That's what we should all do.
If I wish to dye my hair bright yellow, I will, and it has no effect on you.
If I wish to get a tattoo, I will, and it will have no effect on you.
If I wish to attend an anti-abortion, or pro-choice rally (and I honestly don't know which, if any, I would attend) then I shall, and there is nothing you can do about it.
So I wish to have an abortion, I will. All my abortion will do is offend those who disagree with my decision, who would not even be interested in knowing my reasons for wanting an abortion.
I don't support abortion after the fetus becomes viable, simply because it can survive outside the womb. If, however, there is something severely wrong with the fetus, an abortion may be the best option. Whatever the mother decides is best for her.
I do not agree with elective third trimester abortions. Those women who decide, just weeks from giving birth, that they don't want a baby anymore, and demand that they get an abortion. What is a few more weeks?
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Also, I read an interesting artical the other day, discussing late term, or partial birth, abortion. The person who wrote the artical suggests that there is no such thing as partial birth abortion. I believe there is, very much so. However, I will not state my reasons for thinking this until I hear yours!
Originally posted by autumn dreams
I have a number of both pro-choice and pro-life friends. Many of my pro-choice friends are against abortion for themselves, but support it for other women.Often, a devout pro-lifer signs up to the message board we all post at, and insults our opinions. We are often told that we are baby killers, pro murder, that abortion is murder and we should not deny that, and that victims of rape and incest should be forced to have children.
We ignore it. So what if someone calls you a baby killer? So what if someone holds the opinion that abortion is murder? That persons opinion does not affect my opinion, and has no effect on the abortion debate whatsoever. I am one of those who believe abortion to be murder. My pro-choice friends disagree with me, but say I am free to believe whatever I wish.
I have always believed abortion to be murder. Ever since I can remember I have always believed this. I have listen to many people explain to me why they believe abortion is not murder, and, while I respect their opinions, I cannot believe what they believe.
Even though I am personally against abortion, I would not descibe myself as being pro life. I am pro life for myself, because I would find it very hard to have an abortion. Obviously, it would depend on the circumstances.
The thing that really pisses me off, however, is the number of abortions performed each year. Here, one in four pregnancies are aborted. One in four. That's 25%. If it were one in ten abortions, that wouldn't be perfect, but it would be more satisfactory.
Contraception does not fail one time out of ten-if it did, we wouldn't rely on it.So why do so many women find themselves pregnant with an unwanted child?
Is it because contraception really does fail one time out of four?
Is it because they were raped, or were/are a victim of incest?
Is it because they do not use birth control properly?
Or could it be that birth control is more often than not, ignored?I'd guess it is the latter. But why? Is it so hard to buy? Is it so hard to use? Is it so hard to remember to take a pill at the same time each day?
It would be interesting to survey all sexually active women, asking them if they have had an abortion, and whether they were using contraception when they became pregnant. That may enlighten us the reasons women abort.
Rape and incest, and contraception failure cannot account for one in four pregnancies being terminated.
Pro-choicers don't like abortion any more than I do. They certainly don't sit around clapping their hands whenever a woman walks into an abortion clinic. But they support her. They support her decision even though they may not necessarily agree with it. That's what we should all do.
If I wish to dye my hair bright yellow, I will, and it has no effect on you.
If I wish to get a tattoo, I will, and it will have no effect on you.
If I wish to attend an anti-abortion, or pro-choice rally (and I honestly don't know which, if any, I would attend) then I shall, and there is nothing you can do about it.So I wish to have an abortion, I will. All my abortion will do is offend those who disagree with my decision, who would not even be interested in knowing my reasons for wanting an abortion.
I don't support abortion after the fetus becomes viable, simply because it can survive outside the womb. If, however, there is something severely wrong with the fetus, an abortion may be the best option. Whatever the mother decides is best for her.
I do not agree with elective third trimester abortions. Those women who decide, just weeks from giving birth, that they don't want a baby anymore, and demand that they get an abortion. What is a few more weeks?
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Also, I read an interesting artical the other day, discussing late term, or partial birth, abortion. The person who wrote the artical suggests that there is no such thing as partial birth abortion. I believe there is, very much so. However, I will not state my reasons for thinking this until I hear yours!
Great Argument !
You know what I don't understand? If a man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage...suddenly he committed murder.
But if a woman has an Abortion, it's not murder. It's acceptable.
How fkn ABSURD !
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Great Argument !You know what I don't understand? If a man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage...suddenly he committed murder.
But if a woman has an Abortion, it's not murder. It's acceptable.
How fkn ABSURD !
It's not murder if he does that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not murder if he does that.
Read the BOLD sentence
murder n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way), and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute many states make killings in which there is torture, movement of the person (kidnapping) before the killing, as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), and the death of a police officer or prison guard all first degree murders with or without premeditation, and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life others (such as firing a gun into a crowd, or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. (Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. To be murder the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice, and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. (Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus). Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought
According to the definition provided, a man punching a woman in the stomach killing her feotus, would be second degree murder or manslaughter, depending on the circumstances.
POINT BEING....It's total hypocrisy for a man or woman to be legally punished for killing a feotus, if the mother can kill her foetus freely and without consequence.
Either way, the result and the action is the SAME. The FEOTUS is killed in either situation.
How is an Abortion truly better than a miscarriage caused by an attacker, in terms of the life of the Feotus itself?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If only this world were perfect. However, it is not. Therefore certain "immoral actions" are REQUIRED for better future results for the majority.
I guess I was hoping too much of you then. Not everything is black/white, right/wrong or moral/immoral. Only cowards choose to or need to live in a world of absolutes.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not all Post Abortion Depression is hormonally provoked. Many women have been devestated by the realization that they had pretty much killed thier own child. Call it a "seed", call it "a foetus", call it non-human or whatever you wanna call it.
Yes, post-abortion depressions are indeed hormonally provoked. No woman who had an abortion ever killed a child. And it is not what I call it that matters, it is a question of what it factually is.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
They killed their son or daughter.....that's basically what they did. Try telling some of these women who are in pain over this realization that they shouldn't be sad, because thier sons or daughters were not even "human beings" yet. 😉
Oh, the rhetoric! You speak on behalf of other people, that’s a logic fallacy there… Again, no woman who had an abortion killed their son or daughter. That sounds like some holier-than-thou religious propaganda in my ears. I would tell these women that they did not HAVE any sons and daughters, and should not listen to people trying to put them down for their choice.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So do I, but you are suggesting that IF the parents do not want the child, or if the parents are incompatible, that the child should not live. End of story....the feotus has no right to be born...if the mother doesn't want it to.
No, I am not speaking of children. I am still speaking of a foetus. And you are exactly right. If the parents to not WANT a child or the woman (mother… ? Oh, for petes sake, stop the silly propaganda) does not want a child, they should terminate the pregnancy. Their lives take precedence.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The human being should never exist, if it's parents do not approve. Is that what you are saying?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am talking about foetuses.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree that many people are not suitable to be parents, I even would agree that many people do not deserve to be parents. But, simultaneously, you are also saying that the child does not have the right to exist in this case, whether you realize it or not.
No, I am talking about a dependent bunch of cells called a foetus. Not of a born child.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You may not mean to be, and may not realize it, but you are seemingly judging the child's worth and right to exist by the standards and qualifications of its parents.
I KNOW that many people are not parent material. Trust me, I beleive this much ! But that does NOT MEAN the kid should not exist. There are many people who cannot have children, that would love to adopt.
No, again. I do not view an unwanted foetus as something that has rights and worth that should go beyond the needs and wishes of the woman/couple.
And I am again not talking about kids or children, but about a foetus.
And for the gigazillonth time: A woman is not a breeding machine for childless couples. There are millions of poor starving BORN kids in the 3rd world that should be adopted.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then let's not speculate, because neither of us know. Every individual life and chance is different. However, it seems to me as if you would rather NOT allow the chance to be there, and you seem to be willing to disallow the lifeform from existing, simply because you fear thier lives may be miserable.
And then you speculate regardless… I would first of all rather that children were BORN to parents who want them and look forward to having them. That the parents are ready and willing for the responsibility. If the time is not right, then “no”, then I think the couple/woman should wait until their/her life are better. The lives of living people, who are someones lover/spouse/brother/sister/etc. should always come before a bunch of cells that will have such a large impact on their lives.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Who are you to make such a judgement on one's supposed future? Tell me 😉Child Abuse...the fault of the ADULT, not the child. So the child should NOT exist, simply because IT MAY be abused? Punish the child, by disallowing it to exist?
"I can't do it right now".....the woman's choice to decide. I would never take choice away, but to me...this is not an excuse. However, I am not a woman. If i WERE a woman, I'd be VERY tempted to have an abortion, simply because i dont wanna have kids ne way. But that wouldn't make it right.
To me it is a bout the QUALITY of life and humankind, not the QUANTITY as it is to you. To me life does not necessarily equal good. You keep speculating now… Make up your mind, should we or should we not speculate. And for the xth time… a foetus is NOT a child. It WOULD mature into a child if the couple/woman did not have an abortion… But if the procedure is performed then that is simply… that.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND will you??? Life is not absolute… a choice is not either WRONG or RIGHT sometimes.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I never said she was. But giving birth to a child, does not make a woman a breeding machine. The men have a role in creating to you know, the child is as much thiers as it is the mother's.Althought I agree that we should highly consider the children that exist today and now in this world, instead of focusing on children who do not exist yet......it does not lessen the worth and value of a new life.
A new life is innocent. Although we have the right to choice, although we have the self given authority to determine who lives and who dies, often out of necessity, none of us have the absolute moral right to end a life based on our own judgements.
You are not superior to another human. Regardless of whether or not that human is still a feotus, or even already dead. You do not have the true right to decide the fate and worth of another life. We only TAKE that right by force and authority, but we never truly earn it. 😉
AH, but you ARE lessening the value on children already born into starvation and poverty, by saying the unfortunate woman should give the child up for adoption. We SHOULD care for the children who HAVE been born FIRST, and not a foetus. Actually, you are making NO sense, you are REFUSING to make a stand.
Blah! Sorry… a new life is just that… a new life. Nothing more or less. Worshipping it like you do makes me want to wear Irish Clothes and dance down the street with my 14 kids singing “Every sperm is sacred…” (Monty Python). It is the QUALITY that matters… NOT the quantity.
And that entire “you are not superior…” Now you’re a hypocrite, because YOU are making yourself a judge on the pregnant woman who chooses and abortion.
Originally posted by TheSpinner
"Contrary to common belief, we can actually hear silence if we are smart enough to listen to it" (TheSpinner).I wish I were a woman, I would have had an abortion to at least to have a better perspective on it.
Why bother with arguing past each other forever when a simple fact can do a far better job. and actions always speak better than with words.
Peace, Love, Friendship and a lot of Fun.
😖leep:
Oh, so you did give up. Good…
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How is an Abortion truly better than a miscarriage caused by an attacker, in terms of the life of the Feotus itself?
That you even have to ASK that question shows a remarkable hypocrisy on your behalf.
It's remarkable how this point still hasn't been absorbed yet:
A foetus may or may not be a person. As it is now, they are not considered by law to be living human beings
Challenge to anyone: can you prove or disprove that fetuses, in the early stages, are in fact living people? And if you can't, go on to provide other reasons as to why abortion should or shouldn't be legal.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Great Argument !
Thank you! 😛
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You know what I don't understand? If a man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage...suddenly he committed murder.But if a woman has an Abortion, it's not murder. It's acceptable.
I know, I don't like this eithor. If something like that happened here, the man would be charged with grevious bodily harm, which doesn't mention the fact the woman was pregnant, and may have been just weeks, or days, from giving birth. Unfortunatly, the law doesn't see this as murder. IMO, if the law sees abortion as not being murder, that's fine, but when a woman is attacked, and her unborn child killed, this isn't an abortion-it is a premeditated attack by a person who may very well have intended to end the life of the unborn child.
I know I am not the only one who believes the law needs changing.
I also wonder, that if late term abortion were illegal, as I believe it is in the United States, why isn't a man who attacks a pregnant woman, who is carrying a fetus at past viablity stage, charged with murder? Why is late term abortion considered to be so much worse than a premeditated attack against a defenceless woman?
Hopefully, the law will soon change, to suit everyone. 😉
Originally posted by crazylozer
It's remarkable how this point still hasn't been absorbed yet:[B]A foetus may or may not be a person. As it is now, they are not considered by law to be living human beings
Challenge to anyone: can you prove or disprove that fetuses, in the early stages, are in fact living people? And if you can't, go on to provide other reasons as to why abortion should or shouldn't be legal. [/B]
Obviously, a fetus is not yet a living human being. But it is undeniably HUMAN. Should a non human being be afforded the same rights as the born? Perhaps, but this would be at the risk of overiding women's rights, which is something I would never agree to.
Fetus's are not living people, but, in my opinion only, once they past the stage of viablity, they become more human than they were, as they are now able to survive outside the womb. They no longer need the womb, or woman, to survive. This makes me believe that a fetus should be granted more rights under the law, more rights than the fetus had to begin with, but less rights than the mother, who's needs and welfare should ALWAYS come first. 🙂
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Great Argument !You know what I don't understand? If a man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage...suddenly he committed murder.
But if a woman has an Abortion, it's not murder. It's acceptable.
How fkn ABSURD !
It's acceptable if the woman punches herself in the stomach. There's a huge difference in the points you make.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
It's acceptable if the woman punches herself in the stomach. There's a huge difference in the points you make.
This is likely because the 'My body, my choice' argument arises. As it is the womans body, if she wishes to punch her stomach with the intent of killing her unborn child, she is able to, although I am not 100% clear on what the law says about this.
I believe the law would say it acceptable for a woman to punch herself in the stomach to kill her unborn child, but if she allows another person to help her beat herself, that person will be charged with willfull murder if the fetus dies.
I watch too much Law and Order, but I do believe this is what the law states. I will look it up, just to make certain.
I think my basic point is that the government and baby jesus have no say in the matter. If the woman wants to carry the baby to term and give birth, then that's up to her. (and I believe the man should have some say in the matter) If not, then it doesn't happen. It doesn't matter who punched her in the stomach, only that she wanted things to go down that way.
Originally posted by autumn dreams
This is likely because the 'My body, my choice' argument arises. As it is the womans body, if she wishes to punch her stomach with the intent of killing her unborn child, she is able to, although I am not 100% clear on what the law says about this.I believe the law would say it acceptable for a woman to punch herself in the stomach to kill her unborn child, but if she allows another person to help her beat herself, that person will be charged with willfull murder if the fetus dies.
I watch too much Law and Order, but I do believe this is what the law states. I will look it up, just to make certain.
REALLY?
Then how come when a woman throws her unborn child into the garbage, she gets arrested?
How come if a woman miscarries, shits her baby into a tiolet, flushes it, and then gets caught....shes gets in massive legal trouble???
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think my basic point is that the government and baby jesus have no say in the matter. If the woman wants to carry the baby to term and give birth, then that's up to her. (and I believe the man should have some say in the matter) If not, then it doesn't happen. It doesn't matter who punched her in the stomach, only that she wanted things to go down that way.
👆
Exactly Right. Women have the power of life and death. Except I think that the woman should kick a guy in the balls BEFORE she gets pregnant, preventing her from ever getting pregnant from the dude who she's screwing. There's no point in makin her go through the unnecessary pain of abortion, when she can sterilize the guy who's banging her.
Originally posted by The Omega
I guess I was hoping too much of you then. Not everything is black/white, right/wrong or moral/immoral. Only cowards choose to or need to live in a world of absolutes.
You were hoping my opinion would become more compatible with your own?😬
Since when have I made a black or white argument? You are the one mad at me for not being pro-abortion. MY stance is grey, and pro choice all the way buddy 😉
Originally posted by The Omega
Yes, post-abortion depressions are indeed hormonally provoked. No woman who had an abortion ever killed a child. And it is not what I call it that matters, it is a question of what it factually is..
1) Not all of them are.
2) Yes, an abortion is the killing of your own child. It's not someone else's child. Just your own. Your unborn child 😉
Originally posted by The Omega
Oh, the rhetoric! You speak on behalf of other people, that’s a logic fallacy there… Again, no woman who had an abortion killed their son or daughter. That sounds like some holier-than-thou religious propaganda in my ears. I would tell these women that they did not HAVE any sons and daughters, and should not listen to people trying to put them down for their choice. .
1)Speak on hehalf of other people? Illogical? HA ! I was merely informing you on the massive interviews I have heard from other woman after having had an abortion.
2) I am not religious, so don't go pulling that "religious propaganda" card. I am infact very Liberal 😛
3) First of all, I would never put down a woman for her choice. I am only saying WHY I think Abortion is immoral, I am not for banning it or for judging the woman. When will you understand that?
And yes, they did kill thier sons or daughters.....You play it as if the unborn child is nothing until it comes out of the Vagina. What WORLD do you live in?
Originally posted by The Omega
No, I am not speaking of children. I am still speaking of a foetus. And you are exactly right. If the parents to not WANT a child or the woman (mother… ? Oh, for petes sake, stop the silly propaganda) does not want a child, they should terminate the pregnancy. Their lives take precedence. .
1) Silly Propaganda? Again nice try.....the woman IS the mother, genuis. No matter how you wanna see it, the foetus IS the child, the offspring, of its mother. How the hell can you validly argue that it's not ?🤨
2) You are not speaking of children? You are speaking of the foetus...so the foetus is not her child?
If a mother is 64 and her son is 25, is he no longer her child?
If a mother's 40 yr old son dies of cancer, he is no longer her child?
Your definition is a child is flawed Omega. One's child is thier offspring, no matter what form they exist....feotus, toddler, adult, or courpse.
Originally posted by The Omega
No, that is not what I am saying. I am talking about foetuses..
Like I said a foetus is the mother's child still. It is her offpsring, it is her seed, whatever you wanna call it. It is her child.
Originally posted by The Omega
No, I am talking about a dependent bunch of cells called a foetus. Not of a born child..
What about an unborn child? Is it less of a child? Is that term "unborn child" incorrect then?
Originally posted by The Omega
No, again. I do not view an unwanted foetus as something that has rights and worth that should go beyond the needs and wishes of the woman/couple.
And I am again not talking about kids or children, but about a foetus.
And for the gigazillonth time: A woman is not a breeding machine for childless couples. There are millions of poor starving BORN kids in the 3rd world that should be adopted..
1) As for the gigazillionth timeI am not calling the mother a breeding machine for other couples, stop putting words into my mouth.
2) I never commented on what the woman should do. I am merely stating why and when I think Abortion is immoral. The woman should do whatever the hell she wants. You have failed to counter that point so far.
Originally posted by The Omega
And then you speculate regardless… I would first of all rather that children were BORN to parents who want them and look forward to having them. That the parents are ready and willing for the responsibility. If the time is not right, then “no”, then I think the couple/woman should wait until their/her life are better. The lives of living people, who are someones lover/spouse/brother/sister/etc. should always come before a bunch of cells that will have such a large impact on their lives. .
1) Keyword.....you would rather...how is your desire any more valid or correct than my own? Oh wait...I don't have an actual desire here....just an opinion. So what is your point?
2) You keep using the word "should". Again YOU are the one dictating choices, you are the one stating what the woman or couple should or shouldn't do, not me. I am only saying why I think Abortion is immoral, NOT that the woman should always make the "moral" choice.
Originally posted by The Omega
To me it is a bout the QUALITY of life and humankind, not the QUANTITY as it is to you. To me life does not necessarily equal good. You keep speculating now… Make up your mind, should we or should we not speculate. And for the xth time… a foetus is NOT a child. It WOULD mature into a child if the couple/woman did not have an abortion… But if the procedure is performed then that is simply… that.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND will you??? Life is not absolute… a choice is not either WRONG or RIGHT sometimes..
1) WRONG👇
Quantity matters not to me. Whatever a pregnant mother does is her choice, not my own. I could care less what a woman who I don't know, does with her life or foetus.
Again you say Quality. How the hell do you know for sure that a child who is born from parents who want him will automatically have a better life than a child who is born from parents who did not initially want him ?
Parents who WANT thier children are immune to abusing them? Parents who WANT thier children are immune to being bad parents?
Parents who did not want thier children are immune to falling in love with thier children once they are born?
You're trying to make an Absolute Speculation....whose arguing in terms of black and white now? 🙄
2)Make up my mind? 😆 You are so funny ! And you accuse me of arguing in terms of black and white? What a hypocrit ! WOW !
I already had made up my mind. Here's my stance ONCE AGAIN for thou who has forgotten:
a) I think Abortion is immoral in most cases, unless the woman was raped, or unless the foetus threatens her life.
b)I am pro choice. Ultamately the woman has the right to make her choice, REGARDLESS of whether or not I think it is moral or immoral. I feel every human being has the right to make thier choice, whether it be the "wrong" or "right" one.
Any further objections?
Originally posted by The Omega
Oh, but you ARE telling women to be breeding machines for childless couples when you say the unfortunate pregnant woman could chose to give up the child for adoption. And since the man is not the PREGNANT part here, it is the woman who is the breeding machine..
1)Could NOT Should AGAIN when will you get this? Or are you purposely ignoring this, in an attempt to put words in my mouth and label me a hypocrit? 🙄
2) Could choose to leave the child for Adoption...yes it is an option, and ALL OPTIONS should be considered. Even Abortion.
Originally posted by The Omega
AH, but you ARE lessening the value on children already born into starvation and poverty, by saying the unfortunate woman should give the child up for adoption. We SHOULD care for the children who HAVE been born FIRST, and not a foetus. Actually, you are making NO sense, you are REFUSING to make a stand..
Can someone say "Black and White" here? I am refusing to make a stand? Nope....I am Pro-Choice. NOT PRO ABORTION !
What part doesn't make sense to you?
Your logic is inherently flawed through your incapability of taking one stance. If you truly believed that abortion was wrong, you shouldn't be supporting it. According to your logic, it's okay for people to think that murder is wrong, but people have the right to choose to kill people. That makes no sense. If you think that something is seriously immoral, why would you possibly think that it should be lawful?
Why are people pro-choice? The majority of them believe that a foetus is not a child and aborting it does not constitute killing a human being. Personally, I believe that a potential human being should not be thrown away on a whim, but all options should be considered, same as you. But I do not believe that abortion is morally wrong.
I don't really want to touch the whole quality of life thing, but it should be addressed (I'll use simple sentences so everyone can understand me). Children are dying. There are many of them. They do not receive proper treatment. Many of them are unwanted. Some are wanted, but no external support is given. Thus, they suffer. Is it fair to force more children into the world? We as a society are not helping those who already exist. What gives people the right to force women to bring children into the world when they don't care about what happens to them once they are here?
Again, if you believe that something is wrong, why do you support it? Weigh the bad against the good and decide for yourself whether you support it or not, and don't spend your time telling yourself that it's wrong but you support it; there's no point in that.
Originally posted by crazylozer
Your logic is inherently flawed through your incapability of taking one stance. If you truly believed that abortion was wrong, you shouldn't be supporting it. According to your logic, it's okay for people to think that murder is wrong, but people have the right to choose to kill people. That makes no sense. If you think that something is seriously immoral, why would you possibly think that it should be lawful?
But abortion is not murder because you are only "killing" something that is not completely developed yet. If things are not fully developed then thay are not fully "alive." Why do you think that poor people used to kill mentally retarded people and handicap people many years ago? Because they weren't as fully developed as normal human beings, and they didn't have enough money to take care of them.
Originally posted by crazylozer
Why are people pro-choice? The majority of them believe that a foetus is not a child and aborting it does not constitute killing a human being. Personally, I believe that a potential human being should not be thrown away on a whim, but all options should be considered, same as you. But I do not believe that abortion is morally wrong.
Exactly..potential..does not mean fully developed. A Nuclear warhead has the potential to explode and destroy millions of people, only if dropped from an aircraft carrier. Just because it has the potential to kill, does not mean that it is a weapon. And just because a foetus has the potential to be a fully developed human being, does not mean that it is an undeverdeveloped human being.
Originally posted by crazylozer
I don't really want to touch the whole quality of life thing, but it should be addressed (I'll use simple sentences so everyone can understand me). Children are dying. There are many of them. They do not receive proper treatment. Many of them are unwanted. Some are wanted, but no external support is given. Thus, they suffer. Is it fair to force more children into the world? We as a society are not helping those who already exist. What gives people the right to force women to bring children into the world when they don't care about what happens to them once they are here?
I agree. Children who grow up in foster homes or adoption agencies have never grown up to do anything good for this country. And Poor children have never accomplished anything in this country. Children die every day of starvation and grow up in poor homes with out families. We should kill all of the potential life so that it does not have a chance to grow up in a poor family or an unwanted home, even if their is a chance that a poor and unwanted kid could grow up to be successful.
Originally posted by Gay Guy
👆Exactly Right. Women have the power of life and death. Except I think that the woman should kick a guy in the balls BEFORE she gets pregnant, preventing her from ever getting pregnant from the dude who she's screwing. There's no point in makin her go through the unnecessary pain of abortion, when she can sterilize the guy who's banging her.
blow me