Men and Abortion

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The title of this thread is Men and Abortion. It is rapidly devolving into the same old exchange of mindless clichés that are common in every single debate regarding this issue.

I would appreciate it if we could limit this discussion to the proper subject.

Those who would like to pursue the standard debate should go here:

The Great "Social Issues" Abortion Debate!


Thanks


[edit on 2006/7/25 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Fair enough, out of Grady’s wishes I will no longer continue to peruse this discussion in this thread, if anyone wants to continue it in the Abortion Thread feel free to send me a U2U, if not I hope my views were clear.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   


The word 'murder' is also innacurate [though it sounds dramatic]


Not really. To Murder is to extinguish life, in the case of the Foetus, its laking its life.
At what point does this child attain life?
No one can say for sure. If its outside the womb then Pro-Abortion should be fine with Abortion up to the moment of Birth as its not murder if its not alive. BUT if its inside the womb, then when?
When its Brain Forms, When its Heart Forms, When its capable of surviving outside the womb, when it its Soul arrives?
Now granted that last one is again impossible to place HOWEVER, abortion is allowed upto 24 Weeks yet there are confirmed reports of children born at this time and living.
Now, as I believe, its when the child is blessed with a soul, which again i believe is at conception.

So, to me, Murder is the correct term and it has nothing to DO with illiciting emotive responses.



Should a woman ask for consent if she has her tubes tied? Yes the fetus would genetically be half his but it's still inside her body.. the word 'consent' implies that the guy is her boss.. 'consult' would be a better word and I agree that ideally she should consult him before making such decisions. If he says no however.. he should not have the final word.

The Tubes tied is stupid. Has she Murdered a child to have them tied, no.
All she has done is prevent the eggs she has from being fertilized.
Concent does NOT imply the man is her boss, it implies that he has an equal say over the life of his child.



And what if he's been abusing her? If she's poor? What if the relationship is unstable? What if he's a drug dealer and a bad influence? I've met many people who have chosen to be parents yet ended up just abusing and neglecting their kids.. what makes you so certain that a willing parent would be a good one?

And what if he is not?
You can't generalize this because of some people.
BUT its not the unborn childs fault how their parents are. I too know plenty of people that shouldn't be parents, but are. I know people who have led a certain life and would be assumed as awful parents but are fantastic.
BUT at what point is this the unborn childs fault either way?




I agree with you. BOTH people should take responsibility for a pregnancy. I, for example, would not choose to have an abortion (except for health reasons). Even if I was raped, I wouldn't abort it - Shall we talk about morals, now?) I could just never insist that another woman make the same choice that I would. It's too personal a choice.

And thats fine. I'm of the firm belief that its not the childs fault HOW he was conceived, and that it should be given the chance for life, as no one knows what it will do with its life.
I do not support Abortion anyway whatsoever, BUT i can understand in some cases why it is performed.



And nobody said it was fair. Yes it would be more fair if the man also had the right to choose not to support the child, but if your concern was 100% with the child, as you have both stated, you wouldn't even entertain the 'fairness' of a man's choice to abandon his offspring.


BUT thats the point i'm making. I'm not entertaining the thought of a man leaving the child because he has no choice, its the very fact that he has no choice what so ever. Personally, i 100% believe every child that is conceived should be given the chance(the only time that is called into question is the CERTAIN death of the mother) and the BOTH parents are there, financially and emotionally for the child. HOWEVER, if we live in a society of equal rights where a woman can choose to abort a child with or without the fathers consent, we should live in a society where a man has the same rights to sever ties with the child IF he has made it clear he wanted no part of its life.
That said, with so many great past times, i do believe that sex should be part of the life cycle and not part of the pleasure cycle. You want sex - you want(or at least prepared) for a child.



That's why I say this is more about the man having control over the woman (and being "fair) than it is about concern for the child. The idea that, in this one case in the universe, women have control over something that you don't just bothers you so much.

But thats just It, i don't want to have control of the woman. I want that child to be born. Thats what I want. If the case was of a woman wanting to keep the child and the man trying to terminate it, i would be fighting for her, as its the child that ultimately is what i'm fighting for to live.
If both parents wanted an abortion, then i would still fight for the child. Having said that. That said, i would have no power to do anything as both parents want the same.



I can only assume that if you (as men) did have the choice to abandon, you wouldn't have anything to complain about, right? It would be fair and you could abandon a born child and everything would be fine...

So all the little children whose fathers are now being forced to pay child support would have that support removed and then you'd be happy...

Am I right? Is this what you want? Is that 'fair' enough for you?



Yes, i would have something to 'complain' about and i would be FAR from happy. I'd have the fact that there are still abortions that are unnessary.
Anyday i would prefer a child to be born and have both parents invested in it. I don't want a world where Fathers can abandon their children, because i don't want a world where mothers can murder their children without the consent of the father/.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The title of this thread is Men and Abortion.


Which is exactly what I've been discussing with Jebus and Westie. I'm not discussing whether or not a fetus is 'life' or whether or not abortion is murder. I'm discussing the role men play in abortion.

Debating whether or not abortion is 'wrong' is not the issue here. The issue I've been discussing is whether or not men should have a right to force a woman not to abort.

But thanks, Grady, for providing an out for those who were losing the debate.



Originally posted by JebusSaves
Yes, i would have something to 'complain' about and i would be FAR from happy. I'd have the fact that there are still abortions that are unnessary.


So it's not really that you want a 'say' in whether or not an abortion is performed, you just want them to be outlawed (except for a few cases that you determine are 'ok')



Anyday i would prefer a child to be born and have both parents invested in it.


So would I! That's by FAR my preference, but we just don't always get to have what we want.



I don't want a world where Fathers can abandon their children,


Then why are you asking for that? In the interest of 'fairness', you're asking that, as long as women can decide to abort on their own, that men have a choice of supporting the child or not. Isn't that what you said?



because i don't want a world where mothers can murder their children without the consent of the father.


But a world where mothers can murder their children with the consent of the father is ok?

I must say, I'm confused about what exactly it is that you want. Do you want abortion outlawed (because that's another thread)? Or do you want men to have equal abortion decision rights?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If a man should be made to pay child support regardless of his view on the abortion issue why shouldn’t a woman be made to deliver the baby regardless of her view on the abortion issue? What you’re proposing is not in the least bit fair.


I'm not 'proposing' anything. This is the way it is. And I have agreed several times that it isn't fair.

Who says it has to be fair?


Originally posted by WestPoint23
Fair enough, out of Grady’s wishes I will no longer continue to peruse this discussion in this thread


Yeah! Buh-bye!



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yeah! Buh-bye!


Not quite.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree with you. BOTH people should take responsibility for a pregnancy.


Good, people should be made to take responsibility for what they created.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And nobody said it was fair. Yes it would be more fair if the man also had the right to choose not to support the child, but if your concern was 100% with the child, as you have both stated, you wouldn't even entertain the 'fairness' of a man's choice to abandon his offspring.


Personally I would support my child as I would want him born. You’re right two wrongs don’t make a right but why do you then continue to support a woman’s right to choose if you agree that the laws as they are now are unfair and or wrong? Like I stated earlier I would support any measure that would force both parties to carry out their responsibility, this would ensure the child lives and would ensure that both parties are treated equally. Yet you do not support this even though you admit that the current situation is unfair and or wrong. So what do you propose?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who says it has to be fair?


Oh? Never mind then it appears in this situation you dont seem to care because it is only unfair to the man and the unborn child right? But god forbid it was in the remotes way a violation on the "rights" and or "fairness" of a woman.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JebusSaves


The word 'murder' is also innacurate [though it sounds dramatic]


Not really. To Murder is to extinguish life, in the case of the Foetus, its laking its life.


dictionary
mur·der
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Abortion is neither illegal or typically done in malice. I would be surprised if there were women around who got pregnant and had abortions for sadistic gratificiation. That is what the term 'murder' implies and it is not my place to judge them.

At what point does this child attain life?

At what age does a baby become a child? If you want an honest discussion about this cut down on the rhetoric.. it does not effect my opinions. A six year old is not the same as a 2 inch fetus.

When its Brain Forms, When its Heart Forms, When its capable of surviving outside the womb, when it its Soul arrives?

I'd prefer all abortions be done in the 1st trimestor if they have to be done. As for souls.. considering the diverse religious beliefs in the world this isn't a very relevent point as some women may not believe. If you bring 'god' etc into it it's just imposing religious dogma and detracts from what is real. The world has enough of that already IMO.

So, to me, Murder is the correct term and it has nothing to DO with illiciting emotive responses.

I have already provided the correct definition.. if you are adement about using this term I am of course going to wonder why and I suspect it's because it sounds provocative. I agree abortion is 'killing' a fetus but I will NOT judge women I have never met as being guilty of murder as I don't know their reasons. If you choose to continue using this word you are indeed imposing a moral judgement on them that they had abortions to be malicious. How would you know? There may be rape or incest victims here. There may be poor women here who couldn't afford a kid. There may be women who've been 'ordered' [by 'fathers'] to have an abortion and have done so [should make some here happy I guess]. There may be women who were too sick [physically or psychiatrically] to carry a child. There may be women who've had ectopic pregnacies or cancer.. are you calling them murderers too or are you just making sweeping judgments just in case there are some evil devil worshipping baby eaters here?

The Tubes tied is stupid. Has she Murdered a child to have them tied, no.
All she has done is prevent the eggs she has from being fertilized.
Concent does NOT imply the man is her boss, it implies that he has an equal say over the life of his child.

No. It implies that she should check with him every time she makes choices about her own body. If he has 'equal say'.. why isn't he pregnant as well? It's not his body so he can't have an 'equal say' without vetoing hers.. but thats what you are suggesting should happen isn't it? :shk:

[edit on 25-7-2006 by riley]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
why do you then continue to support a woman’s right to choose if you agree that the laws as they are now are unfair and or wrong?


Probably for the same reason you would support another man's right to NOT support his child, even though you would support yours.

And, there's a difference between 'unfair' and 'wrong'. It's unfair, yes. But not wrong. Wrong is a moral judgment.

Women having to bear the children is unfair.
Men being stronger than women is unfair.
Women having periods and menopause is unfair.
Men having impotence issues is unfair.

Yet none of these are 'wrong'. They are just the way men and women are made. Different.



So what do you propose?


I propose education. I propose every single teen and pre-teen, male or female get a really good education about sex, including abstinance, birth control, child care and the econimic impact having a baby might have on their future. AND the emotional impact having an abortion might have on their future.

But until they really get it, I propose leaving abortion as a viable, legal, healthy option for people who get pregnant accidently. And I propose leaving the choice up to the woman, because it's in her body and she will be the one carrying it and bearing it.

Unfortunately, the same people who oppose abortion so vehemently are the ones who want to be hush-hush about sex education in schools or only teach abstinance. We teach kids in 4th grade how to have sex, but don't really spend enough time teaching them how to prevent pregnancy in common-sense ways. We give them a toy and tell them not to play with it.

And I'm not laying this all on the schools, by any means. I firmly believe first and foremost, it's a parent's responsibility to teach their children ALL about sex, birth control and the outcome of irresponsible sex. But this country is so uptight about sex and so ignorant, they figure if they tell their kid once, that's good enough.

Ultimately, I believe the answer is NOT to bring a bunch more unwanted children into this world because of the moral judgments of people who don't have a clue of what it's like to be 17 and find out you're pregnant. And no matter what the daddy does, you're stuck with this child the rest of your life and it will change your life when you weren't ready for it and can't give it what it needs and deserves.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Probably for the same reason you would support another man's right to NOT support his child, even though you would support yours.


The only reason I would support such rights are if the current laws are not changed, then I would have to accept a reverse "what’s good for the goose…" mentality. It would be clear the unborn baby would still suffer, but perhaps men didn’t have to also.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And, there's a difference between 'unfair' and 'wrong'. It's unfair, yes. But not wrong. Wrong is a moral judgment.


Well, in my opinion if something is knowingly unfair and something can be done to reverse it but it isn’t, then that something is morally wrong, in this case it’s the lack of laws pertaining to man’s rights in an abortion situation.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Women having to bear the children is unfair.
Men being stronger than women is unfair.
Women having periods and menopause is unfair.
Men having impotence issues is unfair.


Those are things which we have no control over, natural factors, we should try to accept them and move on, not make laws to favor one side over the other to try and correct and or compensate what some may consider natures "flaws.

And BH what you proposed is good in that it helps people prevent the issue of abortion but you haven’t address the actual issue itself. We can try to prevent people but sooner or later is going to happen and we’re back at square one. Again, what is so wrong about making both sides fulfill the responsibilities they sign up for when they conceive a baby?

[edit on 25-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, in my opinion if something is knowingly unfair and something can be done to reverse it but it isn’t, then that something is morally wrong,


If we could do something to make it fair, I would be all for that. But making a woman have an unwanted child does not make it fair. What you're proposing doesn't 'reverse it' and make it fair. It invades the woman's control over her own body. I don't understand how you can think it's 'fair' to make a woman carry and bear a child. On that point, we will have to disagree.



Those are things which we have no control over, natural factors, we should try to accept them and move on, not make laws to favor one side over the other to try and correct and or compensate what some may consider natures "flaws.


You're proposing making the laws! Not me.
There are no laws that favor one side over the other, except natural law. The law that says the women will bear the children. You're the one wanting to legally force women to have kids.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
Again, what is so wrong about making both sides fulfill the responsibilities they sign up for when they conceive a baby?


What's wrong with it (and I do mean wrong) is that it doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't do any good. Teaching this one couple to fulfill their responsibilities doesn't stop the next one from making the same mistake. It makes the mother, the father AND the baby suffer and does NOTHING toward preventing further unwanted pregnancies.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Well, I
ve been following this thread all the way now and I have yet to see anyone bring up the case of married couples. Do all the fules remain the same in the case of a married woman wanting an abortion and the married man not wanting her to abort? Haven't they become one when they get married?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If we could do something to make it fair, I would be all for that. But making a woman have an unwanted child does not make it fair.


Well, since you wont support making the woman carry the baby how about (as I said earlier) relieving the man of automatic responsibility over an unwanted pregnancy?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're proposing making the laws! Not me. There are no laws that favor one side over the other, except natural law.


I’m proposing making new laws to balance out the ones we already have because they are unfair to the man in an unwanted pregnancy situation. If the current laws are unfair to the man does that not mean they favor the woman?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What's wrong with it (and I do mean wrong) is that it doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't do any good.


Yes is does, it abolishes abortions (unless in special circumstances) and in doing so becomes fair to both sides because it makes them both fulfill their responsibilities.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It makes the mother, the father AND the baby suffer and does NOTHING toward preventing further unwanted pregnancies.


Hey I’m all for awareness and education in order to prevent abortions but I’m also in favor of legislation to regulate unwanted pregnancies and in doing so to act as a deterrent for future unprotected sex. My proposal follows a simple rule of thumb, that is "you make it you own it", if both parties know they would be forced to take care of an potentional baby perhaps they’d be more resistant to that powerful momentary temptation.

--------

Astronomer brings up a good point with marriage; I assume that legislation is the same for married couples as it is for unmarried ones? In that the woman still has the final say, and the man still bears financial responsibility regardless (although in this case rightfully so)?

[edit on 25-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Well, I
ve been following this thread all the way now and I have yet to see anyone bring up the case of married couples. Do all the fules remain the same in the case of a married woman wanting an abortion and the married man not wanting her to abort? Haven't they become one when they get married?


what planet are you from??? not planet earth obviously??

more religious dogma I see...okay....the one that they susposedly become, is it predominately male or female....which one is susposed to to rule, and which one is suspose to be ruled? no, married couples are no longer one, at least not in america. since such a thing would just make the women a mere extension of the male, like an extra arm or something. this wouldn't mesh too well with our concept of equality or freedom.


------------------------------------------
Good, people should be made to take responsibility for what they created.
------------------------------------------

raising three kids has taught me something....
it's very difficult to make anyone do much of anything if they don't want to.

so, well, you may be able to force a women to bear her child. you may force the man to support it, but you can force neither to be parents!!! and isn't that really what their responsibility is.....

by the way, I can think of any number of circumstances where I would find that the women had a valid right to abort an unborn FETUS. there's a women in poland who, well, the doctors told her before she had the baby that she more than likely would go blind if she had it, but well, poland is a very catholic country, and the governmental body that was set up to grant permission for abortion...under those special circumstance, didn't see things in the same light. she had children depending on her before she concieved this one, now, she is blind, and she can care for none of them. so, one blind women, a few kids with no caretaker, that's a heck of alot of pain and suffering, for what was in essance a mass of cells with the potential of becoming a human being when the action was needed to be taken.



[edit on 25-7-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Do all the fules remain the same in the case of a married woman wanting an abortion and the married man not wanting her to abort? Haven't they become one when they get married?


As far as my opinion goes, marriage doesn't make any difference.

Can the woman decide on a vasectomy? Because if the man is going to make the decisions about what a woman does with her body, in all fairness shouldn't the woman have the right to make the decisions about the man's? Can she decide to have him circumcised? Have his penis enlarged? Neuter him?

My husband and I are not 'one', I don't know about anyone else. When I got breast cancer, my husband said, "I support you 100% in whatever you choose to do." He didn't say, "Well, now, here's what we're going to do..." or "I want my opinion to count for 50%" or "Here's what I want."



Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, since you wont support making the woman carry the baby how about (as I said earlier) relieving the man of automatic responsibility over an unwanted pregnancy?


I don't support that. Because there's a child in the world now who has needs. Regardless of whatever happened in the past, whomever made what decision, they both took the chance and there's a baby now. It's outside the woman's body, a real small person of its own. And both parents are responsible for it.



I’m proposing making new laws to balance out the ones we already have because they are unfair to the man in an unwanted pregnancy situation. If the current laws are unfair to the man does that not mean they favor the woman?


The current laws don't favor the woman, they favor the child! If there is a child, it must be provided for!

You're proposing giving a man the right to be a deadbeat dad. To feel free to spread his seed far and wide without consequence!



Yes is does, it abolishes abortions (unless in special circumstances) and in doing so becomes fair to both sides because it makes them both fulfill their responsibilities.


You can't abolish abortions! Women will get abortions whether it's legal or not.

And how are men doing now, knowing that they're going to have to fulfill their responsibilities? How's that working? If it was working worth a crap, we'd have something to discuss, but as it is, they both already KNOW that there might be a baby, yet they still make new unwanted babies every day.

I commend you wanting to make people aware of the consequences. So do I, but it doesn't work. All your solution would do would be to make more babies and more deadbeat dads and more teen mothers and more back alley abortions. They will find a way. The only way you're going to stop them is imprison them and force them to take care of themselves to have healthy babies.

You're living under the illusion that making women have babies that they don't want is going to have a positive change somehow. There are already too many unwanted children!



Hey I’m all for awareness and education in order to prevent abortions but I’m also in favor of legislation to regulate unwanted pregnancies and in doing so to act as a deterrent for future unprotected sex.


You aren't old enough to remember when abortion was illegal. We already tried this.



My proposal follows a simple rule of thumb, that is "you make it you own it", if both parties know they would be forced to take care of an potentional baby perhaps they’d be more resistant to that powerful momentary temptation.


Both parties already know that!



In that the woman still has the final say, and the man still bears financial responsibility regardless (although in this case rightfully so)?


Why is it "rightfully so" just because they're married?

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can the woman decide on a vasectomy? Because if the man is going to make the decisions about what a woman does with her body, in all fairness shouldn't the woman have the right to make the decisions about the man's?


Apples and oranges, it takes both a woman and a man to conceive a baby, both contribute in that process so therefore both should have a say in the future of that baby. That should cover the cancer and penis issue, hopefully.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't support that. Because there's a child in the world now who has needs. Regardless of whatever happened in the past, whomever made what decision, they both took the chance and there's a baby now... And both parents are responsible for it.


Agreed, again personally I agree with this but for the sake of argument if another man wants to choose not to support that child then he should have that right, as long as the mother is granted the right to deiced if that baby lives or not. That’s how my views are going to be on that, unless the current laws change.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The current laws don't favor the woman, they favor the child! If there is a child, it must be provided for!


Err, if the current laws favored the child he/she would have to face execution.
The laws whenever pregnancy and children are involved currently favor the mother and or woman, no doubt about that.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're proposing giving a man the right to be a deadbeat dad. To feel free to spread his seed far and wide without consequence!


Yeah, if that's what one chooses to do, just like a woman can open and spread her legs far and wide without consequence. Again unless the current laws change that's how I see it.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You can't abolish abortions! Women will get abortions whether it's legal or not.


You cant abolish it totally, I’m sure it can be reduced though if more people were aware of it and took steps to limit and prevent abortions. Strictly enforcing anti-abortion laws by themselves won't solve everything. I think those laws combined with better awareness and education and a greater involvement by family members could have a noticable impact.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And how are men doing now, knowing that they're going to have to fulfill their responsibilities? How's that working?


Hey so far its working fine for me, I don’t do it until I’m very confident the risks are minimal. But most guys probably think that either it wont happen to them (this is where the education comes in), or that they’ll just get the girl to have an abortion (this is where the laws come in). Again there's no silver bullet, just steps that will hopefully help reduce this situation.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Both parties already know that!


They may both know it but knowing alone wont change much unless there’s some unwanted incentives waiting for you. Like I said, they’ll think they can get rid of it somehow or that it wont happen to them. Heck, they already know they can, the statistics speak for themselves.


CONTEXT: Nearly half of unintended pregnancies and more than one-fifth of all pregnancies in the United States end in abortion. No nationally representative statistics on abortion incidence or on the universe of abortion providers have been available since 1996.

Link



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You aren't old enough to remember when abortion was illegal. We already tried this.


No I'm not but it seems to me that making abortion illegal did work, from what I’ve been able to find. Can you guess what year Roe V Wade was decided?




Link



The abortion rate declined from 29.3 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1980 and 27.4 in 1990 to 22.4 in 1996. The abortion ratio (the proportion of pregnancies ending in abortion) also fell during the early and mid-1990s. These declines meant that in the mid-1990s, measures of abortion reached the lowest levels since the 1970s.

Link



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why is it "rightfully so" just because they're married?


Yeah, I don't know what you mean by "just because". Anyway in my view once you marry someone then you are responsible, as a father, for any child you help bring in to the family, it is your duty to provide all that is necessary for that child (unless its not yours, but that's a whole other issue).

[edit on 25-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Err, if the current laws favored the child he/she would have to face execution.


We're arguing semantics here that are for another thread. To me, a pregnancy does not constitute a child. Not until it's born is it a child, to me. I understand to you it may be different.



Yeah, if that's what one chooses to do, just like a woman can open and spread her legs far and wide without consequence.


Getting pregnant is a consequence. Having an abortion is a consequence. To most, it's a BIG consequence, seen as the lesser of two evils. Most women who have abortions agonize over the decision and live with it for their lives. It's not a simple decision.

And either way, the woman has to live with her decision the rest of her life. The man many times just walks away. I understand you want to force a decision on the woman but we just disagree.



I’m sure it can be reduced though if more people were aware of it and took steps to limit and prevent abortions.


You seem to be under the impression that women think, Oh, it's ok if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion. While there may be a very small percentage of women (and men) who feel that way, most don't. An abortion is a miserable, painful, expensive and emotionally awful experience. Women don't use them for birth control. They use them because they accidently got pregnant.



They may both know it but knowing alone wont change much unless there’s some unwanted incentives waiting for you. Like I said, they’ll think they can get rid of it somehow or that it wont happen to them. Heck, they already know they can, the statistics speak for themselves.


And you think the statistics for illegal abortion before RvW are accurate... :shk:

Look, we aren't going to agree on this. I do see where you're coming from and I'm ALL FOR making people be responsible for children they bring into this world, I just don't see how forcing women to bring unwanted babies into this world is in any way going to help the problem.

I'm just glad that the law agrees with me.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To me, a pregnancy does not constitute a child. Not until it's born is it a child, to me. I understand to you it may be different.

[...]

Most women who have abortions agonize over the decision and live with it for their lives. It's not a simple decision.


If it's not a child, what's all the agonizing about? As you describe it, the decision to abort should be as easy as stepping on a cockroach.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm just glad that the law agrees with me.


Yeah we're not going to agree on this, but I will say this though, in the absence of a better solution I hope the law changes back to what it used to be. I will continue to do my small part to minimize abortion, I can only hope others do the same. Thanks for your time.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Thanks for your time.


No problem. You, too!



Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If it's not a child, what's all the agonizing about? As you describe it, the decision to abort should be as easy as stepping on a cockroach.


Well, it isn't. I have known young women who had to make the choice. It's the possibility of a child. The agonizing is about:

What should I do? Should I continue with this pregnancy, quit school, depend on my mother to take care of me and the baby, hope the father contributes? Will the baby even know his father? Will his father really care? Should I go through with this and bring a child into this world that I might not be able to handle or support? Would I be able to give it up? Would I regret that my whole life? Would he hate me for that?

Or should I have an abortion, stay in school and wonder the rest of my life what it would have been like to have that child? Will the spirit of that child come back to me when I AM ready to have a baby? When I know the father will be around?

I wanted to be a doctor. If I go through with this pregnancy and have a baby, I'll never be able to even go to college, much less become a doctor.

What will people think of me if I have an abortion? What will they think of me if I show up at school pregnant? What will I think of me? What will my parents say to me... DO to me if they find out I'm pregnant? It will break my Grandma's heart! Should I ruin one life or 2? Maybe even more? What should I do?

It's an agonizing decision. One not made lightly. It's the least of several evils. And taking away the choice is the worst thing that could happen to her.

Too many women and girls agonize over the stigma of having an abortion because people tell them how wrong it is. When a woman gets pregnant, she needs support. The last thing she needs is people forcing her to go through with a mistake. Especially when it changes her life so much.

I don't really expect you guys to understand.
I'm just glad the law does.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Should I continue with this pregnancy, quit school, depend on my mother to take care of me and the baby, hope the father contributes? Will the baby even know his father?


So, you and WestPoint23 do agree on one thing. It is a baby's life that is at stake and all that agonizing sounds a lot like premeditation, if the victim were just a little older.





top topics
 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join