Abortion will be covered in Obama's plan

Originally posted by calihan_12
abortion is something that every woman has the right to. for the people who oppose abortions.. i challenge you one question.

if your child was 12 years old and got pregnant, and their body was still growing and maturing anyways and would probably produce an unhealthy baby... would you want to see your 12 year old child endure all the pain of a VERY adult thing like pregnancy, only to have an unhealthy baby?

if you say yes.. to me that sounds incredibly irresponsible.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by calihan_12]

My child wouldn't in the first place. With proper education, that would never happen. If, in the case of rape, or bigger if, a lapse of judgement, it should be the parents decision, and be based on the child themselves. If they ARE mature enough to get pregnant, then, in theory, they should be old enough to carry the child to term.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by mikerussellus
She does everytime she has unprotected sex.

And every time she has protected sex. Protection doesn't always work.

And speaking of which, every time a boy or man has sex, he's also choosing to roll the dice. The girl could get pregnant and choose an abortion. He made his choice to put the life of his child in another person's hands.

True. Men should not be excluded from the decision. But they are, because the life growing inside a mothers womb is considered a "tumor" to those that approve of abortion.

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by mikerussellus
I think the individual should be making the "choice" before getting pregnant. Making the "choice" afterwards is just compounding a bad decision on top of another.

Well by now it should be readily apparent that isn't working, and no amount of effort or whatever is going to change that fact.

So if not the government setting policy according to the wishes of the people, then who? The Church? You really wanna go there? Haven't you guys spent enough type flirting with theocracy over the last decade?

It isn't working because our educational system has been feeding this lie about abortion for decades.

And forget theocracy. It should be univeral, not religious teaching, position about human life.

The government is setting policy for a dumbed-down population that has been spoon-fed that abortion is ok, and is a -snort- human right.

Well then, it comes down to a matter of opinion. You have stated yours, and I have stated mine and I'd say that's end of discussion, right?

Except to mention that it isn't because of anybody feeding any lies about abortion...it is because Humans are a very horny species. How that is dealt with changes with a fair degree of regularity.

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by calihan_12
abortion is something that every woman has the right to. for the people who oppose abortions.. i challenge you one question.

if your child was 12 years old and got pregnant, and their body was still growing and maturing anyways and would probably produce an unhealthy baby... would you want to see your 12 year old child endure all the pain of a VERY adult thing like pregnancy, only to have an unhealthy baby?

if you say yes.. to me that sounds incredibly irresponsible.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by calihan_12]

My child wouldn't in the first place. With proper education, that would never happen. If, in the case of rape, or bigger if, a lapse of judgement, it should be the parents decision, and be based on the child themselves. If they ARE mature enough to get pregnant, then, in theory, they should be old enough to carry the child to term.

well guess what. my brother was 12 when he got his 12 year old girlfriend pregnant. so it DOES happen, just so you know.

my parents were wonderful parents and taught us right. i have 4 brothers and all the rest of us turned out exceptional. college educated, no children and some of them are in their mid 30's.

dont try and tell me an irresponsible parent is the reason for those things. you are just foolish if thats what you believe.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck


Well then, it comes down to a matter of opinion. You have stated yours, and I have stated mine and I'd say that's end of discussion, right?

Except to mention that it isn't because of anybody feeding any lies about abortion...it is because Humans are a very horny species. How that is dealt with changes with a fair degree of regularity.

*sigh*
If it were only about what you or I would think about it, then yes, it would be just a matter of opinion.

But we're dealing with a third party here. The life of an unborn person.

Don't they have a voice in the matter? When is someone going to speak up for them?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by mikerussellus
I think the individual should be making the "choice" before getting pregnant. Making the "choice" afterwards is just compounding a bad decision on top of another.

Well by now it should be readily apparent that isn't working, and no amount of effort or whatever is going to change that fact.

So if not the government setting policy according to the wishes of the people, then who? The Church? You really wanna go there? Haven't you guys spent enough type flirting with theocracy over the last decade?

I know people that are atheists that don't believe in abortion on the theory that someday certain elements of a population will be deselected, such as gays.

This individual believes that Christian heterosexuals having a child that is predetermined through DNA to be "gay" in the womb could religiously justify that child being terminated using the "kill them before they can sin" ideology.

Would all of you who are Pro-Choice be prepared for that? If parents started terminating pregnancies not based on Downs or other traditional defects, but because of one's genetic code? Would you still be pro-choice if the results ended in homosexuals being eliminated from the population, or the unintelligent eliminated in favor of a child who might be smarter later? What if they wanted to eliminate a child based on the fact that they were born with a gene for alcoholism?

This entire issue is not black and white on any side.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by calihan_12


Mistakes happen. Life happens.

What defines us is not whether we make mistakes, but what we do AFTER those mistakes are made.

And in my humble opinion, we (as a species) are defining ourselves in a pretty poor manner now.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by calihan_12

 

Mistakes happen. Life happens.

What defines us is not whether we make mistakes, but what we do AFTER those mistakes are made.

And in my humble opinion, we (as a species) are defining ourselves in a pretty poor manner now.

exactly! mistakes do happen. which is why a girl or woman should have the choice to abortion if a mistake does happen.

we like to say that the world is chaos and this and that and kids are just trouble now and having sex earlier and earlier but.. do we forget the times when children were married by age 12?

this world we live in isnt so different from any part of the past. it is just more out in the open because of media.

i think an 11 year old girl in africa who got raped and thus pregnant would like to know they had the right to abortion.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
With proper education, that would never happen.

Oh, if I could count the mothers and fathers who said "that would never happen with my child" and who later had an unwed pregnant daughter!

You think education is the only thing standing in the way of unwanted pregnancies? You think kids don't know how it's done?

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Men should not be excluded from the decision. But they are,

So, the woman should have made the choice not to get pregnant (where was the guy at this point?), but the man should also have the choice of what the woman does once she gets pregnant? You like to have it both ways, don't you?

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Would all of you who are Pro-Choice be prepared for that?

I wouldn't agree with it any more than I do now, but I would still support the choice of a woman to reproduce or not. I don't support someone purposely getting pregnant only to test it and then abort it. Once a person makes a conscious choice to have a child, I think they should have the child.

But I wouldn't support the government enforcing that.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
What if they wanted to eliminate a child based on the fact that they were born with a gene for alcoholism? This entire issue is not black and white on any side.

Eugenics is quite another issue, and should not be muddying this thread.

reply to post by calihan_12



But you're not doing anything by compounding a mistake with an even bigger mistake.

Doing something wrong, to correct a "wrong" does not make it right.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I disagree. Abortion is ugly. But what if the governemnt wants to prevent more of a drain on healthcare by aborting those that would be predisposed to further medical problems?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


AGAIN.

Mistakes happen. What we do after them is what defines us.

Lets put it another way.

Imagine an alien race comesto earth. They see us killing our offspring because we don't want them. How would you defend it?

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

How can you be for choice and against abortion? Seems like you're straddling the fence there.

I posted this once before...but it pretty much sums up my conclusions on the issue.

Okay...first off...semantics.

I think about how the Brits called the Irish rebels "Terrorists" and the Irish rebels called themselves the IRA or Irish Republican ARMY.

"Palestinian Liberation Organization"...vs "Terrorists".

semantics mean alot and labels are chosen for public relations purposes thus obscuring the detialed truth of a given situation.

Pro-Life......aren't we all Pro-life? In favor of life?

I am Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, I am not "Pro-Abortion"...really who is? I am however in favor of a woman's righ to make that difficult choice within certain parameters.

So.. when does life begin?

Let's take a look at misscariages and assume that God is in favor of life.

1 in 5 pregnancies end with misscairage. Some estimates are as high as 50% since very early misscarriages can appear as heavy periods and go unnoticed by women.

So God (nature) does terminate pregnancies if the fetus is not developing well or the woman's health is not well suited for the pregnancy? Nature/God will often (possibly 50% of the time) spontaneously abort very early on in the pregnancy...is it possible that this is a clue as to when life begins?

Okay..so we say that is God making that decision when there is a misscarriage and it is not our place to interfere. Ok well what about Premature births...should we let nature/God run it's course there or help the baby survive?

If God wanted the baby to survive it wouldn't have been born prematurely?.......God gave us the science and the skills to make a judgement that supercedes nature and intervene and save that life?

But not to make a judgement and intercede with medical science otherwise? even when it is early enough where God himself often aborts via misscarriage or as it is sometimes called "spontaneous abortion"?

It is my opinion that yes, somewhere during development it stops being a fetus and starts being a life....and until then ...abortion is an incredibly difficult choice that women should be free to make.

When? When does that fetus stop being a fetus and become a life? Well about 90% of Misscariages/Spontaneous abortions/abortions terminated by nature or God if you like ..occur in the first 12 weeks.

So I'll look to nature/God, trust he isn't murdering unborn children and make my best guess based on his actions assuming he is terminating pregnancies rather than taking lives. 12 weeks. The first trimester.

I am Pro Life (who doesn't love life?), Anti Abortion (who likes abortions?) and Pro Choice (I want women to be able to choose something of this magnitude) and I think they should be able to make that choice within the same time period that God does. 12 weeks.

Beyond 12 weeks it should be demonstrated that there is genuine risk to the life of the mother.

Just my 2 cents...have at it.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I disagree. Abortion is ugly. But what if the governemnt wants to prevent more of a drain on healthcare by aborting those that would be predisposed to further medical problems?

Different issue...eugenics and abortion are different and to combine them is to establish a false argument. Sorry, it doesn't work, and you'll not be changing my opinions on abortion so it would be polite to agree to disagree.

We cool?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Of course, Johnny.

_____________________________________________________

To the previous poster, why can't "choice" be adoption? Why do we have to spend all this money on abortion?
Why is the only "choice" killing?

As for the god issue, if god wanted me to get cancer, should I not get treatment? Or should I just say, "Oh well, god did it, must mean something."

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by calihan_12

 

But you're not doing anything by compounding a mistake with an even bigger mistake.

Doing something wrong, to correct a "wrong" does not make it right.

Ok a scenario:
The mistake happened. (Whatever it was)
He wasn't true love after all and is over the hills. There is no possibility to raise this child than in poverty, severely limiting mothers chance to get employment. She will have to rely on community help to feed, and clothe the child. And she will be unable to support it pursuing a higher education, no matter how bright it turns out to be. The to be mother realizes this.

What is the responsible thing to do in this situation?
a) Hope against all hope that things will turn out allright anyway and have the child
b) Realize that the child will make the situation rather worse than better, not only for the mother but for the child as well, and regrettably have an abortion?

Explaining it to Aliens? Case by case, coupled with an excursion to the Zoo, showing them bonobos and saying "We are like that, but worse. Attempts to get it under controll have so far failed. And not for lack of trying."

reply to post by debunky


Sure, things are going to be tough. Kill it.

Mother unhappy? Kill it.

Mistake made? Kill it.

It appears harsh when put in this light, but isn't that what we're doing?

So you rather have 2 ruined lives than one not ruined one?

reply to post by debunky


Why ruin any? Why does this have to have an unhappy ending?

Life is hard. Sometimes life sucks. Do we whine and say."I can't do it, it's too hard!"

People have gotten so damn soft that they would resort to legalized murder instead of dealing with it. Has this what our society has come to? Have we rationalized ourselves to the point where it is ok to kill unborn babies just because it would be "hard" to raise them?

For the love of god!

I get so #'ed off at our weak society any more.