Abortion - your views.

[bitteroldman]

To all the folks knocking me for calling them kids:

Change your whippersnapping name to bitteryoungman/bitteryounglady. I've called myself bitteroldman, hence my calling you kids and whippersnappers. You bitteryoungfolks oughtta learn to take a joke.

ANNNNND

I agree that someone shouldn't be forced to raise a child they don't want. That's why you give the child up for adoption.

You see, all this talk of inconvenience and rape and such are used in courtrooms. They are called motives. People can excuse anything. ANYTHING. It's just a matter of perspective, and sometimes, the view is pretty screwy, y'know?

To ya folks who have been in some of the worst shoes in America: yes. Your situation was horrible. And believe it or not, I'm not going to preach your head off and say you did the wrong thing. Life is friggin' hard. People do things, that they sometimes regret. Some people do things that are absolutely screwy, but they come from a screwy place. So who am I to knock anyone else for what they've done? That's not really how I roll (homey), and yes, I'm a Christian, and that's how I learned not to knock folks for doing things that I disagree with, or that are "sinful". I truly, truly, truly regret that you had to go through that (the abuse/rape and the abortion) and I hope that someday those scars of yours can be mended. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

And, for the record, almost everyone I know who is actively against abortion (not passively ("Oh, that's NAWRTY, the dirty liberal sinnahs!" Whaddabunchajerks, making Christianity and this issue nothing more than a political view.) is a woman. I'm the only guy I've met personally that actively hates it. Several womenz around me do, just me on the male side. I don't think it's something a lot of fellers really spend much time thinking about, except the pundits, because it's not something that directly affects guys until it's in our faces.

Annnnnd

It's a baby. "Fetus" is Greek for "little one". "Embryo" is simply a living thing that isn't fully developed. That being said, an (we'll use your word this time) embryo begins to form its muscular, circulatory, skeletal, and neural systems are forming within the first week of fertilization. By day twenty, his heart, brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are nearly complete and his eyes begin to form. At twenty-two days, his heart is beating. So it becomes "human" and not just a clump of cells within the first month by most standards. My personal standard says its human from the beginning. You don't change species.

ANNNNNND

I don't see why there isn't a question of custody in most circumstances. As I said, most abortions ARE NOT for cases of rape, so most cases should have a viable case for legal custody. So if mama doesn't want it, there might be a lineup of folks who still have a claim. Such as the man-toy, the girl's parents (if she is underage), etc. Come on. This is America. The number of single fathers out there is becoming more prominent. Still a minority, but to give one sex rights the other doesn't have is discrimination. Daddy ought to have a say. Might not be much say if he hasn't committed, but I think if it's a choice of giving the baby to the one-night-stand man and killing it, that's no choice at all.
Personally, I think if abortion's going to be legal, you ought to have a court order to get one. I mean, this isn't a meat market here.
And, if I were the bitteroldking of America, I'd make it illegal to get an underage girl prego. So there.


ANNNNND

Hmph. What was I saying? Get away from my car, you hoodlums!

 

[Donald Trump]

ANNNNND

I agree that someone shouldn't be forced to raise a child they don't want. That's why you give the child up for adoption.

So mothers are disposable baby factories? It's not as if she lays back thinks happy thoughts and nine months later a baby pops out of her. Delivering a child is immesely painful. Pregnancy is a risk to a woman's health. There are so many related problems that listing them all would drain the patience of anyone.
The point is, it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

It's a baby. "Fetus" is Greek for "little one". "Embryo" is simply a living thing that isn't fully developed. That being said, an (we'll use your word this time) embryo begins to form its muscular, circulatory, skeletal, and neural systems are forming within the first week of fertilization. By day twenty, his heart, brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are nearly complete and his eyes begin to form. At twenty-two days, his heart is beating. So it becomes "human" and not just a clump of cells within the first month by most standards. My personal standard says its human from the beginning. You don't change species.

Semantics.

It isn't a life, it will be but currently isn't.
Since it isn't yet a life, there's not much of a difference between an abortion and any other prophylactic.

I don't see why there isn't a question of custody in most circumstances. As I said, most abortions ARE NOT for cases of rape, so most cases should have a viable case for legal custody. So if mama doesn't want it, there might be a lineup of folks who still have a claim. Such as the man-toy, the girl's parents (if she is underage), etc. Come on. This is America. The number of single fathers out there is becoming more prominent. Still a minority, but to give one sex rights the other doesn't have is discrimination. Daddy ought to have a say. Might not be much say if he hasn't committed, but I think if it's a choice of giving the baby to the one-night-stand man and killing it, that's no choice at all.
Personally, I think if abortion's going to be legal, you ought to have a court order to get one. I mean, this isn't a meat market here.
And, if I were the bitteroldking of America, I'd make it illegal to get an underage girl prego. So there.

In most cases the father should have a say in it. I still think that the ultimate decision is the woman's. I don't think her father or anyone other member of her family has the right to say what she can and can't do with her body. That's what it comes down to for me at least. The right of a woman to make decisions about her own body vs a section of society trying to force their views onto others. And to me, the answer is fairly obvious.

 

[bitteroldman]

So mothers are disposable baby factories? It's not as if she lays back thinks happy thoughts and nine months later a baby pops out of her. Delivering a child is immesely painful. Pregnancy is a risk to a woman's health. There are so many related problems that listing them all would drain the patience of anyone.
The point is, it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

Not as simple as you make it either. Mom's not a baby factory and not disposable at all. However, from my understanding, abortion is also painful and has been known to have complications and side effects that include death. Same argument coming from both sides=moot point.
That being said, some women make quite a bit of money taking the adoption route. I think that's appropriate.

Semantics.

It isn't a life, it will be but currently isn't.
Since it isn't yet a life, there's not much of a difference between an abortion and any other prophylactic.

Ah, my point is that it's semantics. Calling it an embryo/fetus/baby is semantics, and doesn't make it any less what it is (an unborn child).
Your opinion vs mine=moot point. Moving on...
I haven't heard of a prophylactic that requires a medical procedure to reverse what has already happened. Pro=before. A=after.
And let's think about that too: you need a medical procedure to end the phenomenon that is occurring within you? And it's not the same as removing a tumor, because a tumor is harmful, while an "embryo", in most cases in the Western world, is not. So how is this not ending a life?

In most cases the father should have a say in it. I still think that the ultimate decision is the woman's. I don't think her father or anyone other member of her family has the right to say what she can and can't do with her body. That's what it comes down to for me at least. The right of a woman to make decisions about her own body vs a section of society trying to force their views onto others. And to me, the answer is fairly obvious.

In my opinion, it's disgusting that society has set up a system that allows my daughter to get a medical procedure with possible complications done without consulting me. As a parent, within reason, it is my say what she does with her body, including medical care. She can't get a piercing or a tattoo without my permission. She couldn't have a mole removed or get a filling put in. So why should they be allowed to handle her genitalia and reproductive system, possibly risking infection, infertility, or even death, without consulting me? This is a girl who might not be able to understand the procedure or the complications, and is more likely to make an emotional decision when under stress than a sound one. This is why she remains in my care.
As for grown women? What they do with their bodies is their decision. They can do drink their liver rotten, do drugs till they don't remember who they are, sleep with every guy and catch every disease, and get all the on-the-spot medical treatments she wants. But should it all be legal? Paid for by the state? No. If she agrees to sleep with the guy, to my mind, that is an understanding of the possible outcomes for both sides. That's an understanding that a baby could come of this. There should be mandatory notification for the father, and if she decides to kill it, he should have legal rights too.
It's just like a business deal: both sides make an investment, both sides have a claim on the profits. Though, no, it is not an equal claim, since it is the woman doing the work. However, if she forfeits the claim on the profits, he should be able to "buy out" her share.

 

[Donald Trump]

Not as simple as you make it either. Mom's not a baby factory and not disposable at all. However, from my understanding, abortion is also painful and has been known to have complications and side effects that include death. Same argument coming from both sides=moot point.
That being said, some women make quite a bit of money taking the adoption route. I think that's appropriate.

I'm not saying that women should always have abortions, just that they should be able to chose. As we've both pointed, both options can be detrimental to women's health. If we agree that abortion is legal etc, then it should be the woman's choice.

I haven't heard of a prophylactic that requires a medical procedure to reverse what has already happened. Pro=before. A=after.
And let's think about that too: you need a medical procedure to end the phenomenon that is occurring within you? And it's not the same as removing a tumor, because a tumor is harmful, while an "embryo", in most cases in the Western world, is not. So how is this not ending a life?

Because it's not alive. If you removed the child/foetus from the mother it wouldn't be dead because it wouldn't have ever been alive. Until whatever is in the womb can survive outside of it, it's not alive.
The only difference between a prophylactic and an abortion is a practical one. After nine months you won't have a child. You'll disagree because you believe that after conception it's a life. Which as you say makes it a moot point.

In my opinion, it's disgusting that society has set up a system that allows my daughter to get a medical procedure with possible complications done without consulting me. As a parent, within reason, it is my say what she does with her body, including medical care. She can't get a piercing or a tattoo without my permission. She couldn't have a mole removed or get a filling put in. So why should they be allowed to handle her genitalia and reproductive system, possibly risking infection, infertility, or even death, without consulting me? This is a girl who might not be able to understand the procedure or the complications, and is more likely to make an emotional decision when under stress than a sound one. This is why she remains in my care.
As for grown women? What they do with their bodies is their decision. They can do drink their liver rotten, do drugs till they don't remember who they are, sleep with every guy and catch every disease, and get all the on-the-spot medical treatments she wants. But should it all be legal? Paid for by the state? No. If she agrees to sleep with the guy, to my mind, that is an understanding of the possible outcomes for both sides. That's an understanding that a baby could come of this. There should be mandatory notification for the father, and if she decides to kill it, he should have legal rights too.

I meant the father of the not yet born child. Both terms I use for convience.
I also don't think a father owns his daughter either. I'm in favour of the daughter having the final say, because you can't say that every father would have his daughters' best interests at heart. And in almost all cases the daughter would discuss it with her father and/or mother.

It's just like a business deal: both sides make an investment, both sides have a claim on the profits. Though, no, it is not an equal claim, since it is the woman doing the work. However, if she forfeits the claim on the profits, he should be able to "buy out" her share.

Again woman's right to choose > Man's right.
If the woman thinks that the man will raise the child 'well' then I think in some or most cases, the woman would give birth.

 

[Davey Gaga]

I've posted (most of) my opinions in previous posts, so I'll only home in on points, which I've yet to cover.

In most cases the father should have a say in it. I still think that the ultimate decision is the woman's. I don't think her father or anyone other member of her family has the right to say what she can and can't do with her body. That's what it comes down to for me at least. The right of a woman to make decisions about her own body vs a section of society trying to force their views onto others. And to me, the answer is fairly obvious.

While I agree that the woman should indeed have the final say, I do believe that the man should heavily influence the decision. Aye, the woman bears the burden of pregnancy, and surely has the right to choose what to do with her body, but what about the birth thereafter? When the baby comes in to the world, after 9 months of pregnancy, a lifetime of committment then begins - a responsibility, which is (usually) a joint effort between both parents. For the father to be excluded from the final decision is, to me, highly inconsiderate of him and his life. Half of the baby is his and so half of the decision should be his - without sounding as though I'm dismissing pregnancy as a quick pushing job, the 9 months of carrying the child can't compare to the lifetime of responsibility.

100% pro-choice, btw.

 

[Fusilli]

Ideally, whether or not a baby is kept or aborted would be a mutual decision between both parents. But at the end of the day, if a woman is set on getting an abortion then it's going to be her say that counts. No, it's not entirely fair BUT then again it isn't exactly fair that women have to go through with pregnancy and childbirth in the first place whereas men don't.

I don't see why there isn't a question of custody in most circumstances. As I said, most abortions ARE NOT for cases of rape, so most cases should have a viable case for legal custody. So if mama doesn't want it, there might be a lineup of folks who still have a claim. Such as the man-toy, the girl's parents (if she is underage), etc. Come on. This is America. The number of single fathers out there is becoming more prominent. Still a minority, but to give one sex rights the other doesn't have is discrimination. Daddy ought to have a say. Might not be much say if he hasn't committed, but I think if it's a choice of giving the baby to the one-night-stand man and killing it, that's no choice at all.

To be fair, I'm sure that most abortions aren't just carried out on a whim, and it would be discussed beforehand. You talk about giving other people a claim, but don't you think this would have already been considered? If a girl didn't want the baby but was willing to go through with the pregnancy to either give it up for adoption or give it to the father, then she would. But if she's completely unwilling to go through with it, then it doesn't matter who else would raise it, because it's her body and her choice. Sure, she may be able to be persuaded, but like I said before, abortions aren't usually carried out on whims anyway and there is often a lot of discussion preceding one, so this would have all been considered.

And, if I were the bitteroldking of America, I'd make it illegal to get an underage girl prego. So there.

Yes, it's called paedophilia.

 

[Davey Gaga]

Ideally, whether or not a baby is kept or aborted would be a mutual decision between both parents. But at the end of the day, if a woman is set on getting an abortion then it's going to be her say that counts. No, it's not entirely fair BUT then again it isn't exactly fair that women have to go through with pregnancy and childbirth in the first place whereas men don't.

We could start another debate on who has it worse off in life - men, or women - but I think that we can agree that we'll end up firing across equally strong points. I don't think that, simply because the mother carries the child in the first 9 months, she has more of a right to determine the outcome of their lives. If the man doesn't want the child, but the woman has it, then the man's life changes forever without his consent. If the man wants the child and the woman does not, then it's not at all right, in my eyes, to get rid of the child (albeit, the latter situation is more easily adaptable - the couple could get pregnant again at a later date when both parents are ready, the man could find another partner, et cetera - than the former).

I think I want to change my view on abortion to being a complete 50/50 decision between the couple. If the man is not in the woman's life, e.g. rape, abandonment, and the woman has no intention of letting the father know of the baby's existence, then I think it's 100% up to her. More complicatedly, if the father of, say, a rape child does not want the baby (as would likely be the case), then I do not think that he has any right to decide the outcome of the baby's life, and I firmly believe, in that situation, that he should be forced to support the child, financially.

I'm digressing, slightly. In short: couples should make a joint decision, regardless of the circumstances, and single mothers have full rights over the decision.

 

[Fusilli]

Well yes, I agree. Couples SHOULD make a joint decision. As I said 'Ideally, whether or not a baby is kept or aborted would be a mutual decision between both parents.' But unfortunately sometimes they'll disagree, and if this is the case then it'll be the woman who has the final say. If she doesn't want to have a baby, regardless of whether or not she's going to raise it, then she shouldn't feel pressurised into giving birth. As Hal said earlier, we aren't baby factories, and if a man wants a baby so bad then he should have one with somebody else who wants one.

 

[Bambi]

We could start another debate on who has it worse off in life - men, or women - but I think that we can agree that we'll end up firing across equally strong points. I don't think that, simply because the mother carries the child in the first 9 months, she has more of a right to determine the outcome of their lives. If the man doesn't want the child, but the woman has it, then the man's life changes forever without his consent. If the man wants the child and the woman does not, then it's not at all right, in my eyes, to get rid of the child (albeit, the latter situation is more easily adaptable - the couple could get pregnant again at a later date when both parents are ready, the man could find another partner, et cetera - than the former)..

9 months is a long time for a woman to be pregnant with a child she doesn't want, my hair isn't as thick as it was before I got pregnant, I was anemic and narrowly escaped a blood transfusion, I was ill and uncomfortable all the time, needing to pee constantly, the smell of cheese made me throw up, I went off tea and chocolate and I had insane cravings for broccoli and chicken

I think it IS only fair if you are in a RS that the decision SHOULD be a joint one, but ultimately if the woman does not want the child, its hard cheese for the bloke.

Oh and child birth isn't pretty either, try being scalpelled open without pain relief because you are squeezing out a baby through a small hole and you are about to tear, THEN getting stitched back up, THEN when you have finally GIVEN borth you throw up EVERYWHERE, and then its a case of not getting any sleep until you either give the baby up or for the next however many months before the kid gets into a routine. IT WAS THE MOST PAINFUL 18 HOURS OF MY LIFE

Also take into consideration, that a woman who has a baby because her bloke wants it and she doesn't, that there will be a HIGH chance of PND which will follow

Which is why, although I think its fair for the man to be consulted, I don't feel its fair to expect it to be a 50/50 decision. You have NO idea the strain child birth puts on your body

Oh and I was lucky. Mine was just an average pregnancy, I escaped with no stretch marks, I didn't gain weight and my boobs haven't sagged from how BIG they went then back small again

Pregnancy can fuck your body RIGHT up. Why would you DO that to yourself for something you don't want?

Well yes, I agree. Couples SHOULD make a joint decision. As I said 'Ideally, whether or not a baby is kept or aborted would be a mutual decision between both parents.' But unfortunately sometimes they'll disagree, and if this is the case then it'll be the woman who has the final say..

Tl;dr

What she said

 

[Davey Gaga]

If the man doesn't want the child, but the woman has it, then the man's life changes forever without his consent. If the man wants the child and the woman does not, then it's not at all right, in my eyes, to get rid of the child (albeit, the latter situation is more easily adaptable - the couple could get pregnant again at a later date when both parents are ready, the man could find another partner, et cetera - than the former).

Perhaps I understated this part of my last post, so I'll try to make it a little clearer.

In the event of a woman falling pregnant, and the father of the child does not want the child to be born, then the decision should indeed be 50/50 - for the mother to bring the child in to the world without its father's consent is just horrendous. However, in an event where the father does want the child, but the woman does not, I am in favour of the decision being left to her - it is much easier for 1) the couple to get pregnant again when both parents are fully ready and 2) the man to re-think whether or not the woman he is with is the right person for him. It is not so easy for the man to walk out of a potential child's life.

If the father does not want the child, then it's 50/50; if the mother does not want the child, then it's up to her and her alone.

...imo.

 

[bitteroldman]

I'm not saying that women should always have abortions, just that they should be able to chose. As we've both pointed, both options can be detrimental to women's health. If we agree that abortion is legal etc, then it should be the woman's choice.

I will digress except to say that I think abortion should AT LEAST not be readily available like a pizza parlor. Anything that follows is not a concession that abortion is okay, but merely an acknowledgement that it is legal right now, and that some safeguards ought to be in place.

Because it's not alive. If you removed the child/foetus from the mother it wouldn't be dead because it wouldn't have ever been alive. Until whatever is in the womb can survive outside of it, it's not alive.
The only difference between a prophylactic and an abortion is a practical one. After nine months you won't have a child. You'll disagree because you believe that after conception it's a life. Which as you say makes it a moot point.

I'm not going to play the "Whoever posts their opinion last wins" game.

I meant the father of the not yet born child. Both terms I use for convience.
I also don't think a father owns his daughter either. I'm in favour of the daughter having the final say, because you can't say that every father would have his daughters' best interests at heart. And in almost all cases the daughter would discuss it with her father and/or mother.

I'm in favor of a child having legal recourse for a situation that they feel the parent is not living up to their duties. That being said, it should be generally assumbed unless reasonably proven otherwise, that a parent does have their child's best interest at heart. And for a child--who is often ruled by emotion instead of reason, and often hides things from their parents when they're afraid of the possible consequences--to have unquestioning access to a medical facility and procedure is reprehensible. How is anyone supposed to protect their child in these circumstances? First, the setup allows rapists and sexual abusers to get off scot-free. Next, it allows my child (who might just see a road with no visible consequences, much like disposing of a plate she broke, and be totally unaware of the consequences and lacking the maturity to truly weigh them) to put herself at risk without my knowledge and despite my permission. That shouldn't be legal, let alone endorsed by the state. Also, this undermines my ability to parent, and encourages her to run around and repeat the road that led her to that chair. Finally, it leaves me unprepared for the trauma that girls who face this procedure often face.

If a teenage girl (at least a girl under the age of consent) ends up in a doctor's office pregnant, there should be some accountability. Period. Exclamation point. Unquote. Moving on.

Again woman's right to choose > Man's right.
If the woman thinks that the man will raise the child 'well' then I think in some or most cases, the woman would give birth.

Wrong. Woman's right to her body>greater than man's right. But in consensual sex, you are putting yourself at risk with a partner, and the consequences of such are not so simple as one person's choice. If she came down with chlamydia, she has a duty to inform him, and possibly a legal recourse. The same should apply to pregnancy. They did the deed together, so it only makes sense that some accountability should be present for the fallout. And a woman should not be able to withhold a child or kill it regardless of the man's feelings. And if he is willing to parent the child, that's all that needs be said; he can pay the hospital bills and some recompense for the woman's trouble and time off work, and she can give him the child she doesn't want. If the dude's a buttplug that doesn't deserve a child, she should've thought of that before.

When is it good or wise to do something drastic when someone else is willing to take the burden from you?

I've posted (most of) my opinions in previous posts, so I'll only home in on points, which I've yet to cover.

While I agree that the woman should indeed have the final say, I do believe that the man should heavily influence the decision. Aye, the woman bears the burden of pregnancy, and surely has the right to choose what to do with her body, but what about the birth thereafter? When the baby comes in to the world, after 9 months of pregnancy, a lifetime of committment then begins - a responsibility, which is (usually) a joint effort between both parents. For the father to be excluded from the final decision is, to me, highly inconsiderate of him and his life. Half of the baby is his and so half of the decision should be his - without sounding as though I'm dismissing pregnancy as a quick pushing job, the 9 months of carrying the child can't compare to the lifetime of responsibility.

100% pro-choice, btw.

Truth. This is not discounting what women go through in pregnancy and labor.

Ideally, whether or not a baby is kept or aborted would be a mutual decision between both parents. But at the end of the day, if a woman is set on getting an abortion then it's going to be her say that counts. No, it's not entirely fair BUT then again it isn't exactly fair that women have to go through with pregnancy and childbirth in the first place whereas men don't.

It doesn't have to be fair. It's the way it is. If a man is willing to support you and your baby, and willing to hold on to the baby even if you're not, that needs to count for something.
Is it fair that the man can just run off, scott-free? Not at all, and that's why there are legal recourses available for the woman to get his assistance with the children. Things are too often one-sided in this country.

To be fair, I'm sure that most abortions aren't just carried out on a whim, and it would be discussed beforehand. You talk about giving other people a claim, but don't you think this would have already been considered? If a girl didn't want the baby but was willing to go through with the pregnancy to either give it up for adoption or give it to the father, then she would. But if she's completely unwilling to go through with it, then it doesn't matter who else would raise it, because it's her body and her choice. Sure, she may be able to be persuaded, but like I said before, abortions aren't usually carried out on whims anyway and there is often a lot of discussion preceding one, so this would have all been considered.

It's not always considered. Often these things are just hidden and never spoken aloud. And, if I'm understanding right, you can waltz right on in to the clinic and get an abortion the same day. You're talking about abortion being a mature decision that often comes about from transparent people. From my understanding, it's more often someone facing it alone, or with the support of a friend. And even if the father is willing, often, the mother doesn't care. If you can walk in and get an abortion that day (am I wrong about this?), that is set up to be just about as whimsy a decision as one can make. (though, sure, not always)

Yes, it's called paedophilia.

uttahere:
No, it's called teenage sex.
If my niece ends up prego from her boyfriend (she's fourteen), I--if I were bitteroldking--would make him liable for half the medical expenses and half the expenses in raising the child. I would fine him a certain amount. If this happens again, depending on the timespan and whether or not it's the same girl, he might face double the fine, or juvie. Third time is automatic juvie.
If the girl ends up pregnant more than once, she could be fined as well.
If the parents allow this to happen more than once, they would be fined and child services would be informed.
And the beauty of it all? Since I abolished abortion, a DNA test is always available, so that we can always find out who the father really is!
See? I just made a program that inspires kids to keep their pants on, catches sexual predators, and makes me do the dance of joy all in my first day on the throne!

It's good to be the king!

We could start another debate on who has it worse off in life - men, or women - but I think that we can agree that we'll end up firing across equally strong points. I don't think that, simply because the mother carries the child in the first 9 months, she has more of a right to determine the outcome of their lives. If the man doesn't want the child, but the woman has it, then the man's life changes forever without his consent. If the man wants the child and the woman does not, then it's not at all right, in my eyes, to get rid of the child (albeit, the latter situation is more easily adaptable - the couple could get pregnant again at a later date when both parents are ready, the man could find another partner, et cetera - than the former).

It's called being an adult, when you have to face the consequences of your actions. Sex often has consequences, whether pregnancy or disease or emotional trauma.

I firmly believe, in that situation (rape), that he should be forced to support the child, financially.

Yep. And an automatic shipping to another part of the country with an ankle bracelet when he gets out of prison too.

Perhaps I understated this part of my last post, so I'll try to make it a little clearer.

In the event of a woman falling pregnant, and the father of the child does not want the child to be born, then the decision should indeed be 50/50 - for the mother to bring the child in to the world without its father's consent is just horrendous.

That's the weirdest thing I've ever heard. Horrendous to bring a child into the world? Seriously? You empower womanizers this way, y'know. And force the woman to get an abortion she doesn't want/doesn't believe in. I think this would actually be worse than the way things are now. A man's right to choose abortion for his woman? Wow.

 

[The Illusive Man]

and I noticed at no point in your arguments did you quote a word of anything I said?

Is it because you are the Over-Zealous Church goer that refuses to accept things that they dont understand?

Or is it simply because your too damn ignorant to accept the fact that maybe, just maybe you might be actually wrong on this one?

Like I already stated before, theres debating opinions and theres forcing opinions, from what I can see of your style of arguing your no better than one of those brainwashed Taliban maniacs that have been involved in suicide bombing.

We live in a free world and everyone is entitled to an opinion, so stop trying to force yours down peoples throats, there are some that agree with you, there are others that will never agree with you, just accept that fact and move on.....nuff said.

 

[Davey Gaga]

That's the weirdest thing I've ever heard. Horrendous to bring a child into the world? Seriously?

Without the consent or wishes of 50% of its own genetic make-up, yeah. Why on Earth would you prefer that an unwanted child be brought in to the world, simply to avoid abortion, over a child who is wanted and will be loved by both of its parents? Speaking from a personal point of view, if I was to get a bit hot under the covers one night with a woman (I'm speaking hypothetically, here, before any of you wise-guys start cracking jokes over impossibility ) and she told me that she was pregnant, and KEEPING the child, I'd just die on the spot. There's absolutely no way I'd want that child in this world - I wouldn't be able to handle the responsibility (my current age is irrelevant), neither physically nor financially. Emotionally, I couldn't handle not being part of my child's life, either, so I'd feel trapped. I've not planned that child, I don't want it, I'm not ready for it, I didn't MEAN for it to be created in the first place, so why the hell should I have to give the rest of my life up for the sake of a rather selfish woman? It's entrapment imo and if she was any kind of good person she'd have her child with someone who wanted it...and if that means getting an abortion, I'd be supporting it 100%.

I sense a rather dismissive "don't have sex, then" response, to which I won't reply because that's a completely different debate. :dave:

EDIT: I suppose, in a way, I've just changed my opinion to say that, as long as ONE parent doesn't want the potential child, it shouldn't be allowed to come in to the world.

 

[bitteroldman]

and I noticed at no point in your arguments did you quote a word of anything I said?

Is it because you are the Over-Zealous Church goer that refuses to accept things that they dont understand?

Or is it simply because your too damn ignorant to accept the fact that maybe, just maybe you might be actually wrong on this one?

Like I already stated before, theres debating opinions and theres forcing opinions, from what I can see of your style of arguing your no better than one of those brainwashed Taliban maniacs that have been involved in suicide bombing.

We live in a free world and everyone is entitled to an opinion, so stop trying to force yours down peoples throats, there are some that agree with you, there are others that will never agree with you, just accept that fact and move on.....nuff said.

No Jill, I did not address your post because I found nothing worth replying to. Mostly it seemed more an attempt to bash me and other Christians here, along with our beliefs. Frankly, I agree that the Roman Catholic Church is outdated; however the Bible is alive and well, and I have only seen bad things come from ignoring/distorting it. However, as I believe I've said in this thread before, if you want to discuss religion with me, either start a thread focused on that, or invite me to an existing thread. I have no problem discussing the Bible or religion or the impacts of such things on society, but I can only see it as a derail to this thread, so I am not going to play your game.
As to me "forcing my opinions" upon others, I cry foul. You see, I have tried to make some pretty big concessions to add to this conversation. For instance, I think abortion is deplorable and should be illegal in any case in which the mother is not in immediate danger. However, I've been willing to accommodate and contribute to a bit of the conversation that dealt with how it could better be handled as a part of society that I don't see going away. I think that's a pretty big concession for someone that sees it as a step away from genocide. I also did not criticize or judge some who have come on here saying they have had/would have abortions.
However, you come on here, pointing fingers and dogging me for things unrelated to this conversation, and only function to bring the thread to a more base level of head-bashing for its own sake because I disagree with your stance on this subject, and you accuse me of forcing my opinions on others? You compare me to the Taliban and suicide bombers because I disagree with you, and go about trying to debase my character in ways that have nothing directly in common with this specific conversation? Define hypocrite, and read your posts vs. my posts again, then get back to me. I think you would have to be pretty set on arguing for the sake of argument to come to this, and if that's what you want this conversation to be, I will just ignore more of your posts.
Whippersnapper.

Without the consent or wishes of 50% of its own genetic make-up, yeah. Why on Earth would you prefer that an unwanted child be brought in to the world, simply to avoid abortion, over a child who is wanted and will be loved by both of its parents? Speaking from a personal point of view, if I was to get a bit hot under the covers one night with a woman (I'm speaking hypothetically, here, before any of you wise-guys start cracking jokes over impossibility ) and she told me that she was pregnant, and KEEPING the child, I'd just die on the spot. There's absolutely no way I'd want that child in this world - I wouldn't be able to handle the responsibility (my current age is irrelevant), neither physically nor financially. Emotionally, I couldn't handle not being part of my child's life, either, so I'd feel trapped. I've not planned that child, I don't want it, I'm not ready for it, I didn't MEAN for it to be created in the first place, so why the hell should I have to give the rest of my life up for the sake of a rather selfish woman? It's entrapment imo and if she was any kind of good person she'd have her child with someone who wanted it...and if that means getting an abortion, I'd be supporting it 100%.

I sense a rather dismissive "don't have sex, then" response, to which I won't reply because that's a completely different debate. :dave:

EDIT: I suppose, in a way, I've just changed my opinion to say that, as long as ONE parent doesn't want the potential child, it shouldn't be allowed to come in to the world.

You don't have to give your life up. The woman already said she would. If you want so badly to not be in the equation, she has already figured you out of it. If you think you have a reason to feel guilty, I'd say you have a good conscience. That's a good thing, IF you can follow up on it. That's the danger in knocking boots, youngster; if you want so badly to not have the baby, then do the sacrificial thing and don't do it. Otherwise, there's that chance she will get prego, and the chance she will want it. 50/50 works both ways, and the default should not be abortion. Think of what that would do to the girl, if nothing else. Your selfishness should not override her selflessness. And the more you think you know the right thing to do and refuse to do it, the more torn up you will be in life. It's good to realize that making a baby entitles you to responsibility. But running away from that only makes the world worse. As an uncommitted man whom a woman gives herself to for a night, there must be an understanding of the risks involved, else you are ignorant. To go about thinking you can force someone to give up something they want is arrogance at best, criminal at worst (when you act on it). THAT takes away the liberty of others. In the end, if you feel you should be a part of the baby's life, good on you. If not, that gives you no right to take it from someone else's.
And if you give your kid an honest chance, it will win you over.

 

[Shrouded]

Semantics.

It isn't a life, it will be but currently isn't.
Since it isn't yet a life, there's not much of a difference between an abortion and any other prophylactic.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium

Paramecium, it's a single celled organism considered by the scientific community as a living specimen. Since it's only made up of one single cell, it's safe to say that its physiology is much more simple than that of the multi celled human embryo. Why then do we deny that one fact to our own species?

A human embryo is alive, this is a stage in our human development. We don't start being human when we get out of mother's womb. It's starts when we get our own genetic code.

 

[Zen]

Anyone ever entertain the notion that maybe abortion is a necessary evil regardless of whether an embryo or a fetus is alive or has a soul or whatever else you want to interject?

 

[Mehaha]

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium

Paramecium, it's a single celled organism considered by the scientific community as a living specimen. Since it's only made up of one single cell, it's safe to say that its physiology is much more simple than that of the multi celled human embryo. Why then do we deny that one fact to our own species?

A human embryo is alive, this is a stage in our human development. We don't start being human when we get out of mother's womb. It's starts when we get our own genetic code.

Evil or not Abortion is a choice. And it should be up to the individual. And such we should not interfere.

Also by your reasoning any women who has had a period is a serial killer. I believe you are human when you begin to process complex thought. So yes around time of birth when you are learning all types of different things. You seem to view it as "OK it has my genes so it's human" while I disagree. I believe that what make a human a human is thought and reasoning. Not just your genetics. Thus if your unable to think with some complexity you are not fully human.

 

[Shrouded]

Evil or not Abortion is a choice. And it should be up to the individual. And such we should not interfere.

You have every right to choose in regards to your own life. What about another individual's life? Life of an unborn child?

Also by your reasoning any women who has had a period is a serial killer.

The egg belongs to the mother, the semen belongs to the father. It's a part of you, and you have every right to choose what you want to do with it. But once fertilization starts, the unborn child will have its own genetic code. It becomes an individual. It's a life on it's own.

Who does it belongs to now? Can you truly decide to take life away from someone else?

I believe you are human when you begin to process complex thought. So yes around time of birth when you are learning all types of different things. You seem to view it as "OK it has my genes so it's human" while I disagree. I believe that what make a human a human is thought and reasoning. Not just your genetics. Thus if your unable to think with some complexity you are not fully human.

I believe that it's not that easy to draw a line on who is human and who is not. By your reasoning, it's ok to kill a baby because it still lacks the basic function we adults have. Is that all it takes to be human? Lacking certain functions? What do you say to the blind? To the crippled? To those who are autistic(complex thoughts and reasoning?)? Is it alright to kill them because they lack certain human function?

 

[Bambi]

The egg belongs to the mother, the semen belongs to the father. It's a part of you, and you have every right to choose what you want to do with it. But once fertilization starts, the unborn child will have its own genetic code. It becomes an individual.

Who does it belongs to now?

I beleive the woman has every right to do what she wants with this unborn child up until the point where abortion isn't allowed - but by then, you should have already made your decision anyway unless it's medically unsafe to contine with the pregnacy. Womans life > Unborn baby

All this ethics bullshit aside, if I fell pregnant, HOWEVER it happened and I did not want t o have a baby, I would terminate, it's my body and it's not illegal, and more importantly, it's my right as a human being to HAVE this choice

The 'child' I'd be carrying/feeding/ keeping alive with MY body HAS no human rights. That's just the way it is

MY body my right to CHOOSE

 

[Shrouded]

The 'child' I'd be carrying/feeding/ keeping alive with MY body HAS no human rights. That's just the way it is

...and that's the real crux of this argument. It's either you or the unborn child. In my opinion however, it's no different than a newlyborn trying to live off of his parents.

MY body my right to CHOOSE

You're right, it just sucks that the child doesn't get to have that same choice you're all fighting for. But what happens when they do get a voice in this matter?

Gianna Jessen

Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.

My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.

Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a result of a job not well done.

There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.


I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.
My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.

I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy. Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19 years.

I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.

I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah. She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ...

Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...

The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.

There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.