Pro Choice?????

[rclouse 0]

Actually, here in Britain you can terminate a foetus up to 24 weeks. There does not have to be an abnormality to be able to do this. However, the procedure isn't pleasant. The heart is injected with potassion chloride, which kills the baby, and then labour is induced. The woman has to then give brith to a dead baby. This decision, to be made by the mother mostly is not taken lightly.

[Karen_L 1]

Yeah, the issue isn't whether or not the fetus is alive; everyone would agree that, biologically speaking, a fetus is alive. The question is rather whether a woman has the right to decide what happens inside of her own body and whether or not a government can force someone to gestate and give birth.

Personally, I don't think she was desperate or suicidal; she did what she wanted -- walked away from this all baby-free. I am pro-choice, and I think the more we limit access to medical abortions, the more stories like this we will read. I think abortion is immoral; it's a terrible thing, but I think it's even more terrible for a government to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term and then give birth to a child they don't want.

No govt is forcing women to have sex. If you don't want a baby don't have sex... it's soooooooo simple.

But why should women pay a 9-month-long "price" for engaging in sex? It's not illegal to have sex, so how can the government order a woman to more or less give up her life for 9 months and go through the pain of labor? I agree that morally speaking all people SHOULD take resonsibility for their actions, and that they should consider the potential consequences of what they do before they do them, but I don't think politically speaking, the government should punish women for having sex by forcing them engage in 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and then childbirth.

The act of copulations sole aim IS to produce a child. It's the whole idea of it. Yes, modern society has developed ways to stop this happening...but don't forget that sex is just a way of keeping the human race alive and breeding.

The sole biological aim of sex IS reproduction; the social aims vary from pleasure/intimacy in marriage to some girl trying to get some high school loser to like her. Clearly the US government recognizes the fact that humans don't just engage in sex for reproduction's sake and indeed that humans are usually driven by social forces rather than purely biological. Also, the idea of "birth control" is not a modern invention. People throughout history have attempted (successfully or not) to prevent conception during sex. Lookit. Also, prostitution has existed since forever, and clearly that is a form of sex in which procreation was never intended.

ETA: Stuff.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Karen_L

[Veiled Princess 1]

According to you, God especially likes it when those children get married at 12. But also according to you, they cease to be a joy when they're being little "sluts" around that age. I'm not sure what you really think about children. I'm not sure how I feel about pleasing your god.

too much?

God would rather them be married after puberty then to ####### around in front of their parents who don't give a ####### who screws their daughter or what kinda ####### their daughter turns out to be! After all when she gets herself knocked up we'll just rush her to the abortion clinic and make a murderer out of her too

Too much?????

But why should women pay a 9-month-long "price" for engaging in sex? It's not illegal to have sex, so how can the government order a woman to more or less give up her life for 9 months and go through the pain of labor? I agree that morally speaking all people SHOULD take resonsibility for their actions, and that they should consider the potential consequences of what they do before they do them, but I don't think politically speaking, the government should punish women for having sex by forcing them engage in 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and then childbirth.

It's not a punishment it's a choice. Murder because of your lack of planning should not be an option however.

Unwanted children are better off never born than born into poverty or possible abuse.

Adoption is always an option.

would someone who is molested or raped consider THAT an accident?

If a woman is raped they hand out the morning after pill at the hospital for free when she has her exam. There is no need for her to have an abortion.

[irishgirl73 0]

According to you, God especially likes it when those children get married at 12. But also according to you, they cease to be a joy when they're being little "sluts" around that age. I'm not sure what you really think about children. I'm not sure how I feel about pleasing your god.

too much?

God would rather them be married after puberty then to ####### around in front of their parents who don't give a ####### who screws their daughter or what kinda ####### their daughter turns out to be! After all when she gets herself knocked up we'll just rush her to the abortion clinic and make a murderer out of her too

Too much?????

But why should women pay a 9-month-long "price" for engaging in sex? It's not illegal to have sex, so how can the government order a woman to more or less give up her life for 9 months and go through the pain of labor? I agree that morally speaking all people SHOULD take resonsibility for their actions, and that they should consider the potential consequences of what they do before they do them, but I don't think politically speaking, the government should punish women for having sex by forcing them engage in 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and then childbirth.

It's not a punishment it's a choice. Murder because of your lack of planning should not be an option however.

Unwanted children are better off never born than born into poverty or possible abuse.

Adoption is always an option.

would someone who is molested or raped consider THAT an accident?

If a woman is raped they hand out the morning after pill at the hospital for free when she has her exam. There is no need for her to have an abortion.

what if the woman is raped/molested & she doesn't report it?

[Veiled Princess 1]

what if the woman is raped/molested & she doesn't report it?

That's her choice.

[Karen_L 1]

According to you, God especially likes it when those children get married at 12. But also according to you, they cease to be a joy when they're being little "sluts" around that age. I'm not sure what you really think about children. I'm not sure how I feel about pleasing your god.

too much?

God would rather them be married after puberty then to ####### around in front of their parents who don't give a ####### who screws their daughter or what kinda ####### their daughter turns out to be! After all when she gets herself knocked up we'll just rush her to the abortion clinic and make a murderer out of her too

Too much?????

But why should women pay a 9-month-long "price" for engaging in sex? It's not illegal to have sex, so how can the government order a woman to more or less give up her life for 9 months and go through the pain of labor? I agree that morally speaking all people SHOULD take resonsibility for their actions, and that they should consider the potential consequences of what they do before they do them, but I don't think politically speaking, the government should punish women for having sex by forcing them engage in 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and then childbirth.

It's not a punishment it's a choice. Murder because of your lack of planning should not be an option however.

This hypothetical woman chose to have sex. The government would be choosing for her to give birth.

Unwanted children are better off never born than born into poverty or possible abuse.

Adoption is always an option.

And how many anti-choice people actually go out and adopt these unwanted children? Very few, which is why the system is so FILLED TO THE BRIM with children. I, however, do NOT think that an overcrowded system is a REASON to have an abortion, just that it is a problem that does exist and which often prevents adoption from being a real option for many children.

ETA: I respect the opposing stance on the abortion issue, because I agree it isn't the bestest thing a person can do, but I find it funny that SO MANY people who go on and on about how evil it is to have an abortion would also NEVER think of actually adopting a baby. I know lots of people who talk about adoption but then turn and say "Me adopt? Oh no no never! But unwanted babies should be put up for adoption!"

would someone who is molested or raped consider THAT an accident?

If a woman is raped they hand out the morning after pill at the hospital for free when she has her exam. There is no need for her to have an abortion.

Many people also consider the morning-after pill to be abortion, since it kills anything that may have "taken root" in the uterus.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Karen_L

[irishgirl73 0]

what if the woman is raped/molested & she doesn't report it?

That's her choice.

it's also her choice to have an abortion-that is my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Veiled Princess 1]

This hypothetical woman chose to have sex. The government would be choosing for her to give birth.

And how many anti-choice people actually go out and adopt these unwanted children? Very few, which is why the system is so FILLED TO THE BRIM with children. I, however, do NOT think that an overcrowded system is a REASON to have an abortion, just that it is a problem that does exist and which often prevents adoption from being a real option for many children.

The system is not overrun with newborns... in fact there are MANY couples waiting for newborns at any given moment.

ETA: I respect the opposing stance on the abortion issue, because I agree it isn't the bestest thing a person can do, but I find it funny that SO MANY people who go on and on about how evil it is to have an abortion would also NEVER think of actually adopting a baby. I know lots of people who talk about adoption but then turn and say "Me adopt? Oh no no never! But unwanted babies should be put up for adoption!"

I don't believe I have ever stated that I would not adopt.

what if the woman is raped/molested & she doesn't report it?

That's her choice.

it's also her choice to have an abortion-that is my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is it my choice to kill you?

[Karen_L 1]

This hypothetical woman chose to have sex. The government would be choosing for her to give birth.

And how many anti-choice people actually go out and adopt these unwanted children? Very few, which is why the system is so FILLED TO THE BRIM with children. I, however, do NOT think that an overcrowded system is a REASON to have an abortion, just that it is a problem that does exist and which often prevents adoption from being a real option for many children.

The system is not overrun with newborns... in fact there are MANY couples waiting for newborns at any given moment.

ETA: I respect the opposing stance on the abortion issue, because I agree it isn't the bestest thing a person can do, but I find it funny that SO MANY people who go on and on about how evil it is to have an abortion would also NEVER think of actually adopting a baby. I know lots of people who talk about adoption but then turn and say "Me adopt? Oh no no never! But unwanted babies should be put up for adoption!"

I don't believe I have ever stated that I would not adopt.

I never said you said you wouldn't adopt. Will you adopt?

Yes, and what of children who aren't adopted as babies and languish for years in the system?

[Veiled Princess 1]

This hypothetical woman chose to have sex. The government would be choosing for her to give birth.

No, this hypothetical woman chose to have sex which carries a rish of pregnancies... the govt would choose not to allow her to commit murder... much in the same way it would if I had a gun to your head right now.

[Irisheyes 0]

So why was Scott Peterson charged for the murder of his unborn child, ok he murdered his wife, his childs "abortion" was incidental. While I do feel for this woman who thought she had no other choice, I do believe she has to be somewhat accountable for her actions, if not by jail then by mandatory hospitalization, her charges were dropped!!! She did wrong....simple. It's an ethically impossible argument for either side, but do we really want to set up a premise for this. "I didn't know what else to do, so I dropped my minutes old baby in a dumpster." Sad story follows....case dismissed!

[mybackpages 0]

There is nothing in the constitution that gives you the right to kill an innocent person.

Foetuses are not persons. Unborn = not a person.

By that logic then it would be OK to kill a fetus moments before birth.

...which was the logic used for Roe v Wade in the first place, as well as that behind BillyBubba's refusal to sign the Partial-birth-abortion Ban!

The logic behind Roe v Wade is this is a privacy issue. The Court never ruled on the issue of life, but rather to what extent a woman has a right to privacy without interference from the state.

Overturning Roe will not only allow bans on abortion but challenge the idea that privacy exists at all in the Constitution.

[Veiled Princess 1]

I never said you said you wouldn't adopt. Will you adopt?

Yes, and what of children who aren't adopted as babies and languish for years in the system?

I would most deffinately adopt if I thought for a moment that I could give that child a life better than the one it's in for.

It is very rare that children are not adopted if they are given up as newborns... unless they are handicapped in some way. It's the children who are abandoned later or taken away from their parents or orphaned who are hard to find homes for.

With newborns this is not an issue.... many people wait in line to pay lots of money to adopt newborns.

[Carol&Marc 0]

A woman can choose to do what she wants to her body (abortion) But if she chooses to hurt herself (suicide) goes to mental hospital to get counseling! ####### wrong with that picture HMMMMMMM oh the world we live in!

[Jenn! 918]

The logic behind Roe v Wade is this is a privacy issue. The Court never ruled on the issue of life, but rather to what extent a woman has a right to privacy without interference from the state.

Overturning Roe will not only allow bans on abortion but challenge the idea that privacy exists at all in the Constitution.

So can I kill you as long as I do it in private?

P.S. I'm just kidding. I wanted to beat VP to the punch!