personally I have no moral or ethical issues with abortion as long as it's in the beginning when it's just a blob of gooey cells. but when it has arms and legs and a head, I don't care if it can't live on it's own, it's a human being at that point, imo of course. there has to be a compromise somewhere between," masturbation kills millions of children" and "hey if it's in her gut still, she can kill it."
Great perspective. Would agree.
I agree too.
There's a line there somewhere. Obvious, that line varies depending on the person. But the gooey gob of cells is not life in my mind... just as the million sperm cells spit into a Kleenex aren't.
Yes, I am perfectly fine with a woman choosing to abort when she chooses. When you put restrictions on which weeks its acceptable then you're letting the government choose for you. That, I am not ok with.
You've stated that if there is a medical reason, 7 months is ok to abort. What if it was 9 months? What if it was a week before the due date? If a doctor told my wife and I that she had a 10% chance of dying during during labor, I would want my wife to abort. I would not be willing to lose my wife for a an unborn fetus. Now that doesn't mean my wife would. We've had this discussion during all three of her pregnancies.
I am not some cold hearted dick that doesn't care if babies live or die. My wife had a miscarriage so I know what it's like to feel that loss. I just advocate for women to choose to have one if they choose, when they choose.
You're adding unnecessary complication to this because the situation of someone needing to "abort" "a week before the due date" just won't exist. If there are medical issues in the pregnant woman at that point, or even significantly before that point, that would only be solved by delivering the fetus (such as pre-eclampsia/eclampsia) then they would attempt an induction, an if that wasn't successful or possible then likely proceed to a C-section. There wouldn't be any need to "abort". If the medical issue lies with the fetus, such as a fetal malformation incompatible with life, then there might be a late term abortion but if very close to the due date they would likely just proceed with delivery.
Well exactly. 7 months, 9 months, same thing. That's not an abortion. That's giving birth. Women just don't do that (not enough for it to be a consideration anyway, IMO. I mean, it would be about as common as a girl leaving her newborn in a toilet. And not much different either.
4 months, 7 months, 9 months. It's all the same as leaving your child in the toilet. You're choosing to murder your own child due to selfish reasons. I find that pathetic.
So 7 months is murder, but when I said 5 months was, I was crazy? At up to 3 months their body is developed, just not fully grown. It's not just eggs in there. That's why I feel it's just screwed up. I feel a lot of opinions are formed out of fear that speaking out will be oppressing women.
You're killing a person, who has zero choice in the matter. In the womb or In the crib, I see no difference at all.
You are WAY oversimplifying embryology and gestation. That is part of why I shy away from emotional arguments, they leave science in the ditch and will always favor the "it's murder, plain and simple!" crowd.
Actually, rgambs, listening to just-a-girl's perspective has led me to ask more questions about gestation and embryology, and I looked up a pregnancy timeline. Most women won't know they are pregnant until four weeks, when the placenta begins secreting the pregnancy hormone. At five weeks, the heart begins to form and pump blood (not really audible for a few more weeks). Nobody would deny that we consider an in-the-flesh human being dead when her heart *stops* pumping, so I would say a five-week-old, in-the-womb human being is alive when the heart *starts* pumping. At nine weeks, limbs are visible and lungs are beginning to fully function.Science tells us all of these things, rgambs. Whether you want call it a murder or not, abortion is the willful termination of human life at whatever stage. Let's be honest, please.
I had my abortion at nine weeks. I lived in South Carolina, where even in 1999, they had mandatory ultrasounds along with a handful of other humiliating legal provisions restricting my access. During the ultrasound, the nurse kept the volume turned off and the screen turned away from my bed in order to "protect" me, she said. Later when I had my final check out, the photo slipped out of my file and I caught a glimpse. The nurse hurriedly put it back in the file, but while she did so, she looked at me to check my reaction and seemed apologetic. Of course I was devastated at each turn, both during the ultrasound and when I saw the picture.
Two days ago, just-a-girl very politely asked how people can justify their pro-choice position, and I've been trying to come up with something that sounds rational -- but I can't. The best I can come up with is what I told my priest during the healing stage of my process. I told him that even though I was terribly sorry, I know I would do it all over again if I ever found myself in that same desperate position I was in at the time. I told him I can't give up my pro-choice position because even God gave us FREE WILL. He did so knowing full well that we will do awful things. If abortion were not safe and legal, even more awful things will happen, and we cannot punish women for making a decision to survive very desperate circumstances. Without bothering you with those details, I'm convinced that what I did was best for both me *and* the baby, who I know is in a much better place than this world could ever have taken it. That's what I told my priest and that's all I can say now. I'm sure my point will be shot down for all its emotion and spirituality, but so be it.
You don't have to explain your decision. It's your choice. Not anyone's here, not your priest, not mine. If it helps you process what you did, good. But don't let anyone second guess you.
Yes, I am perfectly fine with a woman choosing to abort when she chooses. When you put restrictions on which weeks its acceptable then you're letting the government choose for you. That, I am not ok with.
You've stated that if there is a medical reason, 7 months is ok to abort. What if it was 9 months? What if it was a week before the due date? If a doctor told my wife and I that she had a 10% chance of dying during during labor, I would want my wife to abort. I would not be willing to lose my wife for a an unborn fetus. Now that doesn't mean my wife would. We've had this discussion during all three of her pregnancies.
I am not some cold hearted dick that doesn't care if babies live or die. My wife had a miscarriage so I know what it's like to feel that loss. I just advocate for women to choose to have one if they choose, when they choose.
You're adding unnecessary complication to this because the situation of someone needing to "abort" "a week before the due date" just won't exist. If there are medical issues in the pregnant woman at that point, or even significantly before that point, that would only be solved by delivering the fetus (such as pre-eclampsia/eclampsia) then they would attempt an induction, an if that wasn't successful or possible then likely proceed to a C-section. There wouldn't be any need to "abort". If the medical issue lies with the fetus, such as a fetal malformation incompatible with life, then there might be a late term abortion but if very close to the due date they would likely just proceed with delivery.
Well exactly. 7 months, 9 months, same thing. That's not an abortion. That's giving birth. Women just don't do that (not enough for it to be a consideration anyway, IMO. I mean, it would be about as common as a girl leaving her newborn in a toilet. And not much different either.
4 months, 7 months, 9 months. It's all the same as leaving your child in the toilet. You're choosing to murder your own child due to selfish reasons. I find that pathetic.
So 7 months is murder, but when I said 5 months was, I was crazy? At up to 3 months their body is developed, just not fully grown. It's not just eggs in there. That's why I feel it's just screwed up. I feel a lot of opinions are formed out of fear that speaking out will be oppressing women.
You're killing a person, who has zero choice in the matter. In the womb or In the crib, I see no difference at all.
You are WAY oversimplifying embryology and gestation. That is part of why I shy away from emotional arguments, they leave science in the ditch and will always favor the "it's murder, plain and simple!" crowd.
Actually, rgambs, listening to just-a-girl's perspective has led me to ask more questions about gestation and embryology, and I looked up a pregnancy timeline. Most women won't know they are pregnant until four weeks, when the placenta begins secreting the pregnancy hormone. At five weeks, the heart begins to form and pump blood (not really audible for a few more weeks). Nobody would deny that we consider an in-the-flesh human being dead when her heart *stops* pumping, so I would say a five-week-old, in-the-womb human being is alive when the heart *starts* pumping. At nine weeks, limbs are visible and lungs are beginning to fully function.Science tells us all of these things, rgambs. Whether you want call it a murder or not, abortion is the willful termination of human life at whatever stage. Let's be honest, please.
I had my abortion at nine weeks. I lived in South Carolina, where even in 1999, they had mandatory ultrasounds along with a handful of other humiliating legal provisions restricting my access. During the ultrasound, the nurse kept the volume turned off and the screen turned away from my bed in order to "protect" me, she said. Later when I had my final check out, the photo slipped out of my file and I caught a glimpse. The nurse hurriedly put it back in the file, but while she did so, she looked at me to check my reaction and seemed apologetic. Of course I was devastated at each turn, both during the ultrasound and when I saw the picture.
Two days ago, just-a-girl very politely asked how people can justify their pro-choice position, and I've been trying to come up with something that sounds rational -- but I can't. The best I can come up with is what I told my priest during the healing stage of my process. I told him that even though I was terribly sorry, I know I would do it all over again if I ever found myself in that same desperate position I was in at the time. I told him I can't give up my pro-choice position because even God gave us FREE WILL. He did so knowing full well that we will do awful things. If abortion were not safe and legal, even more awful things will happen, and we cannot punish women for making a decision to survive very desperate circumstances. Without bothering you with those details, I'm convinced that what I did was best for both me *and* the baby, who I know is in a much better place than this world could ever have taken it. That's what I told my priest and that's all I can say now. I'm sure my point will be shot down for all its emotion and spirituality, but so be it.
The fetal heart at 5 weeks is a barely ddifferentiated tissue, and the heartbeat is not the full standard for life or death even in adults. The lungs are not fully functioning until the last few weeks of gestation.
The sperm and egg are alive before they cmbine to form a zygote. A blastocyst "struggles" to free itself if it becomes lodged. There are signs of life throughout all stages of gestation, and I am not arguing that. It is termination of a life, but the details are important. For many people the question of viability is very important.
I am sorry you took offense, but your passive aggressive comments to end each post directed at me aren't necessary, as I explained that I wasn't trying to invalidate your posts or opinions.
can a zygote survive independent of the mother, outside of the womb? what about a fetus? would a 7 month old fetus survive on it's own outside of the mother's body without medical equipment to keep it alive?
i suppose it doesn't matter. people are going to feel the way they feel. i am pro choice. i dislike the procedure of abortion. that does not make me crazy "pro life" that all of these republicans claim to be. they are pro-birth. unless you are willing to feed, shelter and educate that kid, you are not pro life,. you are pro birth.
i am thankful i live in a country where a woman has the freedom to make a choice. i do not like abortion. i value that women have the freedom to determine their own health care decisions on their own terms. that is all.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
You don't have to explain your decision. It's your choice. Not anyone's here, not your priest, not mine. If it helps you process what you did, good. But don't let anyone second guess you.
I know I don't have to explain my decision, Last-12. But I appreciated Just-a-Girl's willingness to listen when she said a while ago that she really wanted to hear other perspectives so she could learn (or something to that effect). I honestly believe that if people on both sides would try to understand each other, we would all be better off. For example, I can completely understand why JAG uses the word murder, and I'm willing to step out of my own position and accept her feelings as an important part of the discussion. I hope that sharing my feelings will help her understand as well.
The fetal heart at 5 weeks is a barely ddifferentiated tissue, and the heartbeat is not the full standard for life or death even in adults. The lungs are not fully functioning until the last few weeks of gestation.
The sperm and egg are alive before they cmbine to form a zygote. A blastocyst "struggles" to free itself if it becomes lodged. There are signs of life throughout all stages of gestation, and I am not arguing that. It is termination of a life, but the details are important. For many people the question of viability is very important.
I am sorry you took offense, but your passive aggressive comments to end each post directed at me aren't necessary, as I explained that I wasn't trying to invalidate your posts or opinions.
Arguing about when life begins vs. when it is a viable life is a complete waste of time and in my view, undermines the legal position every time people open their mouths about it. Pretty soon, technology will make it possible to keep a zygote alive outside a woman's body as soon as an egg is fertilized. Then what do we do?
I feel it's more fruitful to simply and honestly say that sometimes it is acceptable to take another life. People kill other people all the time, and we accept that awful truth in many other instances: self-defense, the death penalty, pulling the plug off life support, just war. In the case of abortion, as long as the zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby is attached to its mother with an umbilical chord, it's part of the mother's body that she is ultimately in charge of. I don't feel the decision to kill in this case is any more or less appalling than any other of the instances people justly kill each other. And it needs to remain legal and unrestricted, at all stages. Once we start drawing arbitrary gestational deadlines, we open the door for abortion opponents to chop away at women's reproductive freedom. That is exactly what has happened while all the scientists argue over stages of viability.
I get that you are not "trying" to invalidate my posts or opinions. I respectfully ask that you stop using the word "emotional" when responding to me or anybody else with an opinion you disagree with. In the olden days, that word was frequently used to keep women in their place -- too emotional to know anything, too emotional to be anything. Many women do find it offensive when they are in a discussion to have a man use the word "emotional" to describe their point of view. Ever tried that with your wife? "Oh honey, you're just being emotional." How did that work for you? You did it to me, and then you did it to Just a Girl, which is why I ended my last post to you with an undisguised jab. It wasn't passive aggressive. It was just aggressive. I'm sure you're a nice guy who gets along with and supports women. Just please stop saying that "emotional" statements don't belong in the debate, and I'll stop coming back at you with my irritable snaps. Agree?
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
People can choose to have protected sex and still get pregnant. People can get pregnant via rape.
Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
Rape victim? Victim of incest? You're saying 'tough shit deal with it'?
Sex is a pretty strong instinct we have and it's one of the more enjoyable things human beings can enjoy during their brief time on this planet. In the event of an accidental pregnancy, a young woman shouldn't be sentenced to 'life with child' in the event she's not ready for that stage of life.
Dumpster babies are not the same thing as mucky goo. If a woman brings a child into the earth, she can give the child to adoption agencies before throwing it away while it has senses and can feel pain and discomfort.
I'll be harsh too. We have too many people on this planet as it is. The Christian families with 12 children place an incredible burden on the planet's ability to sustain lives.
And unwanted and unloved children often become problems for everyone later in life as a by-product of their upbringing.
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
Rape victim? Victim of incest? You're saying 'tough shit deal with it'?
Sex is a pretty strong instinct we have and it's one of the more enjoyable things human beings can enjoy during their brief time on this planet. In the event of an accidental pregnancy, a young woman shouldn't be sentenced to 'life with child' in the event she's not ready for that stage of life.
Dumpster babies are not the same thing as mucky goo. If a woman brings a child into the earth, she can give the child to adoption agencies before throwing it away while it has senses and can feel pain and discomfort.
I'll be harsh too. We have too many people on this planet as it is. The Christian families with 12 children place an incredible burden on the planet's ability to sustain lives.
And unwanted and unloved children often become problems for everyone later in life as a by-product of their upbringing.
No, rape victims and babies to be born with huge birth defects, those reasons are acceptable, and likely the reason abortion was created in the first place.
I am speaking of anyone who willingly has sex and uses abortion as birth control. That's 99.9% of abortions in the USA by the way.
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
People can choose to have protected sex and still get pregnant. People can get pregnant via rape.
Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.
How so? Because some people get pregnant on accident? Well, tough shit. You knew it could happen by having sex.
Don't want a baby? Don't choose to have sex.
Don't want to be addicted to crack? Don't choose to smoke it. The logic is simple.
Rape victims are different than people who choose to have sex.
If you wish to engage with your partner, there's ways to do that without having intercorse.
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
People can choose to have protected sex and still get pregnant. People can get pregnant via rape.
Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.
How so? Because some people get pregnant on accident? Well, tough shit. You knew it could happen by having sex.
Don't want a baby? Don't choose to have sex.
Don't want to be addicted to crack? Don't choose to smoke it. The logic is simple.
Rape victims are different than people who choose to have sex.
If you wish to engage with your partner, there's ways to do that without having intercorse.
I do agree with the personal responsibility aspect,regardless of which side of this issue you are on.
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
Rape victim? Victim of incest? You're saying 'tough shit deal with it'?
Sex is a pretty strong instinct we have and it's one of the more enjoyable things human beings can enjoy during their brief time on this planet. In the event of an accidental pregnancy, a young woman shouldn't be sentenced to 'life with child' in the event she's not ready for that stage of life.
Dumpster babies are not the same thing as mucky goo. If a woman brings a child into the earth, she can give the child to adoption agencies before throwing it away while it has senses and can feel pain and discomfort.
I'll be harsh too. We have too many people on this planet as it is. The Christian families with 12 children place an incredible burden on the planet's ability to sustain lives.
And unwanted and unloved children often become problems for everyone later in life as a by-product of their upbringing.
No, rape victims and babies to be born with huge birth defects, those reasons are acceptable, and likely the reason abortion was created in the first place.
I am speaking of anyone who willingly has sex and uses abortion as birth control. That's 99.9% of abortions in the USA by the way.
Really? 99.9%? Can I please see the evidence you are using to back this claim?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
People can choose to have protected sex and still get pregnant. People can get pregnant via rape.
Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.
How so? Because some people get pregnant on accident? Well, tough shit. You knew it could happen by having sex.
Don't want a baby? Don't choose to have sex.
Don't want to be addicted to crack? Don't choose to smoke it. The logic is simple.
Rape victims are different than people who choose to have sex.
If you wish to engage with your partner, there's ways to do that without having intercorse.
I do agree with the personal responsibility aspect,regardless of which side of this issue you are on.
I do too. Personal responsibility is something I have always preached. I just have a problem with how cut and dry JAG's moral code is. One can take precautions, be responsible, do everything correctly, and still have unforeseen consequences. I was in 2 car accidents last year. Both of them while I was completely stopped, I wore my seatbelt, left space between me and the car in front of me, watched my mirrors, 0.0 BAC, and BAM - rear ended. Both times.
JAG's response would be - "You don't want to be in a car accident? Tough shit. You made that choice when you decided to drive."
Sometimes bad things happen even when one takes available precautions and acts responsibly. Abortion is distasteful for me to think about, but I am glad the the choice exists, and will fight for that choice for any woman facing an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
People can choose to have protected sex and still get pregnant. People can get pregnant via rape.
Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.
How so? Because some people get pregnant on accident? Well, tough shit. You knew it could happen by having sex.
Don't want a baby? Don't choose to have sex.
Don't want to be addicted to crack? Don't choose to smoke it. The logic is simple.
Rape victims are different than people who choose to have sex.
If you wish to engage with your partner, there's ways to do that without having intercorse.
The logic is simple, and pretty much unassailable, but it leaves some distasteful implications lingering about. The population on this planet is becoming a serious problem, making adoptions for all unwanted pregnancies pretty much impossible. It also places a heavily disproportionate burden on women. Men are free to have the freedom of unburdened sexual release and women remain encumbered as they have been for thousands of years. I understand that life isn't fair, but women have had a tough enough time throughout history, it's high time that they have the same sexual freedom as men have always enjoyed.
Just-A-Girl does point out a remarkable inconsistency regarding people's sense of outrage.
Thank God I've come to a point where: 1. Not everything in life has to make sense. 2. I no longer fight every injustice on the planet.
When I was 8, my parents bought me a hamster for my birthday, not knowing it was pregnant. When the babies were born, we didn't have time to separate them before the mother started eating her babies. I was horrified. My parents explained that's what some animals do as part of their natural instinct.
We are animals. Sometimes mothers kill their babies. It's preferable they do that before the baby is born. No matter how much we wish human beings are better than that, we are not, and no amount of legislation will stop it.
Or don't want a baby, have an abortion. It's that easy also.
How is that any different than deciding the same after its born and killing it?
So a mother decides she would be happy with a child. Three weeks later she realizes it's hard work, and kills them. It's the same selfishness, the same "I don't wanna" mentality. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I also doubt rape related abortions are even close to %1 of the cases that go on.. But you're right, I'm not using research to back that up, just logic.
Last, the car accident logic makes zero sense. There are risks in everything.
Choosing to have sex and someone else hitting you out of nowhere is totally different, that's the same argument as a rape victim. You didn't choose to have an accident, you chose to drive. That was the other guys fault. Getting pregnant through sex, is a risk both parties are taking, understanding the risks involved. Yes driving is the same, but at the same time that's like saying you have the right to choose to kill the guy for hitting you / as you both knew the risks of driving, he made a mistake so now that justifies him killing you?
Again it's hard to debate since the topic is so different.
Or don't want a baby, have an abortion. It's that easy also.
How is that any different than deciding the same after its born and killing it?
So a mother decides she would be happy with a child. Three weeks later she realizes it's hard work, and kills them. It's the same selfishness, the same "I don't wanna" mentality. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I also doubt rape related abortions are even close to %1 of the cases that go on.. But you're right, I'm not using research to back that up, just logic.
Last, the car accident logic makes zero sense. There are risks in everything.
Choosing to have sex and someone else hitting you out of nowhere is totally different, that's the same argument as a rape victim. You didn't choose to have an accident, you chose to drive. That was the other guys fault. Getting pregnant through sex, is a risk both parties are taking, understanding the risks involved. Yes driving is the same, but at the same time that's like saying you have the right to choose to kill the guy for hitting you / as you both knew the risks of driving, he made a mistake so now that justifies him killing you?
Again it's hard to debate since the topic is so different.
Or don't want a baby, have an abortion. It's that easy also.
How is that any different than deciding the same after its born and killing it?
So a mother decides she would be happy with a child. Three weeks later she realizes it's hard work, and kills them. It's the same selfishness, the same "I don't wanna" mentality. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I also doubt rape related abortions are even close to %1 of the cases that go on.. But you're right, I'm not using research to back that up, just logic.
Last, the car accident logic makes zero sense. There are risks in everything.
Choosing to have sex and someone else hitting you out of nowhere is totally different, that's the same argument as a rape victim. You didn't choose to have an accident, you chose to drive. That was the other guys fault. Getting pregnant through sex, is a risk both parties are taking, understanding the risks involved. Yes driving is the same, but at the same time that's like saying you have the right to choose to kill the guy for hitting you / as you both knew the risks of driving, he made a mistake so now that justifies him killing you?
Again it's hard to debate since the topic is so different.
Most people think taking a pill to terminate a pregnancy in which the "baby" as you call it, is a slightly differentiated mass of cellular membranes is very different from killing a baby which has been through the trauma of birth and is breathing air and drinking milk.
If someone thinks there is no difference between a born baby and a partially developed fetus inside a woman's own womb, there really is no arguing against that. Thank goodness the supreme courts of Canada and the US felt differently.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
Rape victim? Victim of incest? You're saying 'tough shit deal with it'?
Sex is a pretty strong instinct we have and it's one of the more enjoyable things human beings can enjoy during their brief time on this planet. In the event of an accidental pregnancy, a young woman shouldn't be sentenced to 'life with child' in the event she's not ready for that stage of life.
Dumpster babies are not the same thing as mucky goo. If a woman brings a child into the earth, she can give the child to adoption agencies before throwing it away while it has senses and can feel pain and discomfort.
I'll be harsh too. We have too many people on this planet as it is. The Christian families with 12 children place an incredible burden on the planet's ability to sustain lives.
And unwanted and unloved children often become problems for everyone later in life as a by-product of their upbringing.
No, rape victims and babies to be born with huge birth defects, those reasons are acceptable, and likely the reason abortion was created in the first place.
I am speaking of anyone who willingly has sex and uses abortion as birth control. That's 99.9% of abortions in the USA by the way.
Then you are partially conflicted.
How is the life of a unborn child as a result of rape different from that spawned from a night of unprotected sex or failed birth control?
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
People can choose to have protected sex and still get pregnant. People can get pregnant via rape.
Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.
How so? Because some people get pregnant on accident? Well, tough shit. You knew it could happen by having sex.
Don't want a baby? Don't choose to have sex.
Don't want to be addicted to crack? Don't choose to smoke it. The logic is simple.
Rape victims are different than people who choose to have sex.
If you wish to engage with your partner, there's ways to do that without having intercorse.
The logic is simple, and pretty much unassailable, but it leaves some distasteful implications lingering about. The population on this planet is becoming a serious problem, making adoptions for all unwanted pregnancies pretty much impossible. It also places a heavily disproportionate burden on women. Men are free to have the freedom of unburdened sexual release and women remain encumbered as they have been for thousands of years. I understand that life isn't fair, but women have had a tough enough time throughout history, it's high time that they have the same sexual freedom as men have always enjoyed.
I'll answer this JAG:
Don't be a girl. You wanna have lots of sex without having to worry about carrying a baby to term and nursing it afterwards... then be a guy.
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
Rape victim? Victim of incest? You're saying 'tough shit deal with it'?
Sex is a pretty strong instinct we have and it's one of the more enjoyable things human beings can enjoy during their brief time on this planet. In the event of an accidental pregnancy, a young woman shouldn't be sentenced to 'life with child' in the event she's not ready for that stage of life.
Dumpster babies are not the same thing as mucky goo. If a woman brings a child into the earth, she can give the child to adoption agencies before throwing it away while it has senses and can feel pain and discomfort.
I'll be harsh too. We have too many people on this planet as it is. The Christian families with 12 children place an incredible burden on the planet's ability to sustain lives.
And unwanted and unloved children often become problems for everyone later in life as a by-product of their upbringing.
No, rape victims and babies to be born with huge birth defects, those reasons are acceptable, and likely the reason abortion was created in the first place.
I am speaking of anyone who willingly has sex and uses abortion as birth control. That's 99.9% of abortions in the USA by the way.
Then you are partially conflicted.
How is the life of a unborn child as a result of rape different from that spawned from a night of unprotected sex or failed birth control?
Seriously?? When two adults CHOOSE to have sex, they are taking a risk.
When some asshole rapes a girl, that's not the girl choosing, it's one person only choosing. The girl being raped had zero say so. She didn't choose to have sex. She didn't understand and still ignore the risk.
But, The girl who had one too many glasses of wine and decides "lets fuck!!" Then gets pregnant, and decides she can't handle the choice she (already) made, and decides to kill a child due to her own selfishness and lack of responsibility, is two totally different situations.
If you can't see that, I can't help you.
Same with major birth defects. Sometimes it's in the benefit of the child's quality of life, to end the life rather than have it live from day one being miserable. That's the same as putting down an animal who is too sick to recover, for the sake of the animal.
That's not being selfish or irresponsible either.
You do realize, in today's world, that nearly ALL abortions are just because the mother doesn't want to have a kid. Right? It's kids fucking without a sense of responsibility, and when they have this happen they "deal with it" it's not all peaches and cream, last resort stuff here. It's almost always (from my experience at least) about being unresponsible and taking the easy solution to a problem, which in turn ends the life of someone who has no say so.
How is the life of a unborn child as a result of rape different from that spawned from a night of unprotected sex or failed birth control?
I was thinking about this earlier, Thirty. That life (or whatever we choose to call it) is still there, no matter the circumstances of how it came to be.
This just underscores how it's really not a black-and-white issue to me; it can't be.
I am happy to see some here acknowledging my comments.
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
Rape victim? Victim of incest? You're saying 'tough shit deal with it'?
Sex is a pretty strong instinct we have and it's one of the more enjoyable things human beings can enjoy during their brief time on this planet. In the event of an accidental pregnancy, a young woman shouldn't be sentenced to 'life with child' in the event she's not ready for that stage of life.
Dumpster babies are not the same thing as mucky goo. If a woman brings a child into the earth, she can give the child to adoption agencies before throwing it away while it has senses and can feel pain and discomfort.
I'll be harsh too. We have too many people on this planet as it is. The Christian families with 12 children place an incredible burden on the planet's ability to sustain lives.
And unwanted and unloved children often become problems for everyone later in life as a by-product of their upbringing.
No, rape victims and babies to be born with huge birth defects, those reasons are acceptable, and likely the reason abortion was created in the first place.
I am speaking of anyone who willingly has sex and uses abortion as birth control. That's 99.9% of abortions in the USA by the way.
Then you are partially conflicted.
How is the life of a unborn child as a result of rape different from that spawned from a night of unprotected sex or failed birth control?
Seriously?? When two adults CHOOSE to have sex, they are taking a risk.
When some asshole rapes a girl, that's not the girl choosing, it's one person only choosing. The girl being raped had zero say so. She didn't choose to have sex. She didn't understand and still ignore the risk.
But, The girl who had one too many glasses of wine and decides "lets fuck!!" Then gets pregnant, and decides she can't handle the choice she (already) made, and decides to kill a child due to her own selfishness and lack of responsibility, is two totally different situations.
If you can't see that, I can't help you.
Same with major birth defects. Sometimes it's in the benefit of the child's quality of life, to end the life rather than have it live from day one being miserable. That's the same as putting down an animal who is too sick to recover, for the sake of the animal.
That's not being selfish or irresponsible either.
You do realize, in today's world, that nearly ALL abortions are just because the mother doesn't want to have a kid. Right? It's kids fucking without a sense of responsibility, and when they have this happen they "deal with it" it's not all peaches and cream, last resort stuff here. It's almost always (from my experience at least) about being unresponsible and taking the easy solution to a problem, which in turn ends the life of someone who has no say so.
Yah. I'm real serious.
What are you arguing? Are you (A) flaunting your morals and telling everyone how they should live and what choices they should make? Or are you (B) arguing for the lives of unborn children no matter what stage of development they might be in?
If you are arguing for (A)... nobody's interested. And such a tactic is tantamount to knocking on people's doors and trying to convince them of the impending apocalypse and salvation from it.
If you are arguing (B)... and then saying, "Oh, but yah... f**k the unborn child conceived from rape"... then you are conflicted. What difference exists between the gooey messes as far as the gooey messes are concerned?
So which is it? (A)... or (B)?
* For the record... I do think it is immoral to resort to an abortion after being recklessly careless. However, I still think that decision is an individual choice.
Comments
There's a line there somewhere. Obvious, that line varies depending on the person. But the gooey gob of cells is not life in my mind... just as the million sperm cells spit into a Kleenex aren't.
I had my abortion at nine weeks. I lived in South Carolina, where even in 1999, they had mandatory ultrasounds along with a handful of other humiliating legal provisions restricting my access. During the ultrasound, the nurse kept the volume turned off and the screen turned away from my bed in order to "protect" me, she said. Later when I had my final check out, the photo slipped out of my file and I caught a glimpse. The nurse hurriedly put it back in the file, but while she did so, she looked at me to check my reaction and seemed apologetic. Of course I was devastated at each turn, both during the ultrasound and when I saw the picture.
Two days ago, just-a-girl very politely asked how people can justify their pro-choice position, and I've been trying to come up with something that sounds rational -- but I can't. The best I can come up with is what I told my priest during the healing stage of my process. I told him that even though I was terribly sorry, I know I would do it all over again if I ever found myself in that same desperate position I was in at the time. I told him I can't give up my pro-choice position because even God gave us FREE WILL. He did so knowing full well that we will do awful things. If abortion were not safe and legal, even more awful things will happen, and we cannot punish women for making a decision to survive very desperate circumstances. Without bothering you with those details, I'm convinced that what I did was best for both me *and* the baby, who I know is in a much better place than this world could ever have taken it. That's what I told my priest and that's all I can say now. I'm sure my point will be shot down for all its emotion and spirituality, but so be it.
The sperm and egg are alive before they cmbine to form a zygote. A blastocyst "struggles" to free itself if it becomes lodged.
There are signs of life throughout all stages of gestation, and I am not arguing that. It is termination of a life, but the details are important. For many people the question of viability is very important.
I am sorry you took offense, but your passive aggressive comments to end each post directed at me aren't necessary, as I explained that I wasn't trying to invalidate your posts or opinions.
i suppose it doesn't matter. people are going to feel the way they feel. i am pro choice. i dislike the procedure of abortion. that does not make me crazy "pro life" that all of these republicans claim to be. they are pro-birth. unless you are willing to feed, shelter and educate that kid, you are not pro life,. you are pro birth.
i am thankful i live in a country where a woman has the freedom to make a choice. i do not like abortion. i value that women have the freedom to determine their own health care decisions on their own terms. that is all.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I feel it's more fruitful to simply and honestly say that sometimes it is acceptable to take another life. People kill other people all the time, and we accept that awful truth in many other instances: self-defense, the death penalty, pulling the plug off life support, just war. In the case of abortion, as long as the zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby is attached to its mother with an umbilical chord, it's part of the mother's body that she is ultimately in charge of. I don't feel the decision to kill in this case is any more or less appalling than any other of the instances people justly kill each other. And it needs to remain legal and unrestricted, at all stages. Once we start drawing arbitrary gestational deadlines, we open the door for abortion opponents to chop away at women's reproductive freedom. That is exactly what has happened while all the scientists argue over stages of viability.
I get that you are not "trying" to invalidate my posts or opinions. I respectfully ask that you stop using the word "emotional" when responding to me or anybody else with an opinion you disagree with. In the olden days, that word was frequently used to keep women in their place -- too emotional to know anything, too emotional to be anything. Many women do find it offensive when they are in a discussion to have a man use the word "emotional" to describe their point of view. Ever tried that with your wife? "Oh honey, you're just being emotional." How did that work for you? You did it to me, and then you did it to Just a Girl, which is why I ended my last post to you with an undisguised jab. It wasn't passive aggressive. It was just aggressive. I'm sure you're a nice guy who gets along with and supports women. Just please stop saying that "emotional" statements don't belong in the debate, and I'll stop coming back at you with my irritable snaps. Agree?
While I do support the right for freedom, and to not be told how and when to do things, when it comes to this I just can't wrap my head around the logic. I hear so often that it's a "choice" but no one has an answer to this. There is a clear choice in the matter.. If you refrain from sex, you can't get pregnant. Period. That's the "choice" we all have. After you've made your "choice" you either have to live with the repercussions, which most everyone knows is possible; or, come up with a valid excuse to get what you want.. Which is how I feel this has turned. Can anyone explain why more don't argue this?
Would it be fair for someone who couldn't afford an abortion to have a child, bring it home and kill them? Because they didn't want a child? What about the dumpster babies? I see no difference.
Please forgive my harshness. It just can not make sense in my brain. At all.
And in today's world, where a video of a dog getting kicked, or a baby being neglected will spark the biggest outcry you've ever seen, or hell, even the shrine left to the dead raccoon in Toronto..
All of this outcry towards things like this, but when it comes to killing a fetus/infant it's debated to death and mindlessly repeated "we have a choice" like the sound bites successfully planted inside everyone's brains in the late 80s, with no real back up as to why the choice is not sex, but to get rid of the child.
You're right to choose is to choose to have sex or not! Anything beyond that is a cop out.
Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Sex is a pretty strong instinct we have and it's one of the more enjoyable things human beings can enjoy during their brief time on this planet. In the event of an accidental pregnancy, a young woman shouldn't be sentenced to 'life with child' in the event she's not ready for that stage of life.
Dumpster babies are not the same thing as mucky goo. If a woman brings a child into the earth, she can give the child to adoption agencies before throwing it away while it has senses and can feel pain and discomfort.
I'll be harsh too. We have too many people on this planet as it is. The Christian families with 12 children place an incredible burden on the planet's ability to sustain lives.
And unwanted and unloved children often become problems for everyone later in life as a by-product of their upbringing.
I am speaking of anyone who willingly has sex and uses abortion as birth control. That's 99.9% of abortions in the USA by the way.
Don't want a baby? Don't choose to have sex.
Don't want to be addicted to crack? Don't choose to smoke it. The logic is simple.
Rape victims are different than people who choose to have sex.
If you wish to engage with your partner, there's ways to do that without having intercorse.
JAG's response would be - "You don't want to be in a car accident? Tough shit. You made that choice when you decided to drive."
Sometimes bad things happen even when one takes available precautions and acts responsibly. Abortion is distasteful for me to think about, but I am glad the the choice exists, and will fight for that choice for any woman facing an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.
The population on this planet is becoming a serious problem, making adoptions for all unwanted pregnancies pretty much impossible.
It also places a heavily disproportionate burden on women. Men are free to have the freedom of unburdened sexual release and women remain encumbered as they have been for thousands of years. I understand that life isn't fair, but women have had a tough enough time throughout history, it's high time that they have the same sexual freedom as men have always enjoyed.
Thank God I've come to a point where:
1. Not everything in life has to make sense.
2. I no longer fight every injustice on the planet.
When I was 8, my parents bought me a hamster for my birthday, not knowing it was pregnant. When the babies were born, we didn't have time to separate them before the mother started eating her babies. I was horrified. My parents explained that's what some animals do as part of their natural instinct.
We are animals. Sometimes mothers kill their babies. It's preferable they do that before the baby is born. No matter how much we wish human beings are better than that, we are not, and no amount of legislation will stop it.
So a mother decides she would be happy with a child. Three weeks later she realizes it's hard work, and kills them. It's the same selfishness, the same "I don't wanna" mentality. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I also doubt rape related abortions are even close to %1 of the cases that go on.. But you're right, I'm not using research to back that up, just logic.
Last, the car accident logic makes zero sense. There are risks in everything.
Choosing to have sex and someone else hitting you out of nowhere is totally different, that's the same argument as a rape victim. You didn't choose to have an accident, you chose to drive. That was the other guys fault. Getting pregnant through sex, is a risk both parties are taking, understanding the risks involved. Yes driving is the same, but at the same time that's like saying you have the right to choose to kill the guy for hitting you / as you both knew the risks of driving, he made a mistake so now that justifies him killing you?
Again it's hard to debate since the topic is so different.
Doing it before is legal. And I'm ok with that.
How is the life of a unborn child as a result of rape different from that spawned from a night of unprotected sex or failed birth control?
Don't be a girl. You wanna have lots of sex without having to worry about carrying a baby to term and nursing it afterwards... then be a guy.
It's just that simple.
When some asshole rapes a girl, that's not the girl choosing, it's one person only choosing. The girl being raped had zero say so. She didn't choose to have sex. She didn't understand and still ignore the risk.
But, The girl who had one too many glasses of wine and decides "lets fuck!!" Then gets pregnant, and decides she can't handle the choice she (already) made, and decides to kill a child due to her own selfishness and lack of responsibility, is two totally different situations.
If you can't see that, I can't help you.
Same with major birth defects. Sometimes it's in the benefit of the child's quality of life, to end the life rather than have it live from day one being miserable. That's the same as putting down an animal who is too sick to recover, for the sake of the animal.
That's not being selfish or irresponsible either.
You do realize, in today's world, that nearly ALL abortions are just because the mother doesn't want to have a kid. Right? It's kids fucking without a sense of responsibility, and when they have this happen they "deal with it" it's not all peaches and cream, last resort stuff here. It's almost always (from my experience at least) about being unresponsible and taking the easy solution to a problem, which in turn ends the life of someone who has no say so.
This just underscores how it's really not a black-and-white issue to me; it can't be.
What are you arguing? Are you (A) flaunting your morals and telling everyone how they should live and what choices they should make? Or are you (B) arguing for the lives of unborn children no matter what stage of development they might be in?
If you are arguing for (A)... nobody's interested. And such a tactic is tantamount to knocking on people's doors and trying to convince them of the impending apocalypse and salvation from it.
If you are arguing (B)... and then saying, "Oh, but yah... f**k the unborn child conceived from rape"... then you are conflicted. What difference exists between the gooey messes as far as the gooey messes are concerned?
So which is it? (A)... or (B)?
* For the record... I do think it is immoral to resort to an abortion after being recklessly careless. However, I still think that decision is an individual choice.