Did you check the "After Abortion" site, where real women go dealing with the emotional/spiritual/physical traumas they've endured due to their abortions? It can't be denied. They post about this on the message board. Can you debunk that? Why would you want to deny what these women experience if you are concerned for women?
Yes, I went to the site. And I saw that's another one of those anti-abortion propaganda sites that spews anecdotes as medical fact.
I'm sure there are some women who have emotional problems after having abortions. And I respect their experiences and feelings. But I have no respect for trying to take a few select experiences and use them to create a generalization that creates a biased anti-abortion slant and scares women who are faced with the decision. Most women, in fact, feel relief after having an abortion. Some women feel emotional and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to feel when your hormones are changing and/or you've just lost a child (whether by your choice or not). It can be an emotional experience. That's not the same as being a traumatic experience. For those who do experience deeper issues after having abortions, there's no telling that the women wouldn't have felt the same way after having a miscarriage or an appendectomy or anything else.
The idea that abortion leads to psychological problems in women is a myth that has long-since been de-bunked. Just because someone has a website doesn't give credibility to the bullshit they post. As for the articles you listed, I'd like better sources, please.
Also, even if there was a correlation between high rates of abortion and high rates of psychological problems, that would in no way indicate causation. You could just as easily say that women with pre-existing mental instability are more likely to have abortions as you could say that women who have abortion are more likely to have mental instability.
It would probably also be quite possible to find a whole stack of studies and research papers into the effects of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. While I don't think the studies angelica quoted are invalid necessarily, as with everything, there are two sides of the coin.
We can all talk about birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies until we're blue in the face. The fact remains, it does happen, and it will always happen. Once a woman is in that situation, the issue of birth control is kind of a moot point. The question is then, should she have this baby, or shouldn't she? And if this is an unwanted pregnancy, in whose best interests is forcing her to have the baby is it?
In my line of work, for the most part, outcomes are happy. By the time I see women, they have made their decisions, and most times have planned to have a baby, so the question of unwanted doesn't really come up. But there have certainly been occasions where I have delivered women ( or very young girls) of their babies and you just know the future is really grim for them, and their baby. It would be interesting to do a study on the rates of depression among women who have continued with unwanted pregnancies, the rates of child abuse and neglect, the rates of babies in garbage bins outside McDonald's and see the correlation between all of this.
Yes, I went to the site. And I saw that's another one of those anti-abortion propaganda sites that spews anecdotes as medical fact.
I'm sure there are some women who have emotional problems after having abortions. And I respect their experiences and feelings. But I have no respect for trying to take a few select experiences and use them to create a generalization that creates a biased anti-abortion slant and scares women who are faced with the decision. Most women, in fact, feel relief after having an abortion. Some women feel emotional and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to feel when your hormones are changing and/or you've just lost a child (whether by your choice or not). It can be an emotional experience. That's not the same as being a traumatic experience. For those who do experience deeper issues after having abortions, there's no telling that the women wouldn't have felt the same way after having a miscarriage or an appendectomy or anything else.
wow.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It would probably also be quite possible to find a whole stack of studies and research papers into the effects of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. While I don't think the studies angelica quoted are invalid necessarily, as with everything, there are two sides of the coin.
We can all talk about birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies until we're blue in the face. The fact remains, it does happen, and it will always happen. Once a woman is in that situation, the issue of birth control is kind of a moot point. The question is then, should she have this baby, or shouldn't she? And if this is an unwanted pregnancy, in whose best interests is forcing her to have the baby is it?
In my line of work, for the most part, outcomes are happy. By the time I see women, they have made their decisions, and most times have planned to have a baby, so the question of unwanted doesn't really come up. But there have certainly been occasions where I have delivered women ( or very young girls) of their babies and you just know the future is really grim for them, and their baby. It would be interesting to do a study on the rates of depression among women who have continued with unwanted pregnancies, the rates of child abuse and neglect, the rates of babies in garbage bins outside McDonald's and see the correlation between all of this.
Again, I appreciate your ability to discern information.
I personally continued an unplanned pregnancy, living in poverty, and developed severe post-partum depression and post-partum severe OCD that lasted for well over ten years.
You are absolutely correct, we have the whole coin. Both 'sides'. Denial of aspects of the coin is...denial...and ignorance.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Again, I appreciate your ability to discern information.
I personally continued an unplanned pregnancy, living in poverty, and developed severe post-partum depression and post-partum severe OCD that lasted for well over ten years.
You are absolutely correct, we have the whole coin. Both 'sides'. Denial of aspects of the coin is...denial...and ignorance.
I too continued with an unplanned pregnancy. I have no regrets about that, and didn't suffer any depression or ill effects. I am very sorry you went through that and hope it is behind you. Judging from your posts, you have found more of yourself and are in a much better place.
I suppose though, even unplanned and unwanted is a distinction in itself. While my pregnancy was unplanned, and I was very young, certainly by the time I made my choice, she became a very wanted baby. Sadly, there are lots of women who never feel this. The pregnancy was unplanned and they never want it, and to continue with it would be a disaster for them. Of those who chose to terminate the pregnancy, I guess we will never know if they may have reached a point where they connected with their pregnancy and became attached and emotionally invested in it.
I think it's an incredibly hard decision for a woman to make, regardless of her circumstance and it's a heartbreaking thing to have to do. I think it's rarely an unthought about quick fix, and it's very sad for her when she feels she has to do it. I do believe she has a right to that choice though.
I too continued with an unplanned pregnancy. I have no regrets about that, and didn't suffer any depression or ill effects. I am very sorry you went through that and hope it is behind you. Judging from your posts, you have found more of yourself and are in a much better place.
Thank-you so much for your warm sentiments. I feel very blessed by my life experiences and what they have taught me.
I suppose though, even unplanned and unwanted is a distinction in itself.
very very true.
While my pregnancy was unplanned, and I was very young, certainly by the time I made my choice, she became a very wanted baby.
Mine also became very wanted. And considering the years of torment I went through after, I never regretted my decision. I also always knew my son was not responsible for what happened to me. My son has been a blessing to me in ways I cannot describe! Again, I am very blessed!
Sadly, there are lots of women who never feel this. The pregnancy was unplanned and they never want it, and to continue with it would be a disaster for them. Of those who chose to terminate the pregnancy, I guess we will never know if they may have reached a point where they connected with their pregnancy and became attached and emotionally invested in it.
I think it's an incredibly hard decision for a woman to make, regardless of her circumstance and it's a heartbreaking thing to have to do. I think it's rarely an unthought about quick fix, and it's very sad for her when she feels she has to do it. I do believe she has a right to that choice though.
I agree 100%, which is why I don't judge women who face these tough questions. The less-than-ideal outcomes are painful to deal with. These women need support, understanding, etc.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yes but it receives this DNA from its parents and until it's a viable fetus, cannot survive without its mother and wouldn't exist without her or its father.
When the nucleus' of the sperm and egg fuse, a cell is created that has its own unique DNA sequence, it is not part of the mother or the father. Saying that it cannot survive without the mother is irrelevant since this is the case even after the baby is born, unlike many animals, humans are completely dependant on a mother (or sustitute adult) for at least a year after birth. Furthermore, if you follow this logic to its conclusion, the many disabled folk who are completely dependant on medical machinery and drugs would also forfeit their human right to life. I suggest that the only reason we affirm the right to life for the 1 year old child and the medically dependant yet deny it for the unborn child is that killing the former would confront us with VISIBLE bloodshed whilst the later is done somewhere so hidden that we can live in denial that a killing has really taken place.
the real question is not about dependancy but when the fetus is a 'Human being' with human rights. In this country (england) we can legally abort up to 24 weeks but medical advances have meant that babies can now survive if they are born at 22 weeks. This will undoubtedly be further reduced so it cannot be used as the point where the fetus 'becomes human'. the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed.
When the nucleus' of the sperm and egg fuse, a cell is created that has its own unique DNA sequence, it is not part of the mother or the father. Saying that it cannot survive without the mother is irrelevant since this is the case even after the baby is born, unlike many animals, humans are completely dependant on a mother (or sustitute adult) for at least a year after birth. Furthermore, if you follow this logic to its conclusion, the many disabled folk who are completely dependant on medical machinery and drugs would also forfeit their human right to life. I suggest that the only reason we affirm the right to life for the 1 year old child and the medically dependant yet deny it for the unborn child is that killing the former would confront us with VISIBLE bloodshed whilst the later is done somewhere so hidden that we can live in denial that a killing has really taken place.
the real question is not about dependancy but when the fetus is a 'Human being' with human rights. In this country (england) we can legally abort up to 24 weeks but medical advances have meant that babies can now survive if they are born at 22 weeks. This will undoubtedly be further reduced so it cannot be used as the point where the fetus 'becomes human'. the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed.
along those lines....
when a law enforcement agency becomes aware that a child's life is threatened by its parents, it will take the child away, feed it and protect it. If a fetus is exactly that, why does the government not take it, feed it and protect it?
What I see is that it is an actual person. It's unique and individual, even as it resides temporarily in its mother.
you angelica are full of shit. regardless of the amount of time an in utero child spends inside its mother, its DNA whilst being unique, is the totality of its mother and its father. an embryo is not a person. tis debatable whether a foetus is a viable entity and therefore a person, so what exactly is your point i ask?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
there should never be any legislation that dictates what a woman should be allowed to do with her body that trepasses against her own free will. ALL persons should have the right of sovereignty over their own body.
One question I have always had is this. Why if someone murders a pregnant woman is he/she charged with murder of two. This logic does not line up with me.
Also we have laws in this country that make it illegall to be a prostitute. Isn't that the Govt. teleing people what they can and can't do tot their bodies.
when a law enforcement agency becomes aware that a child's life is threatened by its parents, it will take the child away, feed it and protect it. If a fetus is exactly that, why does the government not take it, feed it and protect it?
in essence, the conservative government chooses to do nothing to protect the fetus... it has chosen abortion over caring for the unborn fetus. I follows that the conservatives that ride the pro-life platform are really pro abortion.
When the nucleus' of the sperm and egg fuse, a cell is created that has its own unique DNA sequence, it is not part of the mother or the father. Saying that it cannot survive without the mother is irrelevant since this is the case even after the baby is born, unlike many animals, humans are completely dependant on a mother (or sustitute adult) for at least a year after birth. Furthermore, if you follow this logic to its conclusion, the many disabled folk who are completely dependant on medical machinery and drugs would also forfeit their human right to life. I suggest that the only reason we affirm the right to life for the 1 year old child and the medically dependant yet deny it for the unborn child is that killing the former would confront us with VISIBLE bloodshed whilst the later is done somewhere so hidden that we can live in denial that a killing has really taken place.
This is true, once the equal DNA material from each parent fuses, a new DNA sequence is formed. In saying that an embryo can not survive outside of its mother, I meant no matter what other measures one take to try to help it survive, it won't. A premature baby born at 24 weeks has some chance of survival with life support, a 7 week old embryo does not. Once again though, it comes down to which side of the argument you sit, and while you believe it to be a killing, others don't. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground where this issue is concerned.
the real question is not about dependancy but when the fetus is a 'Human being' with human rights. In this country (england) we can legally abort up to 24 weeks but medical advances have meant that babies can now survive if they are born at 22 weeks. This will undoubtedly be further reduced so it cannot be used as the point where the fetus 'becomes human'. the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed.
Sure, medical advances mean we can save babies at an earlier and earlier stage, but at what cost? The earlier a baby is born, the higher the chances of life long illness and disability and reduced quality of life. It is still extremely rare for a 22 weeker to survive, and when they do they have an almost 100% chance of some kind of impairment. The fact is, that no matter how advanced medicine becomes, the fetus is simply not developed enough to survive outside the uterus at such an early stage. You mentioned the legal gestation for abortion in the England being 24, but these second trimester terminations are extremely rare and never without medical merit. They are usually done when anomalies are found in the fetus that are incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, or when the mothers life is in grave danger. Simply walking into a clinic at 22 weeks pregnant and requesting an abortion because the mother has changed her mind or just got around to dealing with it, just doesn't happen. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, usually before the 9th week of pregnancy. You said "the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed" is only your truth. While it's extremely valid for you, it is not the truth of all.
in essence, the conservative government chooses to do nothing to protect the fetus... it has chosen abortion over caring for the unborn fetus. I follows that the conservatives that ride the pro-life platform are really pro abortion.
you know, in a test tube.. in a baby saving lab.. then the parent get to see the child grow.. and from the saved, a panel to write the laws on abortion
you angelica are full of shit. regardless of the amount of time an in utero child spends inside its mother, its DNA whilst being unique, is the totality of its mother and its father. an embryo is not a person. tis debatable whether a foetus is a viable entity and therefore a person, so what exactly is your point i ask?
I made my point. It is clearly a person. I see you disagree.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
And not everyone knows the ineffectiveness of some contraceptive methods. Hell, it looks like some people even still think the withdrawal method is a good idea!
I totally agree with your point, by the way. Abstinence-only-until-marriage education only undermines efforts to fight unintended pregnancy.
So focus on something that you can make light of rather than address what I'm really saying - that it's odd to say that abortions are easier to come by than other forms of birth control.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I do not believe that. There are plenty of people whose intentions appear to me to be pro-abortion.
YAY!
ooooooooo..i want to go out and purposely have unprotected sex....get pregnant so i can have an abortion! it Is so much FUN! i LOVE getting abortions...making such decisions without a care in the world...and i like to do it ofen...so that YAY! i can have an abortion again and again! they are the BEST!
yea...i know lots of people like that. :rolleyes:
the part i bolded....i think THAT is it. what you INFER, and what one actually thinks/believes/beahves....quite obviously, NOT always the same thing.
i can safely say in my life i have NEVER met anyone i would remotely even THINK of as 'pro-abortion'...what an absurd notion! however, i also am a pro-choice thinker...and i appreciate and respect both sides of the equation. as i say opften enough.....i fully support EVERYone's right to make their own individual decisions.....and i expect the same. all free to make their own choices.
Sure, medical advances mean we can save babies at an earlier and earlier stage, but at what cost? The earlier a baby is born, the higher the chances of life long illness and disability and reduced quality of life. It is still extremely rare for a 22 weeker to survive, and when they do they have an almost 100% chance of some kind of impairment. The fact is, that no matter how advanced medicine becomes, the fetus is simply not developed enough to survive outside the uterus at such an early stage. You mentioned the legal gestation for abortion in the England being 24, but these second trimester terminations are extremely rare and never without medical merit. They are usually done when anomalies are found in the fetus that are incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, or when the mothers life is in grave danger. Simply walking into a clinic at 22 weeks pregnant and requesting an abortion because the mother has changed her mind or just got around to dealing with it, just doesn't happen. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, usually before the 9th week of pregnancy. You said "the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed" is only your truth. While it's extremely valid for you, it is not the truth of all.
exactly.
i find it interesting too....we continually develop more and more artificial means to extend life, to keep life from ceasing...even for fetuses who even 10-20 years ago wouldn't survive. this is all a-ok though. perhaps that fetus is not meant to survive? thus why the vast medical complications throut life many of these children end up having, for life...b/c of medical intervention. so it's ok to do so to keep life going at all costs...but one cannot choose for themselves to end something living in their own bodies, with absolutely NO sensory percerption and ZERO chance of living outside the body....normally wellunder 12 weeks of 'life' in the body. it's certainly a perspective for one to have...just not one i share.
btw - i see the 'point' made that if all were forced to 'face the consequences' of their unwanted pregnancies...that there'd be less of em. history seems to speak otherwise to THAT statement.
and i DO say people face the consequences of their actions ALL the time. simply b/c they make a decision you do not agree with does NOT mean one is not taking responsibilty ofr their actions. i find it far more 'responsible'...for a woman to choose the morning after pill for example...to have an abortion as early as possible if that is her choice....or to decide to have a baby....ALL are 'dealing with the consequences.'
So you can take issue with the term pro-abortion, but hold up as a comparison the completely ridiculous moniker of pro-choice?
Pro-abortion is much more accurate than pro-choice as a descriptor.
certainly your right to hold that opinion...and also well within my rights to disgree.
to ME, pro-abortion would signify one is 100% FOR abortions...ALL the time...the FIRST and ONLY choice.
whereas to ME...pro-CHOICE means just that, CHOICE. look at the post above...i listed 3 scenarios:
-choose to utlize the morning after pill
-choose to have an abortion
-choose to have a baby
i'd also add
-choosing to abstain from intercourse
-choosing to utilize BC methods
ALL viable and equal choices in my mind.
so YES...i absolutely believe 'pro-choice' is the BEST descriptor for my thinking on the subject.
certainly your right to hold that opinion...and also well within my rights to disgree.
to ME, pro-abortion would signify one is 100% FOR abortions...ALL the time...the FIRST and ONLY choice.
whereas to ME...pro-CHOICE means just that, CHOICE. look at the post above...i listed 3 scenarios:
-choose to utlize the morning after pill
-choose to have an abortion
-choose to have a baby
i'd also add
-choosing to abstain from intercourse
-choosing to utilize BC methods
ALL viable and equal choices in my mind.
so YES...i absolutely believe 'pro-choice' is the BEST descriptor for my thinking on the subject.
But that means both sides are pro-choice with the exception of the inclusion of one of the choices (abortion). Therefore, the way to differentiate is to call it like it is - pro-abortion.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
But that means both sides are pro-choice with the exception of the inclusion of one of the choices (abortion). Therefore, the way to differentiate is to call it like it is - pro-abortion.
Nope, one side is not pro-choice; the side that is against abortion. They want to eliminate that choice. edit: I mean how can you say you are pro-choice when you are strictly against one choice?
No one is pro-abortion. I've always been against abortion, but I am pro-choice.
Nope, one side is not pro-choice; the side that is against abortion. They want to eliminate that choice.
No one is pro-abortion. I've always been against abortion, but I am pro-choice.
I'm perfectly fine with using the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion. Those are the most accurate in my opinion.
I'm very much pro-life across many issues, but on this issue the most accurate way to describe me is anti-abortion. I'm against abortion. I think it's wrong.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm perfectly fine with using the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion. Those are the most accurate in my opinion.
I'm very much pro-life across many issues, but on this issue the most accurate way to describe me is anti-abortion. I'm against abortion. I think it's wrong.
If that's what you want to call it, fine. Just know that those you consider "pro-abortion" are not necessarily pro abortion.
They are pro choice. I think that is way, way more accurate. Their stance is people should be able to choose, they should have that choice.
I'm against abortion in almost every case. I'm pro-choice, though. It means you get your way, no one is forcing you to have an abortion (that would be the pro-abortion agenda). You have a choice. The people who want a abortion should be able to get one.
So I think the most accurate description is pro-choice and anti-freedom
But that means both sides are pro-choice with the exception of the inclusion of one of the choices (abortion). Therefore, the way to differentiate is to call it like it is - pro-abortion.
are they?
to me someone who is pro-life ALWAYS leaves out the option of abortion, oftentimes the morning after pill...and some are even against BC. obviously not all...but some. pro-lifers overwhelmingly seem to never allow abortion into the equation as a choice...so that to me is not honest. (and i know there are some in the pro-life category who at least leave abortion open with the caveat of risk to the mother's life, rape, etc....but that is by and large not all)
i already explained why pro-abortion makes no sense. i am NOT pro-abortion. i am pro-OPTIONS. in an ideal world...abortions would be unnecessary, b/c all would use BC....access to the morning after pill would be quite and easy and open to all.....access to proper education and cost of BC methods would ALL be covered, always, by insurance....etc. so no, to say one is 'pro-abortion' is a misnomer imo. as i already said, you see it differently..so be it. however, doesn't make it true.
If that's what you want to call it, fine. Just know that those you consider "pro-abortion" are not necessarily pro abortion.
They are pro choice. I think that is way, way more accurate. Their stance is people should be able to choose, they should have that choice.
I'm against abortion in almost every case. I'm pro-choice, though. It means you get your way, no one is forcing you to have an abortion (that would be the pro-abortion agenda). You have a choice. The people who want a abortion should be able to get one.
So I think the most accurate description is pro-choice and anti-freedom
exactly.
but if makes know1 happy to use those labels for himself...so be it.
i, however, will ALWAYS think of myself as PRO-CHOICE...and no one can ever convince me that my stance is anything but...pro...choice.
If that's what you want to call it, fine. Just know that those you consider "pro-abortion" are not necessarily pro abortion.
They are pro choice. I think that is way, way more accurate. Their stance is people should be able to choose, they should have that choice.
I'm against abortion in almost every case. I'm pro-choice, though. It means you get your way, no one is forcing you to have an abortion (that would be the pro-abortion agenda). You have a choice. The people who want a abortion should be able to get one.
So I think the most accurate description is pro-choice and anti-freedom
Still disagree. There are TONS of options or choices out there. What the pro-abortion crowd really cares about is having abortion as an option.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
Yes, I went to the site. And I saw that's another one of those anti-abortion propaganda sites that spews anecdotes as medical fact.
I'm sure there are some women who have emotional problems after having abortions. And I respect their experiences and feelings. But I have no respect for trying to take a few select experiences and use them to create a generalization that creates a biased anti-abortion slant and scares women who are faced with the decision. Most women, in fact, feel relief after having an abortion. Some women feel emotional and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to feel when your hormones are changing and/or you've just lost a child (whether by your choice or not). It can be an emotional experience. That's not the same as being a traumatic experience. For those who do experience deeper issues after having abortions, there's no telling that the women wouldn't have felt the same way after having a miscarriage or an appendectomy or anything else.
It would probably also be quite possible to find a whole stack of studies and research papers into the effects of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. While I don't think the studies angelica quoted are invalid necessarily, as with everything, there are two sides of the coin.
We can all talk about birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies until we're blue in the face. The fact remains, it does happen, and it will always happen. Once a woman is in that situation, the issue of birth control is kind of a moot point. The question is then, should she have this baby, or shouldn't she? And if this is an unwanted pregnancy, in whose best interests is forcing her to have the baby is it?
In my line of work, for the most part, outcomes are happy. By the time I see women, they have made their decisions, and most times have planned to have a baby, so the question of unwanted doesn't really come up. But there have certainly been occasions where I have delivered women ( or very young girls) of their babies and you just know the future is really grim for them, and their baby. It would be interesting to do a study on the rates of depression among women who have continued with unwanted pregnancies, the rates of child abuse and neglect, the rates of babies in garbage bins outside McDonald's and see the correlation between all of this.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I personally continued an unplanned pregnancy, living in poverty, and developed severe post-partum depression and post-partum severe OCD that lasted for well over ten years.
You are absolutely correct, we have the whole coin. Both 'sides'. Denial of aspects of the coin is...denial...and ignorance.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I too continued with an unplanned pregnancy. I have no regrets about that, and didn't suffer any depression or ill effects. I am very sorry you went through that and hope it is behind you. Judging from your posts, you have found more of yourself and are in a much better place.
I suppose though, even unplanned and unwanted is a distinction in itself. While my pregnancy was unplanned, and I was very young, certainly by the time I made my choice, she became a very wanted baby. Sadly, there are lots of women who never feel this. The pregnancy was unplanned and they never want it, and to continue with it would be a disaster for them. Of those who chose to terminate the pregnancy, I guess we will never know if they may have reached a point where they connected with their pregnancy and became attached and emotionally invested in it.
I think it's an incredibly hard decision for a woman to make, regardless of her circumstance and it's a heartbreaking thing to have to do. I think it's rarely an unthought about quick fix, and it's very sad for her when she feels she has to do it. I do believe she has a right to that choice though.
very very true.
Mine also became very wanted. And considering the years of torment I went through after, I never regretted my decision. I also always knew my son was not responsible for what happened to me. My son has been a blessing to me in ways I cannot describe! Again, I am very blessed!
I agree 100%, which is why I don't judge women who face these tough questions. The less-than-ideal outcomes are painful to deal with. These women need support, understanding, etc.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
When the nucleus' of the sperm and egg fuse, a cell is created that has its own unique DNA sequence, it is not part of the mother or the father. Saying that it cannot survive without the mother is irrelevant since this is the case even after the baby is born, unlike many animals, humans are completely dependant on a mother (or sustitute adult) for at least a year after birth. Furthermore, if you follow this logic to its conclusion, the many disabled folk who are completely dependant on medical machinery and drugs would also forfeit their human right to life. I suggest that the only reason we affirm the right to life for the 1 year old child and the medically dependant yet deny it for the unborn child is that killing the former would confront us with VISIBLE bloodshed whilst the later is done somewhere so hidden that we can live in denial that a killing has really taken place.
the real question is not about dependancy but when the fetus is a 'Human being' with human rights. In this country (england) we can legally abort up to 24 weeks but medical advances have meant that babies can now survive if they are born at 22 weeks. This will undoubtedly be further reduced so it cannot be used as the point where the fetus 'becomes human'. the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed.
along those lines....
when a law enforcement agency becomes aware that a child's life is threatened by its parents, it will take the child away, feed it and protect it. If a fetus is exactly that, why does the government not take it, feed it and protect it?
naděje umírá poslední
you angelica are full of shit. regardless of the amount of time an in utero child spends inside its mother, its DNA whilst being unique, is the totality of its mother and its father. an embryo is not a person. tis debatable whether a foetus is a viable entity and therefore a person, so what exactly is your point i ask?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
One question I have always had is this. Why if someone murders a pregnant woman is he/she charged with murder of two. This logic does not line up with me.
Also we have laws in this country that make it illegall to be a prostitute. Isn't that the Govt. teleing people what they can and can't do tot their bodies.
Just food for thought.
There is a lot of spewing propaganda and anecdotes on both sides of this issue. In my opinion, more of it comes from the pro-abortion side of things.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
just as your short post is filled with propaganda
If there are pro abortion people, they are a very very small group. No body like that in this discussion.
Abortion is an option is an unfortunated situation.
in essence, the conservative government chooses to do nothing to protect the fetus... it has chosen abortion over caring for the unborn fetus. I follows that the conservatives that ride the pro-life platform are really pro abortion.
you know, in a test tube.. in a baby saving lab.. then the parent get to see the child grow.. and from the saved, a panel to write the laws on abortion
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Why do you need data? Isn't it common sense that if the consequences of an action are going to be greater, that less people will participate?
Since murder and theft are going to occur whether they are legal or not, should we make them legal too?
How many TV stars would sign up for "Circus of the Stars" if there wasn't a safety net under the trapeze?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So focus on something that you can make light of rather than address what I'm really saying - that it's odd to say that abortions are easier to come by than other forms of birth control.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I do not believe that. There are plenty of people whose intentions appear to me to be pro-abortion.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And it's clear to me that some are so biased that they cannot realistically assess the different variables - they can only see their limited agenda.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
YAY!
ooooooooo..i want to go out and purposely have unprotected sex....get pregnant so i can have an abortion! it Is so much FUN! i LOVE getting abortions...making such decisions without a care in the world...and i like to do it ofen...so that YAY! i can have an abortion again and again! they are the BEST!
yea...i know lots of people like that. :rolleyes:
the part i bolded....i think THAT is it. what you INFER, and what one actually thinks/believes/beahves....quite obviously, NOT always the same thing.
i can safely say in my life i have NEVER met anyone i would remotely even THINK of as 'pro-abortion'...what an absurd notion! however, i also am a pro-choice thinker...and i appreciate and respect both sides of the equation. as i say opften enough.....i fully support EVERYone's right to make their own individual decisions.....and i expect the same. all free to make their own choices.
exactly.
i find it interesting too....we continually develop more and more artificial means to extend life, to keep life from ceasing...even for fetuses who even 10-20 years ago wouldn't survive. this is all a-ok though. perhaps that fetus is not meant to survive? thus why the vast medical complications throut life many of these children end up having, for life...b/c of medical intervention. so it's ok to do so to keep life going at all costs...but one cannot choose for themselves to end something living in their own bodies, with absolutely NO sensory percerption and ZERO chance of living outside the body....normally wellunder 12 weeks of 'life' in the body. it's certainly a perspective for one to have...just not one i share.
btw - i see the 'point' made that if all were forced to 'face the consequences' of their unwanted pregnancies...that there'd be less of em. history seems to speak otherwise to THAT statement.
and i DO say people face the consequences of their actions ALL the time. simply b/c they make a decision you do not agree with does NOT mean one is not taking responsibilty ofr their actions. i find it far more 'responsible'...for a woman to choose the morning after pill for example...to have an abortion as early as possible if that is her choice....or to decide to have a baby....ALL are 'dealing with the consequences.'
anyhoo....enjoy your sunday all!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Pro-abortion is much more accurate than pro-choice as a descriptor.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
certainly your right to hold that opinion...and also well within my rights to disgree.
to ME, pro-abortion would signify one is 100% FOR abortions...ALL the time...the FIRST and ONLY choice.
whereas to ME...pro-CHOICE means just that, CHOICE. look at the post above...i listed 3 scenarios:
-choose to utlize the morning after pill
-choose to have an abortion
-choose to have a baby
i'd also add
-choosing to abstain from intercourse
-choosing to utilize BC methods
ALL viable and equal choices in my mind.
so YES...i absolutely believe 'pro-choice' is the BEST descriptor for my thinking on the subject.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
But that means both sides are pro-choice with the exception of the inclusion of one of the choices (abortion). Therefore, the way to differentiate is to call it like it is - pro-abortion.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Nope, one side is not pro-choice; the side that is against abortion. They want to eliminate that choice. edit: I mean how can you say you are pro-choice when you are strictly against one choice?
No one is pro-abortion. I've always been against abortion, but I am pro-choice.
naděje umírá poslední
I'm perfectly fine with using the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion. Those are the most accurate in my opinion.
I'm very much pro-life across many issues, but on this issue the most accurate way to describe me is anti-abortion. I'm against abortion. I think it's wrong.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If that's what you want to call it, fine. Just know that those you consider "pro-abortion" are not necessarily pro abortion.
They are pro choice. I think that is way, way more accurate. Their stance is people should be able to choose, they should have that choice.
I'm against abortion in almost every case. I'm pro-choice, though. It means you get your way, no one is forcing you to have an abortion (that would be the pro-abortion agenda). You have a choice. The people who want a abortion should be able to get one.
So I think the most accurate description is pro-choice and anti-freedom
naděje umírá poslední
are they?
to me someone who is pro-life ALWAYS leaves out the option of abortion, oftentimes the morning after pill...and some are even against BC. obviously not all...but some. pro-lifers overwhelmingly seem to never allow abortion into the equation as a choice...so that to me is not honest. (and i know there are some in the pro-life category who at least leave abortion open with the caveat of risk to the mother's life, rape, etc....but that is by and large not all)
i already explained why pro-abortion makes no sense. i am NOT pro-abortion. i am pro-OPTIONS. in an ideal world...abortions would be unnecessary, b/c all would use BC....access to the morning after pill would be quite and easy and open to all.....access to proper education and cost of BC methods would ALL be covered, always, by insurance....etc. so no, to say one is 'pro-abortion' is a misnomer imo. as i already said, you see it differently..so be it. however, doesn't make it true.
exactly.
but if makes know1 happy to use those labels for himself...so be it.
i, however, will ALWAYS think of myself as PRO-CHOICE...and no one can ever convince me that my stance is anything but...pro...choice.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Still disagree. There are TONS of options or choices out there. What the pro-abortion crowd really cares about is having abortion as an option.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.