NationStates Jolt Archive

If a woman has an unprotected sex, she should take an after morning pill (if she doesnt want a baby). If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare), she should have the baby (if the baby is healthy and no threat to mother's life), and then give it for adoption. Because such pregnancies are very rare, it shouldnt clog adoption systems in a country. As simple as that....

And who are you to tell her what to do?

I think it's to abort an unborn fetus. I could be wrong, though.

IM IN UR WOMB, KILLIN UR BABIES.

Sorry, random commentary.

Uh, the point of abortion? Let's say a woman is raped and impregnated. Maybe she wasn't thinking about a morning-after pill because she was, uh, raped.

But perhaps you think rapes are not very common too.

Do you propose a ban on abortions?

And who are you to tell her what to do?

:confused:

And who are you to tell her what to do?

Perhaps because if someone views abortion as murder, then you're damn right they can tell someone it's wrong. If you don't view it as murder...then you don't have a right to tell them it's wrong. Whatever...

IM IN UR WOMB, KILLIN UR BABIES.

Sorry, random commentary.

Uh, the point of abortion? Let's say a woman is raped and impregnated. Maybe she wasn't thinking about a morning-after pill because she was, uh, raped.

But perhaps you think rapes are not very common too.

Obviously she can abort those...

if you ever find yourself unexpectedly pregnant i am sure you will follow your well-outlined feelings on the subject.

women have different opinions, feelings, circumstances, backgrounds, beliefs, personalities, etc. every woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant uses these factors in making the best decision for her own life.

A thread on abortions? How novel.

A thread on abortions? How novel.

Speaking english on net? How novel...

if you ever find yourself unexpectedly pregnant i am sure you will follow your well-outlined feelings on the subject.

women have different opinions, feelings, circumstances, backgrounds, beliefs, personalities, etc. every woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant uses these factors in making the best decision for her own life.

How do you find yourself "unexpectedly" pregnant unless you are raped?

If a woman has an unprotected sex, she should take an after morning pill (if she doesnt want a baby). If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare), she should have the baby (if the baby is healthy and no threat to mother's life), and then give it for adoption. Because such pregnancies are very rare, it shouldnt clog adoption systems in a country. As simple as that....

So you are for turning women into state-run incubators against their will? Are you also for compulsory blood and organ donations?

How do you find yourself "unexpectedly" pregnant unless you are raped?

*Cough*

If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare)...

How do you find yourself "unexpectedly" pregnant unless you are raped?

pssst, contraception fails, and you might know about it right away.

IM IN UR WOMB, KILLIN UR BABIES.

Sorry, random commentary.

lol, siggable!

But perhaps you think rapes are not very common too.
Even in the US, with very liberal abortion laws, abortions of rape cases count for less than 1% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_us#Reasons_for_abortions) of abortions. Though if you want to prove otherwise go ahead.

:eek:

Ahahahahaha!!

How do you find yourself “unexpectedly” pregnant unless you are raped?
When Mummy and Daddy love each other very much, yet can’t get their hands on the mystical 100% safe contraception.

*Cough*

You know that most abortions arent done to those kinda babies. And in that case, deal with it for 9 months...It's an unique experience...

Even in the US, with very liberal abortion laws, abortions of rape cases count for less than 1% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_us#Reasons_for_abortions) of abortions. Though if you want to prove otherwise go ahead.

He asked for "the point" of abortion. I gave him one. I didn't feel like bothering with the rest since the fact that there is more than one seemed beyond him. ;)

Even in the US, with very liberal abortion laws, abortions of rape cases count for less than 1% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_us#Reasons_for_abortions) of abortions. Though if you want to prove otherwise go ahead.

Know why? Because where there's conception there's ejaculation. Where there's ejaculation there's DNA. Where there's DNA there's evidence.

Most rapists don't go leaving DNA evidence around if they're clever (clever rapist? hrm...)

How do you find yourself "unexpectedly" pregnant unless you are raped?

because more than 99% of the time when a heterosexual couple has sex they are not trying to get the woman pregnant.

You know that most abortions arent done to those kinda babies. And in that case, deal with it for 9 months...It's an unique experience...

That's not your choice to make for them.

When Mummy and Daddy love each other very much, yet can’t get their hands on the mystical 100% safe contraception.

So after they both cum and go to sleep and wake up, mummy should take a morning after...

If a woman has an unprotected sex, she should take an after morning pill (if she doesnt want a baby).

You realise that that IS an abortion ?

If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare), she should have the baby (if the baby is healthy and no threat to mother's life), and then give it for adoption.

Why ? If she aborts it before it develops into something that can feel and experience things it is not harmed at all.

because more than 99% of the time when a heterosexual couple has sex they are not trying to get the woman pregnant.

But they should be protected anyways, for diseases. If not, morning after...So, what's the big deal?

Obviously she can abort those...

Why is it alright to abort those babies? Why are their lives less valuable?

So after they both cum and go to sleep and wake up, mummy should take a morning after...
Every time they have sex? How does Mummy know her contraceptive pill failed?

So after they both cum and go to sleep and wake up, mummy should take a morning after...

And if the condom breaks and they didn't know it? Or simply fails?

You seem ignorant of the fact that birth control is never 100% effective, and taking the morning after pill after every occurance of sex in a sexually active woman will probably kill her.

If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare), she should have the baby (if the baby is healthy and no threat to mother's life), and then give it for adoption...

As simple as that...

:eek:

So going through nine months of pregnancy and giving birth is simple is it?

And in that case, deal with it for 9 months...It's an unique experience...

You almost make it sound like an enjoyable experience...:rolleyes:

Trilby63;11969472']Why is it alright to abort those babies? Why are their lives less valuable?

because they're not human. And even if they were, they are inhabiting another human's body without permission.

Trilby63;11969472']Why is it alright to abort those babies? Why are their lives less valuable?

Because when the mother looks at the child, she'll remember the trauma. It's one way of getting rid of the assault. Asking them to carry a baby after rape would be too much.

But they should be protected anyways, for diseases. If not, morning after...So, what's the big deal?

If both you and your partner have already been tested, are disease free, and faithful, condoms for std protection are redundant.

And what the "big deal" is, is that the morning after pill isn't a freaking asprin. You can't just pop one in your mouth every morning and go on with your life. It's a mega dose of hormones. Take too many too quickly and you're going to die.

You seem to be under the impression that the morning after pill is some magic medication that makes babies go away with no unpleasant side effects. It isn't. The reason it works is because it doses your body with an extreme amount of hormones. Taking one every time you MIGHT be pregnant will kill any sexually active woman.

Because when the mother looks at the child, she'll remember the trauma. It's one way of getting rid of the assault. Asking them to carry a baby after rape would be too much.

And why do you consider abortion a day after sex perfectly fine (morning after pill), but not 2 days later ? Or a week ? Or a month ?
What is the distinguishing factor ?

Every time they have sex? How does Mummy know her contraceptive pill failed?

That's very rare. It works like 99% of the time. If the baby is fertilized against all odds, mummy should respect mother nature and give the baby for adoption or maybe keep it. From their sex life, mummy and daddy seems happy....

That's very rare. It works like 99% of the time. If the baby is fertilized against all odds, mummy should respect mother nature and give the baby for adoption or maybe keep it. From their sex life, mummy and daddy seems happy....

what...exactly...do you think RU486 DOES?

It terminates pregnancy. Same as any medical operation. The pill you so happily advocate will kill that "baby fertlized against all odds" just the same as any abortion in a doctor's office would.

And once again what gives you the right to tell mummy what she should do? If we get cancer should we "respect mother nature" and let it kill us? What about a heart attack? Heart attacks are natural.

Your argument of "if it happens we should let it be" is bullshit, tell me that the next time you get the flu.

and that "99% effective" still results in hundreds of thousands of pregnancies a year.

And why do you consider abortion a day after sex perfectly fine (morning after pill), but not 2 days later ? Or a week ? Or a month ?
What is the distinguishing factor ?

*yawns...*


Chicago Tribune , June 20, 2005

Morning-after pill's not abortion, scientists say

Author : Judy Peres and Jeremy Manier, Tribune staff reporters

Amid a heated national debate over emergency contraception, some scientists are marshaling evidence to challenge the belief that the "morning-after pill" is equivalent to abortion.

Abortion opponents object to the pills, saying they work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb and thus destroy an early embryo. Some pharmacists are refusing on moral grounds to dispense emergency contraception.

But the scientists say there is no scientific evidence the pills prevent implantation--and considerable evidence they work mainly by blocking the release of an egg from the woman's ovary, so no embryo is formed.

"The pervasive myth out there is that emergency contraception is an abortifacient," said Dr. David Archer, director of clinical research at the Contraceptive Research and Development Program of Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk.

"But there's no evidence scientifically that that's true."

For one thing, Archer points out, emergency contraception generally doesn't work if taken after a woman has ovulated.
.......

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/morning-after_pill_not_abortion_scientists_say.htm

What I find so hypocritical about the 'pro-life' movement is that they usually come from the extreme and/or religious right. They have no problems with killing human life in wars or executing people via the death penalty (this is aimed at the cunts in the Christian Coalition and the hard right of the Republican Party etc...). Their logic is twisted, save life before it begins yet kill it once it starts.:rolleyes:

Humans have their birthdays as the starting point of their life span, not the time they were concieved.

No one, not no church or state or any other body has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body!

Free choice in abortion and contraception for all without exepctions.

what...exactly...do you think RU486 DOES?

It terminates pregnancy. Same as any medical operation. The pill you so happily advocate will kill that "baby fertlized against all odds" just the same as any abortion in a doctor's office would.

And once again what gives you the right to tell mummy what she should do? If we get cancer should we "respect mother nature" and let it kill us? What about a heart attack? Heart attacks are natural.

Your argument of "if it happens we should let it be" is bullshit, tell me that the next time you get the flu.

RU486 is such a silly name. See above...

because they're not human. And even if they were, they are inhabiting another human's body without permission.

I make sure to kill (mentally retarded, people who cannot make decisions) people who are inhabiting my property without my permission.

That’s very rare. It works like 99% of the time. If the baby is fertilized against all odds, mummy should respect mother nature and give the baby for adoption or maybe keep it. From their sex life, mummy and daddy seems happy....
Luckily nature has evolved humans, who in turn developed technology that allows them to carry out abortions; thus preventing unwanted children being born to unready parents in an already overpopulated world.

But they should be protected anyways, for diseases. If not, morning after...So, what's the big deal?

you dont know that your contraceptive failed until you miss a period.

not everyone who has sex is mature enough to rush to the pharmacy after having had unprotected sex. its more common to hope for the best and deal with it when the pregnancy is confirmed.

circumstances change.

the morning after pill can fail.

it is only recently that the morning after pill has been sold "over the counter". perhaps in the near future, with proper promotion, women will start to use it exactly as you suggest that they should. time will tell.

people dont always do what they should do.

*yawns...*

Assume you had unprotected sex and that if nothing is done a baby will be born 9 months later.
Do you agree that if you take the morning after pill, there will not be a baby coming out ?
Do you agree that if you abort the pregnancy, there will not be a baby coming out ?

What is the difference that makes one ok and the other not according to you ?

What I find so hypocritical about the 'pro-life' movement is that they usually come from the extreme and/or religious right. They have no problems with killing human life in wars or executing people via the death penalty (this is aimed at the cunts in the Christian Coalition and the hard right of the Republican Party etc...). Thier logic is twisted, save life before it begins yet kill it once it starts.:rolleyes:

Humans have their birthdays as the starting point of their life span, not the time they were concieved.

No one, not no church or state or any other body has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body!

Free choice in abortion and contraception for all without exepctions.

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/neuro/c7.48.4.kneejerk.jpg

I dont belive in organized religion and I'm against death penalty.

What I find so hypocritical about the 'pro-life' movement is that they usually come from the extreme and/or religious right. They have no problems with killing human life in wars or executing people via the death penalty (this is aimed at the cunts in the Christian Coalition and the hard right of the Republican Party etc...). Thier logic is twisted, save life before it begins yet kill it once it starts.:rolleyes:


That does not invalidate the pro-life argument; it just shows that the religious right is hypocritical.

Although, I suppose we could call the pro-choice movement hypocritical when some supporters support abortion, but are against the death penalty. That does not invalidate the pro-choice argument either, though.

That's very rare. It works like 99% of the time.

Yes, it works 99% of the time. Although the odds are that two people having sex twice a week at the least, will at some point find that the pill hasn't worked.

EDIT: Maybe several times.

Yes, it works 99% of the time. Although the odds are that two people having sex twice a week at the least, will at some point find that the pill hasn't worked.

Do note that the 99% means 99% effective in a year with a normal sexlife.
It is not like it fails 1 in 100 times; it fails for 1 couple per 100 per year.

Luckily nature has evolved humans, who in turn developed technology that allows them to carry out abortions; thus preventing unwanted children being born to unready parents in an already overpopulated world.

Overpopulated world is a silly blanket statement. Is canada overpopulated? Russia? No. It's just some countries...

Because when the mother looks at the child, she'll remember the trauma. It's one way of getting rid of the assault. Asking them to carry a baby after rape would be too much.

That doesn't answer the question. Why are their lives less valuable?

you dont know that your contraceptive failed until you miss a period.

not everyone who has sex is mature enough to rush to the pharmacy after having had unprotected sex. its more common to hope for the best and deal with it when the pregnancy is confirmed.

circumstances change.

the morning after pill can fail.

it is only recently that the morning after pill has been sold "over the counter". perhaps in the near future, with proper promotion, women will start to use it exactly as you suggest that they should. time will tell.

people dont always do what they should do.


It's not rocket science. Of course under my logic such drugs should be free....

I make sure to kill (mentally retarded, people who cannot make decisions) people who are inhabiting my property without my permission.

I didn't say "property" I said "body". Huge difference that.

Assume you had unprotected sex and that if nothing is done a baby will be born 9 months later.
Do you agree that if you take the morning after pill, there will not be a baby coming out ?
Do you agree that if you abort the pregnancy, there will not be a baby coming out ?

What is the difference that makes one ok and the other not according to you ?

Assume your mother and father didnt meet and "killed" you. Assume a burglar killed you. Whats the difference?

I dont belive in organized religion and I'm against death penalty.

Okay, but you will admit your stance is a minority one, the religious right/christian fascist movement led by the likes of Patrick Robertson, Jerry Farwell et al are at the forefront of the so called 'culture wars' debate.

And they are hypocrites of the highest order.

That does not invalidate the pro-life argument; it just shows that the religious right is hypocritical.

In a way it does, as it shows they could not give a fuck about human life, just a moral cover to their real aim, which is controlling the individual and taking away of freedom from people to do what they want with their own bodies.

Of course they would not get much public support if they said that and were honest, so they use these 'morality' issues to fool people instead.

Although, I suppose we could call the pro-choice movement hypocritical when some supporters support abortion, but are against the death penalty. That does not invalidate the pro-choice argument either, though.

For me though, it's not an issue, as I do not consider a fetus to be a human being, it is a potential human being.

But then again sperms and eggs are potential human beings and if you oppose abortion on the grounds that potential human life is in fact life, then you might as well ban wanking as well, as a lot of potential human life is lost there too.

This is why the pro-life movement is advocating something both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Yes, it works 99% of the time. Although the odds are that two people having sex twice a week at the least, will at some point find that the pill hasn't worked.

EDIT: Maybe several times.

Do note that the 99% means 99% effective in a year with a normal sexlife.
It is not like it fails 1 in 100 times; it fails for 1 couple per 100 per year.

LOL you guys. Maths probability rules dont work that way. 99% means, in each sex they got, there's 1% chance of having baby. It's not like they'll have 1 baby per 100 sex.

I didn’t say “property” I said “body”. Huge difference that.
Not in the liberal traditions of the UK and the US. Your body is the first, and most important form of property you own, according to Locke and his followers; people like Washington, Jefferson, Paine, etc.

Assume your mother and father didnt meet and "killed" you. Assume a burglar killed you. Whats the difference?

So we agree that at some stages of the pregnancy there is no person yet and I was not floating somewhere in limbo before my parents had sex.
Good.

Now, when do you believe a person that should not be killed arose exactly ? I place this at the moment I was capable of experiences, which is at the activation of brain and neural net - reasonably far in the pregnancy,

Where do you place it ?

Obviously she can abort those...

Being against abortion requires that you either believe the fetus counts as a human or it does not. Whether or not the mother was raped should not be a factor, it's still a human being. You don't kill another human being because it might remind another of a certain trauma.

A more consistent stance would be to be against abortion only after a certain trimester, imo...

For a lot of women, it's not about the care of the child, it's about carrying the child

Therefore, putting the child up for adoption solves nothing for those women, because they don't want to be pregnant in the first place

9 months of increasing pain and carrying around a baby at all times, then having the baby in a long, agonizing process that can be described fairly accurately as taking a 7-pound baby-shaped shit is NOT my cup of tea.

Okay, but you will admit your stance is a minority one, the religious right/christian fascist movement led by the likes of Patrick Robertson, Jerry Farwell et al are at the forefront of the so called 'culture wars' debate.

And they are hypocrites of the highest order.



WTF? I'm not even American or British or whatver (english names...)...

Do note that the 99% means 99% effective in a year with a normal sexlife.
It is not like it fails 1 in 100 times; it fails for 1 couple per 100 per year.

good point.

if a woman has a "normal" sex life over the course of her reproductive years--we'll call it from age 20 to age 50 to make it easy--there is quite a cumulative chance of unexpected pregnancy. some women choose to carry that pregnancy to term, some feel its better to abort. in any case it does illustrate why there are so many abortions in a country of 300 million people. even with diligent use of contraceptives by every woman of child bearing age there will be millions of unexpected pregnancies each year. (given that not all contraceptives are 99% effective) (and especially given that many women arent as dilligent as they should be)

LOL you guys. Maths probability rules dont work that way. 99% means, in each sex they got, there's 1% chance of having baby. It's not like they'll have 1 baby per 100 sex.

No, the efficiency of contraceptives *is* per couples per 100 per year. Look it up.
It is well over 99% btw if you go double dutch.

If it was the way you say it is, 1 in a 100 sexual encounters during a fertile period would result in pregnancy.

*snip*

I hate you.

For a lot of women, it's not about the care of the child, it's about carrying the child

Therefore, putting the child up for adoption solves nothing for those women, because they don't want to be pregnant in the first place

9 months of increasing pain and carrying around a baby at all times, then having the baby in a long, agonizing process that can be described fairly accurately as taking a 7-pound baby-shaped shit is NOT my cup of tea.

If you consider it human then that is NOT an excuse. Do you kill your 5-year-child because you're tired of listening to their shit every day and don't want to continue with it for the next 13 years?

Being against abortion requires that you either believe the fetus counts as a human or it does not. Whether or not the mother was raped should not be a factor, it's still a human being. You don't kill another human being because it might remind another of a certain trauma.

A more consistent stance would be to be against abortion only after a certain trimester, imo...

Well, you are no worldwide authority about requirements about being against abortion. I'm against unneccessary killing. And with after morning pills, abortion is largely unneccessary. Rapes, besides being very rare causes for pregnancy, also do not permit a very basic rule of natural selection, that people should choose their mates...

Obviously she can abort those...

Uh, no she can't.

No, the efficiency of contraceptives *is* per couples per 100 per year. Look it up.
It is well over 99% btw if you go double dutch.

Link? You are the one who should provide it since you are arguing against usual % statistics.

If you consider it human then that is NOT an excuse. Do you kill your 5-year-child because you're tired of listening to their shit every day and don't want to continue with it for the next 13 years?

That's not physical pain, and not nearly as bad as the pregnancy itself

Besides, I am in the school of thought that a fetus is not a person until it is born; it is a POTENTIAL person

Do you think of a person as a killer because they could kill someone?

Do you give someone a funeral because one day they will be dead?

There is no logic in your thinking

Well, you are no worldwide authority about requirements about being against abortion. I'm against unneccessary killing. And with after morning pills, abortion is largely unneccessary. Rapes, besides being very rare causes for pregnancy, also do not permit a very basic rule of natural selection, that people should choose their mates...

Your point is?

How can you blame the baby for the circumstances of it's conception?

If you consider it human then that is NOT an excuse.

Replace the word human with person and we are in agreement.

It's not rocket science. Of course under my logic such drugs should be free....

what does that have to do with anything? do YOU always do exactly as you should do? no one does. life is messy and full of stupid behavior.

*snip*

Ah.. thank you..

You're okay.

Whats the point of not aborting?

So we agree that at some stages of the pregnancy there is no person yet and I was not floating somewhere in limbo before my parents had sex.
Good.

Now, when do you believe a person that should not be killed arose exactly ? I place this at the moment I was capable of experiences, which is at the activation of brain and neural net - reasonably far in the pregnancy,

Where do you place it ?

I place it when you are human, genetically...

I place it when you are human, genetically...

Then that's pretty much when you're a little egg

You have human DNA and the potential to be a human

So should menstruation be banned, too, since it kills potential humans?

:rolleyes:

NOOBLET FIGHT!

*gets popcorn*

what does that have to do with anything? do YOU always do exactly as you should do? no one does. life is messy and full of stupid behavior.

I'm supposed to breath every second and I do. I'm supposed to eat everyday and I do. I'm supposed to not kill anyone and I dont...

Link? You are the one who should provide it since you are arguing against usual % statistics.

Actually YOU are. You say that 99% means there is 1% chance of getting pregant, but that that does not mean that it fails 1 in a 100 times. That is of course nonsense - that is *exactly* what it would mean if you were right.

However:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Index

Bloody hypocrites..

Whats the point of not aborting?

Not killing...If you are right (that it's not killing), it's unneccessary. If I'm right, it's murder...

I place it when you are human, genetically...

So your left arm is human ;) ?
I prefer to use the brain as a determining factor. If my brain is transplanted into another body I would consider that me in a new body, not another person with my brain.

I place it when you are human, genetically...

Your spleen contains human dna, point?

Your spleen contains human dna, point?

I prefer the liver.

So your left arm is human ;) ?
I prefer to use the brain as a determining factor. If my brain is transplanted into another body I would consider that me in a new body, not another person with my brain.

If only it grows a penis or vagina itself, in time...

Your spleen contains human dna, point?

ah those livers. Enemy within...They are really smart, developing brain themselves and all...:rolleyes:

Abortion for some, miniature American flags for others.

I'm supposed to breath every second and I do. I'm supposed to eat everyday and I do. I'm supposed to not kill anyone and I dont...

Who say's were not supposed to kill? The urge not to kill is hardly hardwired into us, is it?

If only it grows a penis or vagina itself, in time...

But what if it was raped? Would you have to chop it off?

I suggest that men who share the point of view that giving birth is no big deal have a football anally inserted for about seven hours which they then must pass. Maybe not really to prove any point but more to have a bit of fun with them.

I'm supposed to breath every second and I do. I'm supposed to eat everyday and I do. I'm supposed to not kill anyone and I dont...

and you have never held your breath? you have never fasted or eaten something you shouldnt have? youve never broken a law?

doing most things that you should do on most days is not the same as never doing something you shouldnt do.

If only it grows a penis or vagina itself, in time...

I would still consider myself to be me without a penis. Less happy, certainly, but me.
Not so when the brain is removed.

Then that's pretty much when you're a little egg

You have human DNA and the potential to be a human

So should menstruation be banned, too, since it kills potential humans?

:rolleyes:

When I cum, it's half the human DNA...:rolleyes: Little babies arent dieing...

When I cum, it's half the human DNA...:rolleyes: Little babies arent dieing...

It could be argued that potential babies are dying. Eggs aren't cakes. But theoretically, smash enough eggs and you'll have less cakes.


Cake. http://www.differencemaker.com/images/chocolatecake.jpg yum.

If a woman has an unprotected sex, she should take an after morning pill (if she doesnt want a baby). If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare), she should have the baby (if the baby is healthy and no threat to mother's life), and then give it for adoption. Because such pregnancies are very rare, it shouldnt clog adoption systems in a country. As simple as that....

I find it interesting that the majority of the arguments thus far have been concerning a woman's right to her body, and the status of the fetus itself.

My two cents on the issue would be to point out that even if a woman doesn't mind the "unique experience" of bringing a baby to term and then delivering it, sometimes a couple's financial situation or their relationship simply isn't ready for the addition of a child. It's not the pregnancy alone that you have to consider, it's the fact that this thing is going to be utterly dependent on you for almost twenty years. (Sometimes more, sometimes less, but a considerable score of years.)

Suggesting adoption isn't an easy fix, either. Many mothers, having gone through the effort of carrying and birthing a child, can't bear to part with it once they have it in their arms. And the life of a child pushed through our crowded adoption and foster-care systems can often be less than ideal. Unplanned pregnancies aren't the only source of children in adoption systems, and with government funding directed primarily elsewhere, even small numbers of children can be difficult to manage satisfactorily.

I think the consideration of a fetus' status is all well and good, but until science is utterly decided on the issue, shouldn't the consideration of the life the child would lead have a larger place in the argument? If somehow, mystically given a choice before conception, how many of us would want to be born into divided families or extremely low-income households?

As for the baby not being a threat to its mother's life...sometimes doctors don't even realize it is until the woman is in the birthing chair. Tests can't detect everything, and sometimes they can only discover problems well into the fetus' development. What then?

Hem hem... let me begin.

If a woman has an unprotected sex, she should take an after morning pill (if she doesnt want a baby).

Have you ever taken the morning after pill? The side affects can include diarreah, exccesive bleeding, intense abdominal pain, and vomiting. Gallons of fun.

If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare), she should have the baby (if the baby is healthy and no threat to mother's life), and then give it for adoption.

Do you know how many "broken condom" babies have herion, crack, and meth addicted mothers? If you look at the psychological profile of more than half of the kids in orphanages, they have mental illnesses and other disabilities and birth defects resulting from their mother's drug abuses.



While the above does not represent my personal view, i just wanted to give you a veiw from the other end of the argument.
I believe a woman's uterus is her own and that she should at least protect herself from unwanted pregnancies. 9 times out of 10 preventing an unwanted pregnancy is just common sense.

I'm in that precarious position where I personally do not advocate abortion. Human life starts from conception in my opinion. But I will not tell you what to do with your body. I will not make you a slave to my morals.

That said, I have to ask:

If a mother has AIDs, is it fair for her to pass that on to her unborn child? The child will inevitably suffer and die.

If a child is born with little cognitive function, unable to do more than lay there, is it fair to bring that child into the world?

If you are raped and become pregnant with an otherwise healthy child, is it fair to snuff out that life because you're traumatized?

If you cannot make ends meet, and are barely living hand to mouth, is it fair to put that child through nine months of malnutrition?

If you decide that you're too young to have a child, is it fair to abort?

What about the women who are clinically insane and are forced to abort?

The problem with labelling it okay or wrong is the variables. There's too many of them to label it one way or another. Yeah, it's a human life. Yeah, even if I'm going to die giving birth to this child, I'm going to try, because I've had my chance to live.

But I'm not going to damn you if you decide otherwise. I've never stood in your shoes.

That said, I have to ask:
If you cannot make ends meet, and are barely living hand to mouth, is it fair to put that child through nine months of malnutrition?

Actually, the baby will be fine, the mom will suffer.

I think there are cases where the baby aborts itself as well... :(

So should menstruation be banned, too, since it kills potential humans?



If only... :rolleyes:

If only... :rolleyes:

:D

I'm in that precarious position where I personally do not advocate abortion. Human life starts from conception in my opinion. But I will not tell you what to do with your body. I will not make you a slave to my morals.

That said, I have to ask:

If a mother has AIDs, is it fair for her to pass that on to her unborn child? The child will inevitably suffer and die. There's a way to prevent that.

If a child is born with little cognitive function, unable to do more than lay there, is it fair to bring that child into the world?No.
If you are raped and become pregnant with an otherwise healthy child, is it fair to snuff out that life because you're traumatized? Would it be fair to the child eventually finding out how he/she was concieved? It's certainly not fair to the mother.
If you cannot make ends meet, and are barely living hand to mouth, is it fair to put that child through nine months of malnutrition? The child won't suffer. The mother will. It's after that when you have to worry about the child.
If you decide that you're too young to have a child, is it fair to abort? Would you want to be a 13 year old mom? I wouldn't be.

What about the women who are clinically insane and are forced to abort? That's probably the best option.
The problem with labelling it okay or wrong is the variables. There's too many of them to label it one way or another. Yeah, it's a human life. Yeah, even if I'm going to die giving birth to this child, I'm going to try, because I've had my chance to live.

But I'm not going to damn you if you decide otherwise. I've never stood in your shoes.

Not having sex is tantamount to abortion.
All you people out there that aren't having sex right now are killing babies!
Shame on you!

But what if the fetus is horribly deformed, or the mother got pregnant thorugh rape, or the pregnancy is a serious threat to the mother's life? THAT'S the point of abortion, my friend.

Not having sex is tantamount to abortion.
All you people out there that aren't having sex right now are killing babies!
Shame on you!

So...... virgins are signs of the Devil? :(

If only it grows a penis or vagina itself, in time...

So it's okay to abort intersexual babies?

:rolleyes:

If a woman has an unprotected sex, she should take an after morning pill (if she doesnt want a baby). If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare), she should have the baby (if the baby is healthy and no threat to mother's life), and then give it for adoption. Because such pregnancies are very rare, it shouldnt clog adoption systems in a country. As simple as that....


Right, let's us force you to carry an unwanted parasite around for 9 and a half months.

So we agree that at some stages of the pregnancy there is no person yet and I was not floating somewhere in limbo before my parents had sex.
Good.

Now, when do you believe a person that should not be killed arose exactly ? I place this at the moment I was capable of experiences, which is at the activation of brain and neural net - reasonably far in the pregnancy,

Where do you place it ?

And by "reasonably far" you mean approximately three weeks right? Because that's where some experts place those "experiences."

If a woman has an unprotected sex, she should take an after morning pill (if she doesnt want a baby). If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare), she should have the baby (if the baby is healthy and no threat to mother's life), and then give it for adoption. Because such pregnancies are very rare, it shouldnt clog adoption systems in a country. As simple as that....

Right. So since many men get an enlarged prostrate later in life, and that can lead to cancer, we've decided that every male should have his out at age 25, as simple as that.

When would you like us to schedule that appointment, now?

So...... virgins are signs of the Devil? :(

Sure, heh.
I was making a sarcastic comment wondering when something would not be defined as abortion. I read in this thread that taking the morning after pill was also killing babies, so I figured not having sex at all is doing the same thing as the pill/abortion. So, not having sex = killing babies.

Sure, heh.
I was making a sarcastic comment wondering when something would not be defined as abortion. I read in this thread that taking the morning after pill was also killing babies, so I figured not having sex at all is doing the same thing as the pill/abortion. So, not having sex = killing babies.

I was also being sarcastic.

If a woman has an unprotected sex, she should take an after morning pill (if she doesnt want a baby). If she was protected but still got pregnant (very rare), she should have the baby (if the baby is healthy and no threat to mother's life), and then give it for adoption. Because such pregnancies are very rare, it shouldnt clog adoption systems in a country. As simple as that....

What if the woman does not have access to contraception like millions of women in third world countries? What if the woman was raped? What if the woman did not know she was pregnant until it was too late and did not want to go through the 9 months of pregnancy that would mean putting her life on hold in the latter stages? What if the woman simply does not want to put a new life into a world knowing that the life would most likely not live a very happy and fulfilling life?

There are too many possibilities to simply state that abortion is useless. It's not as simple as black and white. No woman should be forced to have to give birth to whatever grows in her uterus.

I've also wondered why the desire of the parents to have a child determines whether it is a baby or a fetus.

Right. So since many men get an enlarged prostrate later in life, and that can lead to cancer, we've decided that every male should have his out at age 25, as simple as that.

When would you like us to schedule that appointment, now?

Come on now, it will be a unique experience.

I've also wondered why the desire of the parents to have a child determines whether it is a baby or a fetus.

It doesn't. It's a fetus either way.

I've also wondered why the desire of the parents to have a child determines whether it is a baby or a fetus.

Preborn, whether wanted or not, it's a fetus (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetus). Post birth, it's a baby (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby).

Preborn, whether wanted or not, it's a fetus (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetus). Post birth, it's a baby (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby).

Where does this leave the little man theory?
http://www.humancloning.org/~abstracts/4457.htm

I was also being sarcastic.

Cool.

And by "reasonably far" you mean approximately three weeks right? Because that's where some experts place those "experiences."

No "experts" say any such thing. The very first neural synapses aren't formed until 5-6 weeks, and those are actually in the spinal cord and peripheral nerves. At about 10 weeks, the fetus is capable of movement in response to stimuli, although the movement is still mostly reflexive.

It is not until closer to 22 weeks that the structures involved in awareness are functional.

Preborn, whether wanted or not, it's a fetus (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetus). Post birth, it's a baby (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby).

Technically, the fetal stage actually starts at eight weeks. Prior to that, you are looking at an embryo.

Meanwhile, since I haven't really answered the OP yet, does the OP really believe that unplanned pregnancies are rare when contraceptives are used? They really aren't. And is the OP unaware of the millions of children already awaiting adoption?

it shouldnt clog adoption systems in a country. As simple as that.... The Adoption system is clogged as it is.

And by "reasonably far" you mean approximately three weeks right? Because that's where some experts place those "experiences."

Brainwaves do not even appear until 22 weeks. And brainwaves do not signify consciousness.