Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? (v3)

Pro-choice.

Women should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

-Aunecah

 

Ok, to back up where we were when the last thread ended:

All the conservative were still pro life, and all the liberals were still pro-choice.

*oops*

 

Hey!

I am a liberal and I am pro-life.

 

*sigh*

Here we go again with blatant generalizations.

-Aunecah

 

Ok, who said what last?

I believe that killing innocent infants, no matter what their age, is wrong. Now the liberals may start calling my a sexist bigot.

Let the name calling begin!

 

i kill the futures of millions of babies every time i get out the sock. pro choice.

 

*retracts statement*

Ok then.

All those who were orginaly pro life are still pro life, and all those who were originaly pro choice are still pro choice.

Happy?

 

Yep.

-Aunecah

 

There are still lives out there being destroyed. How can you be happy?

*sees clarification*

Oh... I get it...

 

Here we go again ...

Women should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

Right, like choosing to have sex when they know there's a possibility of getting pregnant? I agree, they should have a choice on that.

Should women have the right to choose what to do with other people's bodies? Because a baby has a body as well.

 

Alright, from what some people said in the last thread, I'll retract my statements.

Yes, life does begin at conception.

HOWEVER, that life comes second to the life and decisions of the mother. If the mother does not want a life growing inside her body, leeching (or to be kinder, living) off of her body, then that is her choice, and her's alone.

Pro-Choice.

EDIT: Irish

So, no sex unless you want to make babies? Jeez, that sounds a little sadistic to me.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

Thank you JFT.

Though I still disagree with you, at least you have a better argument.

 

A better argument than what? A bulimic cow?

 

Pro-choice. I dislike abortion, but I don't think anyone can make that choice for another person.



Birth control falls. Women get raped. Sometimes women develop dangerous health problems if the pregnancy continues.

In short-I am more important than a two month old fetus, which has no brain activity, if I'm not mistaken.

Late term abortions-against except in the case where the mother's life is in danger.

Let's say I get raped and find out early on I'm pregnant. Now, I am on anti-depressants. I can't take them if I'm pregnant, because they could damage the fetus if it is carried to term. However, I cannot just stop taking them, even if I switch to something else-it's too delicate a balance when it comes to my meds. If I stop, I end up having anxiety attacks and increased depression, especially with the extra hormones from pregnancy. I would most likely end up having a nervous breakdown.

Therefore, I would get an abortion, if I hadn't already taken the morning after pill.

My right to my own sanity is more important.

 

Interesting article on the lawsuit, irish, but it is probably a waste of time.

Recent decisions, such as the one in Connecticut, paint the fetus as a bodypart. Additionally, the SC is unlikely to reverse Roe in its' current makeup. Whatever "evidence" the plaintiffs think they have, pro-choice supporters-including scientists and doctors-will try just as harder or harder to refute it.

The best chance to end Roe is to change the Supreme Court. Until this happens, I doubt this little lawsuit will make much of a dent in a 30-year legal precedent.

Peace,

V-03

 

So, no sex unless you want to make babies? Jeez, that sounds a little sadistic to me

Where did she say that? I don't see it any where in her post.

What she is saying is this: When a man and a woman have sex. They shoudl not act like they don't know the risks of what could happen. Such as getting an STD, or getting pregnant.

For the woman to say she did not know. Well what did she think was going to happen when she agreed to have sex? ?

When you have sex thats a risk you are taking. There's no way around that. Even using stuff to stop your self from getting pregnant will not always work.

 

I've raised this point before, but since this is a new thread, I'll raise it again.

What is keeping the Congress from declaring that a fetus (whether at conception or at some other time) is a person under the Constitution?

 

Amending the Constitution is an extremely difficult process, for one.

Also, if you declare a fetus a person, what happens when there's a miscarriage? Would a woman be investigated if she miscarried-some women have multiple spontaneous abortions throughout their lives?

We celebrate BIRTHdays, people. Not CONCEPTIONdays.

 

From a legal standpoint, that would be tricky, Jediflyer.

Birth control pills and morning-after pills might have to be outlawed, which wouldn't go over well with most of mainstream america; this could change the driving age as well as the voting age. And how about insurance? If a person legally starts at conception, do they get healthcare? The government should not be assuming the voice of the fetal in loco parentis of the mother from the moment of conception. The legal structures we have in place right now, with rights coming during stages of pregnancy, makes a lot more sense and is a fair compromise between maternal and fetal rights.

Changin it would be a mess.

Peace,

V-03

 

So, no sex unless you want to make babies? Jeez, that sounds a little sadistic to me

Where did she say that? I don't see it any where in her post.

She essentially said that if a woman (nothing about a man) doesn't want to have a child, she shouldn't be having sex.

That's just wrong.

Not everyone who's ready for sex is ready for having a kid, and anyone who says that they shouldn't be able to have sex needs to butt the **** out of other people's business.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

JFT:

Thats faulty logic. Its like saying you shouldn't kill someone if your not ready to go to jail for the rest of your life.

If your going to do something, you MUST be prepared for all possible consequence. Therefore, if you have sex, you MUST be prepared for the possible consequence of having a child.

And if you arn't ready and you get pregnant anyway, that's really too bad. You shoulda thought ahead. Doesn't give you any right to kill the kid.

(dont bring up rape because in this particular part of the topic, we're assuming the sex was consentual)

 

"Consequences?" "Risks?" WTF?!

If your going to do something, you MUST be prepared for all possible consequence. Therefore, if you have sex, you MUST be prepared for the possible consequence of having a child.

And if you arn't ready and you get pregnant anyway, that's really too bad. You shoulda thought ahead. Doesn't give you any right to kill the kid.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU ON?! ***** ******* ******! You are saying that if you aren't ready to have a child, you shouldn't have sex. That's just so ****ing ludicrous. I feel dumber having heard this argument time and time again!

I am a college student, I have not had sex, but I want to have sex. I am more than ready for the psychological and emotional effects of having sex.

HOWEVER, I am not yet ready to father a child. I love kids, I want to have kids...some day. I have no job, no money, and if I were to have a kid right now, I'd have to drop out of school.

So you see, just because I am ready to have sex does not mean that I am ready to have a kid.

(dont bring up rape because in this particular part of the topic, we're assuming the sex was consentual)

Except, any ban on abortion would also deny these women abortions, so it is very relevent.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

KK EDIT: I've warned you that that is not allowed.

 

The only exceptions that are keeping pro-choice individuals arguments afloat are rape, incest, and if the life of the mother is danger.

Am I not right?

What about in all other instances? Can conveniance justify disposing of a child like yesterdays trash?

The very notion of abortion is grotesque to me: punching a vacuum esq. tube into the baby's cranium then sucking the brains out, or melting all the skin of and throwing the carcass in a dumpster outside the clinic.

Society has truly went down the drain when we can keep up a consistent argument about something that's such a abomination.

The adoption process may be in shambles, but that's no reason to give up on it.

And I'm sorry I don't buy the women's own body argument, their child is a separate being.

It would be no different then terminating the child when it was out of the womb.

<[-]> Saber

 

What about in all other instances? Can conveniance justify disposing of a child like yesterdays trash?

It's not always just because of convenience you know. In my situation, I would have to drop out of school if I were to get someone pregnant. And even then, I have no job and no means of providing for a family. That's not a matter of convenience, that's a matter of necessity.

The very notion of abortion is grotesque to me: punching a vacuum esq. tube into the baby's cranium then sucking the brains out, or melting all the skin of and throwing the carcass in a dumpster outside the clinic.

That's partial birth abortion. Read up on what the rest of abortion is like, your ignorance is showing.

The adoption process may be in shambles, but that's no reason to give up on it.

It isn't just in shambles, it's a ****ing disgrace.

And I'm sorry I don't buy the women's own body argument, their child is a separate being.

Then women are slaves, they are less than men. If an able-bodied person cannot have control over what happens to their own body and what bodily functions they use, then they are slaves.

It would be no different then terminating the child when it was out of the womb.

Except, a child outside the womb isn't leeching...er, I mean, living, off of the body of another human being.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!