Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, hazeh said:

Of course the cells are alive, that's why they're multiplying. But that doesn't guarantee that they will turn into a person. Embryos can turn into tumors (even with a heartbeat) or calcified masses, or just simply deteriorate for no reason (it happened to my mother). Just because the cells themselves are living organic material doesn't mean they're equatable to a person. I believe that's the fundamental difference between how you see abortion and how we do-- imo, the person involved is the mother, and the embryo /fetus is only a potential. Like how a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, though it has the potential to become one if cultivated the right way. 

 Ok understand but i am talking about is when it does  starts growing an turns into a baby life has to begin with those cells become a fetus a baby then born hope you understand now.:)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Laryal said:

 Ok understand but i am talking about is when it does  starts growing an turns into a baby life has to begin with those cells become a fetus a baby then born hope you understand now.:)

Oh, sure, I know that. A person can't grow any other way. But I hope you understand that when we explain why we don't see the embryo or fetus as a person, it's because of the stage that "potential" is at. Of course it will likely become a person once it hits a certain stage in its development, but just because it has the building blocks to reach that stage doesn't mean it is the same thing. That's how we see it. I specifically don't view the embryo or fetus as a person or a "human being" until it reaches a stage in the development in which it can be removed from the womb and be viable without needing the mother's body to sustain it. Human DNA, a human potential, sure. But it's not the same to me. 

And because a lot of these situations for people who seek out abortion puts them at odds with the survival of the embryo/fetus, where there would have to be a choice between the two, I believe it's the most ethical choice to choose the mother's life over the potential of a child who has no life experiences yet.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, hazeh said:

Oh, sure, I know that. A person can't grow any other way. But I hope you understand that when we explain why we don't see the embryo or fetus as a person, it's because of the stage that "potential" is at. Of course it will likely become a person once it hits a certain stage in its development, but just because it has the building blocks to reach that stage doesn't mean it is the same thing. That's how we see it. I specifically don't view the embryo or fetus as a person or a "human being" until it reaches a stage in the development in which it can be removed from the womb and be viable without needing the mother's body to sustain it. Human DNA, a human potential, sure. But it's not the same to me. 

And because a lot of these situations for people who seek out abortion puts them at odds with the survival of the embryo/fetus, where there would have to be a choice between the two, I believe it's the most ethical choice to choose the mother's life over the potential of a child who has no life experiences yet.

 Ok so what about the heart beat when it is formed an starts beating or the brain an other organs? that in in it's self says  a human when it is inside a human.

 

read these please all the way thru do not pick an choose what fits your idea but look at it as a whole please  

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Laryal said:

 Ok so what about the heart beat when it is formed an starts beating or the brain an other organs? that in in it's self says  a human when it is inside a human.

 

read these please all the way thru do not pick an choose what fits your idea but look at it as a whole please  

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Because a heartbeat does not constitute a human being. It's not even the marker for life for people who are born-- you can still have a heartbeat and be medically deceased. An embryos/fetuses with heartbeats can still become tumors with heartbeats, which will never become a human being. So a heartbeat should never and will never qualify an embryo or fetus as being a person. 

Brain function is what medically signifies "living" as a being. To me, it is not a human being until it has developed enough to be considered a being and not the budding stages of a human being. 

 

And again, even if it is its own person and being, that will never give it the right to a woman's body without her permission. So deciding when an embryo or fetus gets to qualify as a "person" really does not matter, because not even fully formed and function people get to dictate use of another person's body without their express consent. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Cancer cells are human cells that refuse to die when they're supposed to. They are human cells, they are alive, they multiply and grow, they leech off of the person they are inside of. We have no trouble killing the cancer because it kills the person they are in, and said person does not want them.

 

An early-stage embryo is also made up of living human cells. If the person within whom these cells are developing does not want to be leeched off of, does not want to carry around a developing embryo, does not want to give birth, does not want to raise a child, or any/all of those, they shouldn't have to. They are just cells; they can't feel pain (definitely not until the spinal cord develops) and they can't think (not until the brain develops, and possibly not until several months after birth).

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/13/2018 at 5:53 PM, Fuzzbucket said:

But "I don't want a child right now" is not a bad reason not to go through with an unwelcome pregnancy. 

I never said it wasn't a valid reason, I said it wasn't a valid reason for me - and I meant it in the sense of "should I ever get pregnant again".

 

19 hours ago, Cecona said:

I would have to disagree with the notion life begins between fertilization and implantation. It’s still extremely possible for it to detach or for a miscarriage to happen, likely going completely unnoticed. It’s also still possible for it to simply die with no idea what the cause is. There isn’t even the beginning of any kind of system, it’s just a cell continuously multiplying/dividing itself (I can’t remember the correct term) because that is all it’s programed to do at the point of implantation.  I can understand why you might believe it starts there, but I don’t think it’s right for something that is still microscopic and won’t be known about for several weeks to have priority over the mother.

(bold by me.) The same could be said about newborns. It's still extremely possible for them to die with no idea what the cause is - SIDS is still a thing.

Also, I didn't say it has priority over the mother, and I didn't use it as an argument against any woman's but my own choice. Because it's their choice, not mine. For me, though, unless the situation was dire, I wouldn't choose an abortion. But that's just me. However, if artificial wombs became a thing and (let's assume) there are couples on a list, waiting to adopt a baby - shouldn't an aborted embryo/fetus be grown in just such an artificial womb, if possible?

 

On 9/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, hazeh said:

 As someone who will be going through such treatments in a few years so I can have a baby, this potential is actually quite frightening. I don't want more than one or two children; but what if, through my treatments, I end up producing several embryos? Five, ten, or more? That's a hell of a lot more children than I could ever be responsible for. But would I also be okay letting those children into the world without me? I... don't know. I don't know that I could.

And what would you do if, through your treatments, you got pregnant with triplets or quadruplets? Even if you only got up to two embryos implanted, identical twins still happen - and sometimes at a later stage than implantation.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hazeh said:

Because a heartbeat does not constitute a human being. It's not even the marker for life for people who are born-- you can still have a heartbeat and be medically deceased. An embryos/fetuses with heartbeats can still become tumors with heartbeats, which will never become a human being. So a heartbeat should never and will never qualify an embryo or fetus as being a person. 

Brain function is what medically signifies "living" as a being. To me, it is not a human being until it has developed enough to be considered a being and not the budding stages of a human being. 

 

And again, even if it is its own person and being, that will never give it the right to a woman's body without her permission. So deciding when an embryo or fetus gets to qualify as a "person" really does not matter, because not even fully formed and function people get to dictate use of another person's body without their express consent. 

 

 

Have you read all thru the links you are now saying that science is wrong in that they said that life begins at conception? Also the brain an heart i believe grow at the same time the brain hast to tell the heart to beat right? If the brain does not then what controls the heart to beat then?

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, olympe said:

And what would you do if, through your treatments, you got pregnant with triplets or quadruplets? Even if you only got up to two embryos implanted, identical twins still happen - and sometimes at a later stage than implantation.

I'm a particularly small person, so triplets and quadruplets would be a health risk for me. I'd be fine chancing twins, as typically I believe they implant one or two embryos to give the best developed a chance at implantation. I know it's fairly common for IVF treated couples to end up with twins, and I'm okay with that. Triplets and quadruplets, however, I don't think I could. I could probably have one removed to give the others the best chance at life, since not only would the risk to my health be significantly increased but the risk to all fetuses as well. 

It is quite a bit different, though, than having ten or more embryos artificially grown outside of my body and still expecting me to parent them all. Nor would I want my own children out in the world because I simply couldn't take care of them all. 

Edit: Giving it more thought, I might be okay with triplets. It would depend on how well my doctor feels I could handle it and the chance of survival for all of my children. I wouldn't want to make the choice to have all three and then lose them all because of a complication that I could have avoided by removing one. Quadruplets would be a hard no for me, though.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Laryal said:

Have you read all thru the links you are now saying that science is wrong in that they said that life begins at conception? Also the brain an heart i believe grow at the same time the brain hast to tell the heart to beat right? If the brain does not then what controls the heart to beat then?

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

The heart is a muscle that is controlled by electrical impulses. It has its own pacemaker outside of neural stimulation-- all it needs is oxygen to do so. It does not require a brain for a heart to beat.

 

There is also science that says it doesn't begin at conception, so my disagreement with your links doesn't mean I disagree with science. I think your science has too much pathos involved with it to be completely factual. And, like I said-- it doesn't matter if it DOES begin at conception. It doesn't matter if I did agree with your links or if someone ended up proving that an embryo at week four is equatable to a fetus at week twenty-eight or an infant at two years of age. That fetus or potential child, for whatever rights you believe it has, does not have the right to the mother's body. No one does but herself. 

Edited by hazeh

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, according to multiple sites (*not* anti-abortion sites, actual medical sites) an embryo's heart/brain should normally develop during week 5 of pregnancy. So according to the 'heartbeat' argument, abortions before week 5 should be completely fine, because there is not yet a formed heart. Not that I expect any anti-abortion people would actually agree to that, but *logically* that makes sense if you try to talk about heartbeats as a measure of life.

 

4 minutes ago, hazeh said:

 

There is also science that says it doesn't begin at conception, so my disagreement with your links doesn't mean I disagree with science. I think your science has too much pathos involved with it to be completely factual. And, like I said-- it doesn't matter if it DOES begin at conception. It doesn't matter if I did agree with your links or if someone ended up proving that an embryo at week four is equatable to a fetus at week twenty-eight or an infant at two years of age. That fetus or potential child, for whatever rights you believe it has, does not have the right to the mother's body. No one does but herself. 

 

(bolding for emphasis)

 

This is really what it comes down to. Even if I believe that the fetus is developed enough to be considered a person, even if it's got a heart and brain and whatever, it does NOT have the right to leech nutrients from a person's body without their permission, it does not have the right to live at the expense of the woman's life and/or wellbeing. That's the biggest issue here that so many people don't seem to want to acknowledge (in general, not in this thread). Whether or not it's a 'human' or 'baby' or whatever, an actual adult human woman HAS to have a right to her own body. That's the very very basics of human rights, the right to your own body. No one can force you to give up a kidney, no one can force you to donate organs that you don't want to, your body needs to be *yours*, and sometimes that includes protecting it from things that will harm it. Like a fetus. (And fetuses *do* harm the pregnant woman, there is absolutely no question there, simply based on how much it changes the woman's body and how much nutrition it sucks from her.)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

This is really what it comes down to. Even if I believe that the fetus is developed enough to be considered a person, even if it's got a heart and brain and whatever, it does NOT have the right to leech nutrients from a person's body without their permission, it does not have the right to live at the expense of the woman's life and/or wellbeing. That's the biggest issue here that so many people don't seem to want to acknowledge (in general, not in this thread). Whether or not it's a 'human' or 'baby' or whatever, an actual adult human woman HAS to have a right to her own body. That's the very very basics of human rights, the right to your own body. No one can force you to give up a kidney, no one can force you to donate organs that you don't want to, your body needs to be *yours*, and sometimes that includes protecting it from things that will harm it. Like a fetus. (And fetuses *do* harm the pregnant woman, there is absolutely no question there, simply based on how much it changes the woman's body and how much nutrition it sucks from her.)

 

This times a bajillion. My life, my body. Were I to get pregnant, an abortion is the only option. I will not carry a pregnancy to term. I will not come to love the child as it grows inside me. I will not come to love the child after it's born. I. will. not. The thought of actually getting pregnant makes my stomach turn. I realized at a young age that children were not going to be in my future, and it was something that did not change after adulthood. Please don't take my right to this away for your own reasons that should have no bearing on my life whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

 

This times a bajillion. My life, my body. Were I to get pregnant, an abortion is the only option. I will not carry a pregnancy to term. I will not come to love the child as it grows inside me. I will not come to love the child after it's born. I. will. not. The thought of actually getting pregnant makes my stomach turn. I realized at a young age that children were not going to be in my future, and it was something that did not change after adulthood. Please don't take my right to this away for your own reasons that should have no bearing on my life whatsoever.

you and I are quite a lot alike. I knew, at least as a teenager, that I would not want children. A guy I was dating took me out to a friend, who had children, to explain to me the wonders of child birth. she did. But her phrasing is not suitable for this forum. Because of her phrasing, I grew even more disgusted and then soon after, broke up with the guy (because our different desires). I dislike babies so much. I can't stand looking at them, I find them to appear like multi-limbed maggots (phobic-like reaction). Once they are older (about 2 or 3) I stop being repelled by them. I could not go near my sister's child when she was a baby. I refused to hold her. It was not until she was older that I was okay to babysit (albeit rarely). Fortunately the child has grown up into a brilliant young woman taking computer engineering at U of W in ontario. (STEM)

 

I apologise if my description of a child offends anyone - but I want to get it across at how much they freak me the hell out. People who glomp me with pictures of their newborns are usually horrified when I recoil in fear. I get so damned embarrassed when that happens because its not the kid per-say, but me.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh my you guys all just want an excusses like all prochoiceers to say it is fine to kill an unborn baby plain an simple that is the bottom line there.You have it in your mind that life does not matter but your own. that my friends is fact so my suggestions is it is very simple if you do not want a baby then when your egg is around so to speak do not play the hanky panky then .Ohh what a concept that is the best way to not get preg when you do not want a child wow.No i do not mean do not have the fun but there are ways to know  like taking a test an they do have kits now for this.:) So i have to disagree that abortion is right for there are plenty of ways not to get preg all are true so there is your answer i can not put it any simplier than this really.

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Laryal said:

Oh my you guys all just want an excusses like all prochoiceers to say it is fine to kill an unborn baby plain an simple that is the bottom line there.You have it in your mind that life does not matter but your own. that my friends is fact so my suggestions is it is very simple if you do not want a baby then when your egg is around so to speak do not play the hanky panky then .Ohh what a concept that is the best way to not get preg when you do not want a child wow.No i do not mean do not have the fun but there are ways to know  like taking a test an they do have kits now for this.:) So i have to disagree that abortion is right for there are plenty of ways not to get preg all are true so there is your answer i can not put it any simplier than this really.

So girls and women who get raped are now supposed to be all sorry, you can't rape me today, I'm fertile, you'll have to wait until Tuesday?  Yes, when it comes to my life or its life, you'd better believe I'm choosing mine over its.  I'm very sorry you cannot have children of your own, but that does not give you the right to force someone else to.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, prpldrgnfr said:

So girls and women who get raped are now supposed to be all sorry, you can't rape me today, I'm fertile, you'll have to wait until Tuesday?  Yes, when it comes to my life or its life, you'd better believe I'm choosing mine over its.  I'm very sorry you cannot have children of your own, but that does not give you the right to force someone else to.

 I was not talking about rape victims or women who are dieing or any of that  i am talking about women who do not want children period ok  like the first post says

 

Here's a REAL list of REAL killers among women in the US.

 

(from: http://women.webmd.com/guide/5-top-female-health-concern lol, funny you said it's the top 5th reason..)

 

1. Heart Disease

2. Breast Cancer

3. Osteoporosis

4. Depression

5. Autoimmune Diseases

 

 

(from: http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod.htm)

 

This ALL females, all ages:

 

1) Heart disease 27.2

2) Cancer 22.0

3) Stroke 7.5

4) Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.2

5) Alzheimer's disease 3.9

6) Unintentional injuries 3.3

7) Diabetes 3.1

😎 Influenza and pneumonia 2.7

9) Kidney disease 1.8

10) Septicemia 1.5

 

And this is just white females:

 

1) Heart disease 27.3

2) Cancer 22.0

3) Stroke 7.5

4) Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.7

5) Alzheimer's disease 4.1

6) Unintentional injuries 3.3

7) Diabetes 2.8

😎 Influenza and pneumonia 2.8

9) Kidney disease 1.7

10) Septicemia 1.4

 

black females:

 

1) Heart disease 26.9

2) Cancer 21.3

3) Stroke 7.4

4) Diabetes 5.1

5) Kidney disease 3.0

6) Unintentional injuries 2.9

7) Chronic lower respiratory diseases 2.4

😎 Septicemia 2.3

9) Alzheimer's disease 2.2

10) Influenza and pneumonia 2.1

 

American Indian:

 

1) Heart disease 19.4

2) Cancer 19.2

3) Unintentional injuries 8.5

4) Diabetes 6.4

5) Stroke 5.6

6) Chronic liver disease 4.2

7) Chronic lower respiratory diseases 4.2

😎 Influenza and pneumonia 2.5

9) Kidney disease 2.3

10) Septicemia 1.6

10) Suicide 1.6

 

Asian:

 

1) Cancer 26.9

2) Heart disease 23.7

3) Stroke 9.8

4) Diabetes 4.0

5) Unintentional injuries 4.0

6) Influenza and pneumonia 3.4

7) Chronic lower respiratory diseases 2.3

😎 Alzheimer's disease 1.8

9) Kidney disease 1.7

10) Hypertension 1.6

 

and Hispanic:

 

1) Heart disease 23.8

2) Cancer 21.4

3) Stroke 6.6

4) Diabetes 5.8

5) Unintentional injuries 4.8

6) Influenza and pneumonia 2.8

7) Chronic lower respiratory diseases 2.7

😎 Alzheimer's disease 2.4

9) Perinatal conditions 2.1

10) Kidney disease 2.0

 

 

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Laryal said:

Oh my you guys all just want an excusses like all prochoiceers to say it is fine to kill an unborn baby plain an simple that is the bottom line there.You have it in your mind that life does not matter but your own. that my friends is fact so my suggestions is it is very simple if you do not want a baby then when your egg is around so to speak do not play the hanky panky then .Ohh what a concept that is the best way to not get preg when you do not want a child wow.No i do not mean do not have the fun but there are ways to know  like taking a test an they do have kits now for this.:) So i have to disagree that abortion is right for there are plenty of ways not to get preg all are true so there is your answer i can not put it any simplier than this really.

 

Sex, is a basic, very primal urge. to ask people to refrain is unrealistic. This is why its important to have a selection of viable birth-control options freely available. I cannot take birth control pills because I am a high risk of stroke candidate. Condoms are not 100%. So should a choice of birth control fails, because sex is natural, but in our day and age we can prevent typical outcome. Also sex education is important. There are young people who do not understand the urges they are responding to, and find themselves in a bad circumstance because they never had "the talk" or the education.

 

Prolifers tend to disgust me because they often wish to deny the choices of birth control, education, kumquat, because they feel that "every sperm is sacred".  Please go 5 years without sex, without answering the urge to mate, in the company of your chosen partner. See how that works..

 

I am done in this thread for the time being.

Edited by Starscream

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Starscream said:

 

Sex, is a basic, very primal urge. to ask people to refrain is unrealistic. This is why its important to have a selection of viable birth-control options freely available. I cannot take birth control pills because I am a high risk of stroke candidate. Condoms are not 100%. So should a choice of birth control fails, because sex is natural, but in our day and age we can prevent typical outcome. Also sex education is important. There are young people who do not understand the urges they are responding to, and find themselves in a bad circumstance because they never had "the talk" or the education.

 

Prolifers tend to disgust me because they often wish to deny the choices of birth control, education, kumquat, because they feel that "every sperm is sacred".  Please go 5 years without sex, without answering the urge to mate, in the company of your chosen partner. See how that works..

 

 20 years old never had a partner never had sex so  it can be done So tell me again that it is hard to not do that? Also there are thousands of women like me so your thinking of it is to hard not to is false really. But now i can not have children even if i try as hard as i want  do not have those parts no more so yea.

 

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Laryal said:

 

 20 years old never had a partner never had sex so  it can be done So tell me again that it is hard to not do that? Also there are thousands of women like me so your thinking of it is to hard not to is false really. But now i can not have children even if i try as hard as i want  do not have those parts no more so yea.

 

Sexual urges are on a spectrum. Just because someone can do it doesn’t mean everyone can. I’m an asexual, so it’s no problem for me. There are millions of people who experience sex as a very important, intimate part of their life. There are those who will fall into depression over not being able to have sex. There is no one answer when you’re talking billions of people with their own individual lives and needs. Better sex education is a must. Use of preventatives is a must. Abortion is a must.

Edited by RWyvern

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, RWyvern said:

Sexual urges are on a spectrum. Just because someone can do it doesn’t mean everyone can. I’m an asexual, so it’s no problem for me. There are millions of people who experience sex as a very important, intimate part of their life. There are those who will fall into depression over not being able to have sex. There is no one answer when you’re talking billions of people with their own individual lives and needs. Better sex education is a must. Use of preventatives is a must. Abortion is a must.

 Thousands of women are like me an tell me again why abortion is a must  when there are hundreds of ways to keep from getting preg? An yea i know you will say but not all are 100% well geuss what one is 100 % effecttive an i just told  you  which one. But i know you will argue this as well so no use in me explaining again.Have fun debating need to get to work on some thing see ya .:)

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Laryal said:

 Thousands of women are like me an tell me again why abortion is a must  when there are hundreds of ways to keep from getting preg? An yea i know you will say but not all are 100% well geuss what one is 100 % effecttive an i just told  you  which one .

Thousands are not billions. I just explained why your ‘100% effective method’ cannot work for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, RWyvern said:

Thousands are not billions. I just explained why your ‘100% effective method’ cannot work for everyone.

 and i explained as well .:)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Laryal said:

Oh my you guys all just want an excusses like all prochoiceers to say it is fine to kill an unborn baby plain an simple that is the bottom line there.You have it in your mind that life does not matter but your own. that my friends is fact so my suggestions is it is very simple if you do not want a baby then when your egg is around so to speak do not play the hanky panky then .Ohh what a concept that is the best way to not get preg when you do not want a child wow.No i do not mean do not have the fun but there are ways to know  like taking a test an they do have kits now for this.:) So i have to disagree that abortion is right for there are plenty of ways not to get preg all are true so there is your answer i can not put it any simplier than this really.

 

There are over 7 billion people on this planet. To assume that everyone can be like you, and go without sex, is not realistic. As RWyvern said, out of 7 billion people, everyone is not going to be able to go without sex outside of marriage. That's why abstinence-only education is failing: people can't abstain, and they don't know what to do if they do get pregnant. Your solution, in practice, will not work for everyone. I cannot stress that enough.

 

I respect a woman's right to choose. What I don't respect is when other people, many of whom do it for religious reasons (not accusing you here, but many of the people I've seen who are pro-life are Christian) don't respect my choice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting thing is, if my mother had not gotten an abortion I'd not be here. My mother became sick with blood poisoning late in a wanted pregnancy years before I was born, and *would* have died if abortion was illegal. They had to remove the fetuses so she could live - and considering this occurred years before I was born.... 

 

So yeah, I will state I think abortions need to be legal in cases where carrying would kill the mother, as well as in all other cases. Savita Halappanavar's death is the exact kibd of situation I'm talking about for carrying can kill the motger - as are the other people refused lifesaving medical treatment because their fetus would die.

Share this post


Link to post

@olympe there is a distinction between an unborn child and a born child. And there is no point in killing a baby that’s already been born because it might die from SIDS. Not to mention we are talking about a blastocyst, which has huge differences from a 40+ week old baby.

 

@Laryal this might be a personal question, but do you ever feel urges and masturbate? Guess what, that’s you answering the call to mate. It’s that very same urge people feel that lead them to have sex with others. And don’t start off by saying it’s not, or that everyone should masturbate instead of have sex during ovulation.

 

I also need to ask that you not call us murderers or baby killers as that is harassment and you have already been warned. It’s no where near true, just you getting emotional. If I were to get pregnant, and if it isn’t from rape, I would keep it and love it. I want to have children yet may not get the chance since I have polycystic ovarian syndrome. Unlike you, I don’t feel a need to force other women to have children they do not want and will never love or care for because I won’t get the chance. It’s very irresponsible to think just because a woman’s body is capable that means she has the mental durability, financial stability, or even the life style to take care of it.

 

And I don’t understand how you can claim that teaching teens sex ed including proper use of pills, protection, and concent would make even more unwanted babies. Especially since research and data show the complete opposite. Countries and even states with comprehensive sex ed have far far fewer unwanted and or teen pregnancies than those that teach abstinence. Some schools don’t teach sex ed at all, or you are not allowed to take it because your parents won’t let you.

Edited by Cecona

Share this post


Link to post

There may be many ways to avoid pregnancy, but *none* of them are 100% effective. All of them have a fail rate, either through human error or through unforseen failings - for example, even if you're on the pill, and you take it perfectly, you're still not 100% guaranteed to not get pregnant.

 

If I found out tomorrow I was pregnant, I would be asking for an abortion ASAP. I am 18, my boyfriend is 20, I can't raise a child. It wouldn't have the love and care it needs, or the financial support. Not to mention that having a child would severely impact my ability to go to university and study. And because I use a hormonal implant, the risks of getting pregnant are very small - but *not nonexistant*.

(Not that I'm against having children in general - in ten or twenty years, I'd like to have them. Just not now.)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pro choice because I believe everyone should have the final say over what happens to their body, especially if that involves preventing harm to themselves. Carrying children, giving birth, and raising a child can all negatively impact a person, even if they want the child. It's unjust to expect someone who does not want the child to go through with the entire process, even if it stops at giving birth and the baby is put up for adoption. An established person is still at risk even if they're carrying to term. In my opinion, an unborn, unwanted child (viable or not) should never take precedence. Don't get me wrong here- I'm not advocating 'killing' babies, and I strongly believe abortions should be carried out as soon as possible unless complications arise. Personally I'd like children in the future, but I want the option to abort if it's too soon and I'm not ready. I don't want to give birth to a child I couldn't take care of and couldn't give the best life possible.

 

I don't really get how some pro lifers think. They put the life of the unborn child above the life of the mother, as though the unborn child, who has never experienced the outside world, who has not had the chance to form meaningful attachments to other human beings, is more important than the mother. Organs can only be taken and donated from the corpse of someone who said they want their organs to be used. If someone's life is at risk- if they're going to die without a transplant- and someone who has just died said they don't want their organs to be used, those life-saving organs cannot be taken. In that case, a dead body's rights were put above the right of a person's to live. To quote the NHS: "The law says that the decision about whether or not to donate your organs rests first and foremost with you." In the UK, at least three people die every day because they have not received the organ donation they need to continue living. As a society we value a dead person's right to their body above the life of another person's. You don't see crowds boycotting those who are dying because they have made the decision to not be an organ donor. Why does this not apply to someone carrying an unborn child? In that case, this person is alive and breathing- they're still making memories and talking to other people and doing everything a living human does, so why shouldn't they get the choice to terminate a pregnancy if it's unwanted, or will risk their own life?

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.