Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Vasectomy Failure > The Reasons Behind a Vasectomy Failure (http://www.vasectomy-faq.com/The-Reasons-Behind-a-Vasectomy-Failure.php - broken link)
Although extremely rare, it is still a possibility (more so if a women get's her tubes tied).
What to do about these people that took the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy? Are they just damned to have a baby even if they don't want it?
This is why I advocate using protection (ideally two methods). At the same time, when you have sex, you have to realize there is a potential for a pregnancy to be the result. Anyone who does not want a child needs to take the necessary steps to substantially reduce this risk, but at the same time, needs to understand that there may be a pregnancy. Period.
I understand that every time I get in a car, there is chance there could be an accident that could kill me. This is why I wear a seatbelt and, when I am driving, I take all precautions. It doesn't eliminate the risk and I understand that.
This is where we will never agree, so let's not argue this any further.
Agree to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
This is why I advocate using protection (ideally two methods).
This is the first time I'm hearing this. All throughout this thread you have said that it is someone's choice to have sex and they know that pregnancies can result (even from protected sex). It just seems to me that you have been advocating abstinence instead of safe sex; please, correct me if I'm wrong. It just strikes me as a bit odd because this is the first time I'm hearing you say this when you have previously said that people should not have sex (at all).
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
At the same time, when you have sex, you have to realize there is a potential for a pregnancy to be the result. Anyone who does not want a child needs to take the necessary steps to substantially reduce this risk, but at the same time, needs to understand that there may be a pregnancy. Period.
Understood and I agree. I don't agree with unprotected sex (there really is no reason in this day and age to be unprotected), but if a pregnancy were to result from safe sex, then I think the mother should be able to make a choice on whether or not to continue pregnancy.
This is the first time I'm hearing this. All throughout this thread you have said that it is someone's choice to have sex and they know that pregnancies can result (even from protected sex). It just seems to me that you have been advocating abstinence instead of safe sex; please, correct me if I'm wrong. It just strikes me as a bit odd because this is the first time I'm hearing you say this when you have previously said that people should not have sex (at all).
I never said that people should not have sex at all. I said that people should not have sex if they are unwilling to accept the consequences. If they are willing to take that ever so slight risk (and if using 2 methods the risk is very, very slim), then protected sex is more than fine.
Some pro-lifers are against the pill and even more are against Plan B, but I am not.
I would also absolutely agree with allowing an abortion during the first trimester if the woman was a victim of rape and in any case due to medical necessity.
I beg to differ with you there. There is something that's 100%. It's called not having sex!
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
I never said that people should not have sex at all. I said that people should not have sex if they are unwilling to accept the consequences. If they are willing to take that ever so slight risk (and if using 2 methods the risk is very, very slim), then protected sex is more than fine.
I'm pretty sure saying not having sex (look, it's even bolded!) pretty much means you think people shouldn't have sex; but hey, that's just how I interpreted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Some pro-lifers are against the pill and even more are against Plan B, but I am not.
And I think that's extremely idiotic IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
I would also absolutely agree with allowing an abortion during the first trimester if the woman was a victim of rape and in any case due to medical necessity.
By now you already know how I feel about first trimester abortions and it's moot to debate it any further; agree to disagree.
I'm pretty sure saying not having sex (look, it's even bolded!) pretty much means you think people shouldn't have sex; but hey, that's just how I interpreted it.
I said that abstinence is the only thing that is 100%. I never said that those who are willing to take a very slight risk should not have sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09
And I think that's extremely idiotic IMO.
Finally something we agree on!
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-27-2009 at 12:38 PM..
I personally would never get an abortion because I value human life. I think as a society, the less we value human life, the more our values fall apart. I am a strong believer of presonal liberties and I partially see why prostitution can be allowed in certain jurisdictions. Abortion falls into this category in my book as well, personal freedom some poor soul can participate in.
Rather than making abortion illegal, is there a way we can enrourage and educate troubled mothers and provide more options for them?
Some ideas that would encourage saving unborn life without "inconviniencing" the mother:
1. rewarding large sums of money to mothers who choose to go through their unwanted pregnancy through special adoption programs
2. rewarding significant benefits to these pregnant mothers: free education to state schools, subsidized living expenses like housing/food
All this can be paid for by parents who wish to adopt or private donations and not tax payer money.
I personally would never get an abortion because I value human life. I think as a society, the less we value human life, the more our values fall apart. I am a strong believer of presonal liberties and I partially see why prostitution can be allowed in certain jurisdictions. Abortion falls into this category in my book as well, personal freedom some poor soul can participate in.
Rather than making abortion illegal, is there a way we can enrourage and educate troubled mothers and provide more options for them?
Some ideas that would encourage saving unborn life without "inconviniencing" the mother:
1. rewarding large sums of money to mothers who choose to go through their unwanted pregnancy through special adoption programs
2. rewarding significant benefits to these pregnant mothers: free education to state schools, subsidized living expenses like housing/food
All this can be paid for by parents who wish to adopt or private donations and not tax payer money.
somehow I do not think our government is in any position to start giving out anything to mothers for unwanted pregnancies, but its a nice thought. Now if she was a CEO of a bank then she would have no problem
I have to assume this has been done before but I want to hear peoples stance on one of the most controversial debates of our time. Please post your stance first before u start arguing against other peoples stance.
and as always, there is no reason we cannot be civil about this so dont go postal on anyone for stating their beliefs .
This is my stance. I feel that abortion is a bad thing. Some people would say that it is the "woman's choice" to abort the baby. What about the baby? The baby didn't choose to be born. The baby shouldn't be murdered. There are other ways to deal with a pregnancy. There is adoption. Think of this. Abortions may have been performed for ages in crude ways, but it was spearheaded by Margaret Sanger, who was a pro-Nazi. The Pro-abortion movement advocated the abortion of Black babies and Jewish babies originally. Planned Parenthood was caught on tape saying that there were "too many Black babies being born". Abortion violates the right to human life. For me it is a moral issue and an issue of humanity. Many people think of the babies being aborted as the "persons who might be born as lost causes". It doesn't have to be. Sure, a baby can be born into intense poverty and desolation, but if human beings step up and help out, that "potential lost cause" doesn't have to be a lost cause. That baby could grow up to find a cure for Ebola, or invent something spectacular. You never know. The babies who were aborted since 1973 could have grown up to be spectacular human beings. We'll never know because they are dead now. Life starts at conception.
This is my stance. I feel that abortion is a bad thing.
Okay, and I can fully respect that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte
Some people would say that it is the "woman's choice" to abort the baby. What about the baby?
It is the woman's choice, and the women's right's to life (who is already a fully developed human being), overrules the right's of the fetus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte
The baby didn't choose to be born. The baby shouldn't be murdered. There are other ways to deal with a pregnancy. There is adoption.
Adoption is an option, but in most cases it's not the best one. What happens if the baby is not able to be adopted? What then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte
Think of this. Abortions may have been performed for ages in crude ways, but it was spearheaded by Margaret Sanger, who was a pro-Nazi. The Pro-abortion movement advocated the abortion of Black babies and Jewish babies originally. Planned Parenthood was caught on tape saying that there were "too many Black babies being born".
Point? Many of things that brought (good) change were spearheaded by not so noble people or ideals. One case that comes to mind is that of abolishing slavery. Abe Lincoln had no (foreseeable) intention of ending the institution but it snowballed and happened that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte
Abortion violates the right to human life.
This is my opinion, but I value the life of a viable adult human more than I do a fetus. Vice versa, you (and other pro-lifer's) value the life of the unborn more than you do that of a viable human adult. Nothing wrong with that, just a difference in perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte
For me it is a moral issue and an issue of humanity.
And for many, it's an issue about the autonomy a woman has over her body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte
Many people think of the babies being aborted as the "persons who might be born as lost causes". It doesn't have to be. Sure, a baby can be born into intense poverty and desolation, but if human beings step up and help out, that "potential lost cause" doesn't have to be a lost cause. That baby could grow up to find a cure for Ebola, or invent something spectacular.
True, but we have people (and children who will grow up) right now that can equally find a cure for Ebola too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte
You never know. The babies who were aborted since 1973 could have grown up to be spectacular human beings. We'll never know because they are dead now. Life starts at conception.
It's the same of never knowning the potential of chidren who died in childhood, people who were killed by drunk drivers, gunned down in the street, etc, etc. They also could've grown up to be spectacular human beings or made a life for themselves. You can't live life on the what if's and have not's because you won't be living at all. You have to make a decision and stick with it; and that's exactly what women who decide to have abortions do.
But my real question is, do you support taking away a women's right to have an abortion?
It is the woman's choice, and the women's right's to life (who is already a fully developed human being), overrules the right's of the fetus.
Adoption is an option, but in most cases it's not the best one. What happens if the baby is not able to be adopted? What then?
Point? Many of things that brought (good) change were spearheaded by not so noble people or ideals. One case that comes to mind is that of abolishing slavery. Abe Lincoln had no (foreseeable) intention of ending the institution but it snowballed and happened that way.
This is my opinion, but I value the life of a viable adult human more than I do a fetus. Vice versa, you (and other pro-lifer's) value the life of the unborn more than you do that of a viable human adult. Nothing wrong with that, just a difference in perspective.
And for many, it's an issue about the autonomy a woman has over her body.
True, but we have people (and children who will grow up) right now that can equally find a cure for Ebola too.
It's the same of never knowning the potential of chidren who died in childhood, people who were killed by drunk drivers, gunned down in the street, etc, etc. They also could've grown up to be spectacular human beings or made a life for themselves. You can't live life on the what if's and have not's because you won't be living at all. You have to make a decision and stick with it; and that's exactly what women who decide to have abortions do.
But my real question is, do you support taking away a women's right to have an abortion?
Honestly, I think about the unborn child.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
