Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-08-2011, 04:27 AM
 
Location: Fort Mill, SC
87 posts, read 92,706 times
Reputation: 94

Advertisements

Oh, and I somewhat agree with the father having a choice. However, it would be so hard to mandate and control. He would have to agree to carry the baby full term, take care of the child, and accept full responsibility for that child's welfare from birth to 18 without help from the mother. Just an idea...

 
Old 10-08-2011, 04:45 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,981,288 times
Reputation: 6190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
Nope, it's her body and her decision....


...what if the man wanted her to abort and she didn't want to???? WHO gives in...???

What if the man wanted her to keep the baby, she does, he walks? What does she do then?


OBTW, abortion is abortion whether the pregnancy was from rape or incest ...or fun....
Because two people can't come to a consensus? Or even better, that if one parent is willing to take care of the child then that would trump?

This aside, I just do not see a reason to abort a child if that child is healthy, not the result of incest or rape, and the mother is healthy enough to carry that child. Been pregnant and have had a child; it's not such a burden as the pro-abortion crowd try to say. Raising the child, sure, but there's not a requirement to raise that child, adoption has been an answer to that for a number of years.

Quite frankly, it often surprises me that women still get pregnant by accident in the numbers they do in this day and age. Sure, there's always the chance when birth control doesn't work but the number of unwanted pregnancies compared to the small number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is hardly equal.

Oh and to head this off now, yes, I believe in birth control. Just believe that if you have chosen to participate in activities that have resulted in life, you shouldn't be allowed to extinguish that life simply because it's inconvienient. Again, there are always exceptions to any rule, as I've laid out in my aforementioned statements but abortion for convenience? That just will never sit right in my book.
 
Old 10-08-2011, 05:04 AM
 
Location: Fort Mill, SC
87 posts, read 92,706 times
Reputation: 94
You are assuming that all women that get pregnant and don't want the child, would do the right thing. " Oh, I'm forced to have this baby, so I will lovingly adopt the child to a wonderful family, and he/she will grow up to be Mozart." No, what would happen is...she will have the baby and throw it away. Or starve the child. Or beat the child. You are not taking into consideration the droves of women that would actually resent a child being forced on them. I actually got pregnant while ON BIRTH CONTROL. I chose to have the baby, but I tried NOT to. Yes, I love my child, and took care of her. However, not everyone is like me. Or like you.
 
Old 10-08-2011, 05:17 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,981,288 times
Reputation: 6190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryren8972 View Post
You are assuming that all women that get pregnant and don't want the child, would do the right thing. " Oh, I'm forced to have this baby, so I will lovingly adopt the child to a wonderful family, and he/she will grow up to be Mozart." No, what would happen is...she will have the baby and throw it away. Or starve the child. Or beat the child. You are not taking into consideration the droves of women that would actually resent a child being forced on them. I actually got pregnant while ON BIRTH CONTROL. I chose to have the baby, but I tried NOT to. Yes, I love my child, and took care of her. However, not everyone is like me. Or like you.
I kind of get what you're saying but I want to be clear. Is your argument that we should cover every eventuality of bad decision making and thereby allow abortion? Eventually people should have to actually live with some consequences of bad decisions and I'm not saying that means they have to raise the child. So, yes, they may have to make the hard decision about giving the child up for adoption. I think that's fair.

As I said before, yes, some people indeed do get pregnant on birth control but you must admit that is a very small minority to those that get pregnant out of all of the unwanted pregnancies. Again, there is still a choice in that instance too; raise the child or give it up for adoption.
 
Old 10-08-2011, 06:48 AM
 
Location: Ohio
15,701 posts, read 16,982,620 times
Reputation: 22090
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Because two people can't come to a consensus? Or even better, that if one parent is willing to take care of the child then that would trump?

This aside, I just do not see a reason to abort a child if that child is healthy, not the result of incest or rape, and the mother is healthy enough to carry that child. Been pregnant and have had a child; it's not such a burden as the pro-abortion crowd try to say. Raising the child, sure, but there's not a requirement to raise that child, adoption has been an answer to that for a number of years.

Quite frankly, it often surprises me that women still get pregnant by accident in the numbers they do in this day and age. Sure, there's always the chance when birth control doesn't work but the number of unwanted pregnancies compared to the small number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is hardly equal.

Oh and to head this off now, yes, I believe in birth control. Just believe that if you have chosen to participate in activities that have resulted in life, you shouldn't be allowed to extinguish that life simply because it's inconvienient. Again, there are always exceptions to any rule, as I've laid out in my aforementioned statements but abortion for convenience? That just will never sit right in my book.
You may not look at carrying a pregnancy as a burden.....but many women do.

If you are a woman alone......who is going to make up all of the lost paychecks.....who is going to pay for all of the medical expenses?

What if you end up with a problem pregnancy and miss so much work that you can't pay the rent or you lose your job?

Just because you had an easy go of it......it is very arrogant of you to assume that is how it is going to be for all women.

Regardless.....carrying a pregnancy is much more than an inconvenience.....especially if you do not want a child in the first place.

Pregnancy is a big deal and causes permanent, not so nice, changes to a woman's body....that may not be a big deal to you but it is a big deal to many.

And let's not forget the fact that women in this day and age still do die during childbirth. It happened to a 31 yr. old school teacher with two small children at home, in my area, just a few months ago. I am sure, going in, that she didn't think she was going to end up dead.....leaving her two other children motherless.

When you carry a pregnancy.....you are risking death.....and that is not a risk any woman should be forced to take against her will. And.....that is another good reason that the man should have no say in the matter.....he is not the one putting his life on the line.

Last edited by Annie53; 10-08-2011 at 08:05 AM..
 
Old 10-08-2011, 06:55 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,873,141 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
I would rather just respect the constitution and not force the government to meddle in the the rights of women.
What about the rights of the child?
 
Old 10-08-2011, 07:04 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,981,288 times
Reputation: 6190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
You may not look at carrying a pregnancy as a burden.....but many women do.

If you are a woman alone......who is going to make up all of the lost paychecks.....who is going to pay for all of the medical expenses?

What if you end up with a problem pregnancy and miss so much work that you can't pay the rent or you lose your job?

Just because you had an easy go of it......it is very arrogant of you to assume that is how it is going to be for all women.

Regardless.....carrying a pregnancy is much more than an inconvenience.....especially if you do not want a child in the first place.

Pregnancy is a big deal and causese permanent, not so nice, changes to a woman's body....that may not be a big deal to you but it is a big deal to many.

And let's not forget the fact that women in this day and age still do die during childbirth. It happened to a 31 yr. old school teacher with two small children at home, in my area, just a few months ago. I am sure, going in, that she didn't think she was going to end up dead.....leaving her two other children motherless.

When you carry a pregnancy.....you are risking death.....and that is not a risk any woman should be forced to take against her will. And.....that is another good reason that the man should have no say in the matter.....he is not the one putting his life on the line.
I had one of the most complicated pregnancies possible and I'm still saying that. Preeclampsia, gestational diabetes; I seemed to hit the high risk pregnancy lottery. But let me ask this. How would this be different than any other medical condition that a person had? Because it's preventable? So are a lot of medical conditions, actually. But we should extinguish a life simply because there's a chance the pregnancy might be difficult? That's absurd.

Again, with the hyperbole. If a mother's life would be truly endangered by the pregnancy, then I think abortion is a viable medical procedure to consider. Oh, and I can drive out my driveway and be killed. Nothing in life is without risk, even an abortion, so a bit of a non-starter argument. Stop trying to make it seem that being pregnant in this day and age is equivalent to being pregnant in the 1800s. It's not and you're being disingenious by trying to play that emotion.

I look at this from a very logical point of view and not one based upon emotion. For non-incest, non-rape, and non-life threatening pregnancies, you have a life that was created from either a lack of responsibility or a failure of birth control. Statistics show the majority of unwanted pregnancies are from not using birth control. Okay, so you have this life. Two choices, then. Keep the child or give up the child for adoption. The vast majority of pregnancies are without complications. Again, just not seeing a valid argument for having an abortion. To avoid nine months of carrying the child? To avoid the possibility of an unusual medical issue with pregnancy? It's just not a valid argument.
 
Old 10-08-2011, 07:16 AM
 
Location: South Bay Native
16,226 posts, read 27,324,447 times
Reputation: 31488
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
What about the rights of the child?
Children have rights. They are persons. An embryo is not a child, and is not a person. Hope that explains why your question does not relate to the subject of this thread.
 
Old 10-08-2011, 07:20 AM
 
23,787 posts, read 14,911,610 times
Reputation: 12829
A government that can compel pregnancy can compel a person to buy health insurance.
 
Old 10-08-2011, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,981,288 times
Reputation: 6190
Quote:
Originally Posted by crone View Post
A government that can compel pregnancy can compel a person to buy health insurance.
Not seeing how saying one can't extinguish a life, with few exceptions, is equivalent to giving government the ability to compel a person to buy health insurance. I'm not one of those that is for a complete elimination of government or anarchy. I do believe laws should be put in place to protect life and property. Thus, it follows that abortion is antithetical to that position. It's just the most logical position when you remove the emotional argument. Of course, you would necessarily need to be of the position that government should protect life and property.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top