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.
If you don't want to have children, 100% then why aren't you and your husband sterilized? instead of using BC at all, which are not 100% effectiver. It's almost like you're TRYING to have an unwanted pregnancy just so you CAN go have an abortion... at least that's the way this whole post reads.
getting your tubes tied is not something most doctors will do on women who have not had children or who are under 35. getting sterilized with both men and women sometimes is not 100% I know of a child born to someone who had a vasectomy. when her BC is working why should either one have to have an operation?
Obviously you haven't done your research into adoption. Because if you HAD then you'd know that it is EXTREMELY difficult to adopt a child. And all the rules, regulations, requirements, are the reason there are so many kids who are not adopted. That's also why so many people adopt from poorer countries, because their regulations are no where NEAR as stringent as ours.
glad you understand that all children given up for adoption don't get adopted and spend their lives in foster care. adoption is not the cure all for abortion
And you're cavalier attitude about pregnancy and babies are what gives pro-choice the bad name. MOST women would find it hard to make that decision, and don't take it as lightly.
knowing your own mind and your own life doesn't make one cavalier, it makes them informed. anti choicers don't like smart, strong independent women.
Not if you don't mind killing living cells of any form. I don't think ANY of us qualifies as "pro-life". It would require respecting ALL forms of life. And, you remain, anti-choice, on the subject. Because you don't believe in, and wish to push your whim on another individual.
And when such risks are realized, we take necessary actions to rectify them. Or would you refuse medicine to a person who contracts chlamydia because they knew the risks when they engaged in sexual activity?
Again, I'm not saying abortion should be illegal, nor denied to a woman who chooses it. But treating chlamydia is not comparable to ending a human life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedError
The fact that you think of pregnancy as a minor inconvenience followed by brief pain and, poof, everything is fine just shows what little regard you have for women.
Oh, don't bother commenting on the woman's welfare. There are plenty of risks involved in abortion. You want to debate something, you'll have to take the central route of persuasion with me. The suggestion there is something wrong with me isn't going to cut it.
I wonder what people who oppose abortion think about reduction (I can guess, but let's hear it anyway).
Sometimes, women who want to have a baby and are using fertility treatments to do so become pregnant with multiples. This is not an octomom thing. That woman's doctor used IVF to implant an unsafe and irresponsible number of embryos into her uterus. Most women who become pregnant with multiples do so because the medicine they're on carries that risk.
It's not safe for a woman who has not had a child before to carry more than twins (and those don't always turn out great either). The uterus isn't stretchy enough for a first time mom and the fetuses get crowded, don't develop properly, and often miscarry, are stillborn, or are born premature and die shortly after birth.
However, it is possible to terminate one or more fetuses without harming the others so the pregnancy is reduced, usually to twins but sometimes a singleton or triplets. If you don't reduce, you're almost certainly going to lose all the fetuses, so is it acceptable to reduce some to save some? Is this a justifiable form of abortion?
Again, I'm not saying abortion should be illegal, nor denied to a woman who chooses it. But treating chlamydia is not comparable to ending a human life.
Again, I'm not saying abortion should be illegal, nor denied to a woman who chooses it. But treating chlamydia is not comparable to ending a human life.
Oh, don't bother commenting on the woman's welfare. There are plenty of risks involved in abortion. You want to debate something, you'll have to take the central route of persuasion with me. The suggestion there is something wrong with me isn't going to cut it.
True, which is why it should be up to the individual whether to go forward with pregnancy or get an abortion.
True, which is why it should be up to the individual whether to go forward with pregnancy or get an abortion.
I'm not arguing that. I'm giving my reasons why I don't think they should get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden
"living human organism" != person
? Exactly, the fetus is a person, according to thefreedictionary.com in that it is living and even the most fair experts in terminology consider it human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden
90% of the structures may be there, but their development is rudimentary at that stage. No thinking, no personality, no sentience. Not yet a person, but on its way - potential.
So people in a coma are to be referred to as objects, I take it? You're coming up with your own personal criteria here, when you know there is little development in conscious awareness and personality between a fetus and a newborn baby. Just one week after the embryo becomes a fetus, all parts of the brain are formed. Two weeks after this, electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable. After an abortion at this point, efforts to suckle will sometimes be observed. This can all be confirmed via the link I gave you.
I'm not arguing that. I'm giving my reasons why I don't think they should get it.
? Exactly, the fetus is a person, according to thefreedictionary.com in that it is living and even the most fair experts in terminology consider it human.
So people in a coma are to be referred to as objects, I take it? You're coming up with your own personal criteria here, when you know there is little development in conscious awareness and personality between a fetus and a newborn baby. Just one week after the embryo becomes a fetus, all parts of the brain are formed. Two weeks after this, electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable. After an abortion at this point, efforts to suckle will sometimes be observed. This can all be confirmed via the link I gave you.
No, people in a coma are already fully developed persons who have become damaged by some external means - trauma or disease. The end of life debate for born people is a different one than abortion.
Measurable electrical signals? Sure. They do not equate to a brain developed enough to survive. All parts of brain are formed? Of course! They must be formed before they are developed. Formation is not the same as development.
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.
And, you remain, anti-choice, on the subject. Because you don't believe in, and wish to push your whim on another individual.
