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.
Women are going to keep getting abortions. I think the stage is being set for an entirely new method, procedures, and/or industry to see to that. One that isn't as subject to lawmakers posturing or people with protest signs. Then the whole issue will go away and folks in the future will shake their head and chuckle about the idiocracy of the past as we do now.
Thats fine. But, do you think that taxpayers should pay for abortions?"""
Duh, they don't! And I don't care if I do because it's one less unwanted child.
""And, should abortion be the first option for a pregnant mother?""
No, it should be ONE of the OPTIONS for her to CHOOSE from.
"" The pro-choice crowd have limited the options to 1, abortion. """
How ridiculous to say pro-CHOICE people don't want choice.
""" It is ironic, because there is a choice. We just adopted a baby boy. His mother could have easily aborted him. I think she made a smart and courageous CHOICE.
Yes, and YOU want to make it her only OPTION with NO choice.
If she hadn't serviced you with a baby someone else would've...babies keep coming.
Ironic you had to choose a baby....no older child is worth your time...no disabled either....of course.
Why do you defend the fetus...in this case the egg, when you want to cut food stamps, health benefits and education? Oh, I know...the same old story...Save the Fetus, Screw the Child.
This, this, THIS. I think the pro-life argument would have stronger legs if the same people screaming to save the fetus gave more of a damn about it once it was born. But no, now they can target the mother for being a welfare queen who shouldn't have had a child if she couldn't afford it. Or the but there's always adoption! argument, completely ignoring the fact that pregnancy is OFTEN dangerous for a woman (my first certainly was) and having to give a child up for adoption is, I would imagine in most cases, incredibly emotionally traumatizing. But hey, she shouldn't have opened her legs, right?
In an ideal world, people wouldn't have sex until they're married and pregnancies would only occur when they are wanted and the resulting children are able to be supported both emotionally and financially. In the real world, people will continue to have sex, accidental pregnancies will occur, and not all women will want to carry a pregnancy to term, for matters financial, emotional, or health-related. The key to reducing the number of abortions is NOT to shame, but to support the providing of easily-accessible birth control as well as good, comprehensive sex education. Railing against both of these things helps NO ONE, and I see it all the time from the party of 'life.'
Yes, and YOU want to make it her only OPTION with NO choice.
If she hadn't serviced you with a baby someone else would've...babies keep coming.
Ironic you had to choose a baby....no older child is worth your time...no disabled either....of course.
you don't know me or my situation! Our baby boy was born premature and had to stay in the NICU (look it up if you need to) before he could be released. My wife is also a NICU nurse helping the sickest babies. Your reply speaks for itself.
This, this, THIS. I think the pro-life argument would have stronger legs if the same people screaming to save the fetus gave more of a damn about it once it was born. But no, now they can target the mother for being a welfare queen who shouldn't have had a child if she couldn't afford it. Or the but there's always adoption! argument, completely ignoring the fact that pregnancy is OFTEN dangerous for a woman (my first certainly was) and having to give a child up for adoption is, I would imagine in most cases, incredibly emotionally traumatizing. But hey, she shouldn't have opened her legs, right?
In an ideal world, people wouldn't have sex until they're married and pregnancies would only occur when they are wanted and the resulting children are able to be supported both emotionally and financially. In the real world, people will continue to have sex, accidental pregnancies will occur, and not all women will want to carry a pregnancy to term, for matters financial, emotional, or health-related. The key to reducing the number of abortions is NOT to shame, but to support the providing of easily-accessible birth control as well as good, comprehensive sex education. Railing against both of these things helps NO ONE, and I see it all the time from the party of 'life.'
I agree with all of your concerns listed here. It is unfortunate that we don't hear about all the good things happening behind the scenes. Here are some of them.
In an adoption, the legal teams, nurses, and social workers assist the pregnant woman through her pregnancy, and also after. This support can be financial, medical, and therapy. I did not know this until we adopted. As for the (pro-life) people who resort to bad-mouthing poor or unfit mothers... They speak for themselves. It is unfortunate that the politicians, lawyers, and pro-life christians can not work together.
The one thing I never see in these abortion debates is a woman's post starting with..."I've had an abortion....." And then her opinion.
I'm sure there are some woman that are strong supporters of abortion who have had one or more...But I wonder why they do not make that statement.
Of course one truth is that they do not feel that good about it, and that is understandable...But I get the sense that almost all the posts are by people that haven't got a clue about what it really involves...It's not just the politics at all, is it?
For those of you that think that you are crusading on their behalf....I think not ...I'm sure most women that went through it would have some far different things to say.
I had some female friends that had to make the decision, and the conversations were far from the crap that I read on these posts. (Some wondered if it was banned would they have thought a little more responsibly)
And for those that crusade against it...For almost all women it is a heart wrenching decision...And as for any criticism about their decisions..."Let someone with no sins throw the first stone"
I'd like to know what they say. And, why don't they speak out more? I'm sure the pro-abortion crowd would try to silence or dismiss them.
The one thing I never see in these abortion debates is a woman's post starting with..."I've had an abortion....." And then her opinion.
I'm sure there are some woman that are strong supporters of abortion who have had one or more...But I wonder why they do not make that statement.
Of course one truth is that they do not feel that good about it, and that is understandable...But I get the sense that almost all the posts are by people that haven't got a clue about what it really involves...It's not just the politics at all, is it?
For those of you that think that you are crusading on their behalf....I think not ...I'm sure most women that went through it would have some far different things to say.
I had some female friends that had to make the decision, and the conversations were far from the crap that I read on these posts. (Some wondered if it was banned would they have thought a little more responsibly)
And for those that crusade against it...For almost all women it is a heart wrenching decision...And as for any criticism about their decisions..."Let someone with no sins throw the first stone"
We don't speak up because the perceived anonymity of the internet encourages (or at least doesn't discourage) incredible cruelty, and on the rare occasion when one of us does speak up, it rapidly becomes apparent that nobody really wants to hear what we have to say. They simply want their preconceived notions confirmed.
This, this, THIS. I think the pro-life argument would have stronger legs if the same people screaming to save the fetus gave more of a damn about it once it was born. But no, now they can target the mother for being a welfare queen who shouldn't have had a child if she couldn't afford it. Or the but there's always adoption! argument, completely ignoring the fact that pregnancy is OFTEN dangerous for a woman (my first certainly was) and having to give a child up for adoption is, I would imagine in most cases, incredibly emotionally traumatizing. But hey, she shouldn't have opened her legs, right?
In an ideal world, people wouldn't have sex until they're married and pregnancies would only occur when they are wanted and the resulting children are able to be supported both emotionally and financially. In the real world, people will continue to have sex, accidental pregnancies will occur, and not all women will want to carry a pregnancy to term, for matters financial, emotional, or health-related. The key to reducing the number of abortions is NOT to shame, but to support the providing of easily-accessible birth control as well as good, comprehensive sex education. Railing against both of these things helps NO ONE, and I see it all the time from the party of 'life.'
The pro choice issue has and always will be a wedge issue for the right wing. They have nothing else right about now, but the hypocrisy always shines thru. As soon as the fetus becomes a baby in the real world they kick it to the curb. Due to right wing policies and people in government such as Ayn Rand worshipper, Paul Ryan and others like him, social programs to protect and nurture these full term babies would be gutted.
I prefer to think of it as a saving of human life rather than a war on women. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant then she should take precautions not to get that way.
And NONE of them are 100% effective. Also, rape, incest, and lack of education result in pregnancies that need not ruin the lives of young women.
And adoption? Aside from health risks that FAR in excess of contraception, great--for the few healthy white babies that are in such scarce supply that Americans must look to foreign nations to fill the demand. However, the future is not so bright for the less-than-healthy, or those who belong to minority groups with high birthrates. Restrictive abortion laws only affect the latter group, who can't just fly to more sane jurisdictions.
Too bad the churches (who feel that both they and government legislators should be able dictate that women bear children they don't want) feel perfectly justified about passing the immense costs they cause onto the taxpayer, as well as creating a huge underclass that is doomed to lives of poverty, crime and squalor.
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 I don't care if I do because it's one less unwanted child.
"""
