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.
I'll begin by stating that I am prolife. I am aware that abortion must sometimes be performed to save the life of the mother. I am also aware that many mothers who are raped may not wish to keep the baby. The second situation has an obvious solution in my view, adoption. But what about the first? What if instead of destroying the fetus and/or embryo to save the mother's life, the fetus and/or embryo could be sent to a lab where the child could be allowed to continue to grow and thrive and develop in a laboratory setting? If such a program where adopted, millions of lives of potential great thinkers. This would preserve the woman's right to choose and live while allowing the baby a chance of life as well.
PS: To understand at least part of my philosophical standing, use this analogy: Imagine a developing baby, a symbol of unlimited potential, is developing both mentally and physically inside its mother. Then, before being given a chance to live- in the sense of being denied the right to see the rainbow, to smell a rose, to taste chocolate- is snuffed out due to reasons beyond what its innocent mind can comprehend. Imagine if this baby was you.
I'd like to see the technology where every anti-choice male who wants to make abortion illegal for women, gets an artificial uterus surgically implanted, gets pumped full of hormones and takes one of those unwanted fetus to give birth to and raise.
Birth control is a method in practice, what you refer to is called contraception and contraception is used to allegedly prevent the result of natual sexual intercourse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
When was abstinence practiced by any society for any length of time?
It was practiced for a few thousand years prior to the mass availability of contraception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey
Tell that to a married couple. And my Aunt got pregnant after she got her tubes tied, and my Mother got pregnant with me while using two forms of bc. She then got pregnant with my brother after being told she was sterile due to cancer treatments.
I don't plan on ever having kids and I take every precaution I can, but I'll be damned if I'm going to stay abstinent for the rest of my life.
Every single form of contraception is prone to failure and even sterelization efforts can fail no matter what. To go against that which is natural by choosing the disordered you set yourself up for failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
If that technology existed, then there would be absolutely no pregnant women at all. All women would rather choose to have their babies grow in test tubes or laboratory, than to subjugate to 9 months of pain, sickness, and health problems, and miss out on work to get pregnant.
You act as if it is compulsory that a woman need to have sexual intercourse and become pregnant at some time in her life. She makes the choice to engage in sexual intercourse and as a result and consequence a pregnancy may occur. If you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex, choosing to not do something is what is pro-choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
Or being denied the right to starve....or to be beaten, abused or molested. Life isn't always rainbows and lollipops.....especially for children who were never wanted in the first place.
The child(ren) are not at fault for how they come into this world nor for who brings them in the world. Perhaps you should be preaching personal responsibility instead of misanthropy.
Quote:
If that baby were me? I wouldn't care.....as I would never have developed the ability to care.
From a religious point of view.....I would be glad I was aborted.....since I would be with God instead of what many refer to as this hell on earth. Instead of struggling a lifetime to get to heaven....I would get there the easy way. Right?
You say they wouldn't have the ability to care but upon being murdered they suddenly do, take your faithless and perverse perspectives elsewhere. You should look into the sin of presumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
Pro-life is a term coined by "anti-women's right to choose" advocates. Anti-abortion is the correct term. Women that have found themselves making the difficult choice for whatever personal reason, are not anti-life! Just more word game propaganda from the hypocritical right.
This is not about choice, what pro-abortion/contraception types code as "choice" is truly anti-consequence. You don't want to face the consequences of a pregnancy so you try to defeat the life-giving purpose of sexual intercourse. What you fail or refuse to acknowledge is the immense and irreversable damage contraception and/or abortion can do to a person as well as their partner(s) and child(ren).
Birth control is a method in practice, what you refer to is called contraception and contraception is used to allegedly prevent the result of natual sexual intercourse.
What? Contraception doesn't prevent sexual intercourse. Millions of people have sex while using the pill, using condoms, using IUD's and so forth.
Quote:
It was practiced for a few thousand years prior to the mass availability of contraception.
If you think that abstinence was practiced thousands of years prior to contraception availability, I have bridge to sell you in New York.
Quote:
Every single form of contraception is prone to failure and even sterelization efforts can fail no matter what. To go against that which is natural by choosing the disordered you set yourself up for failure.
Without a uterus, a woman can't get pregnant.
Without her fallopian tubes, a woman can't get pregnant. Sterilization (for women is permanent).
What? Contraception doesn't prevent sexual intercourse. Millions of people have sex while using the pill, using condoms, using IUD's and so forth.
You have a serious issue when it comes to reading and comprehending what I say even when you quote me directly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mylläri
Birth control is a method in practice, what you refer to is called contraception and contraception is used to allegedly prevent the result of natual sexual intercourse.
Prevent the RESULT, comprende?
Quote:
If you think that abstinence was practiced thousands of years prior to contraception availability, I have bridge to sell you in New York.
It was commonly practiced, that is not to say that people did not fornicate whatsoever. The difference is that the contraceptive mindset that had become prevalent in the 20th century has led many to believe that they can forego abstinance and fornicate at will without consequence.
Quote:
Without a uterus, a woman can't get pregnant.
Without her fallopian tubes, a woman can't get pregnant. Sterilization (for women is permanent
Again, read what I had quote so to place my comments in proper context:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey
Tell that to a married couple. And my Aunt got pregnant after she got her tubes tied, and my Mother got pregnant with me while using two forms of bc. She then got pregnant with my brother after being told she was sterile due to cancer treatments.
I don't plan on ever having kids and I take every precaution I can, but I'll be damned if I'm going to stay abstinent for the rest of my life.
Every single form of contraception is prone to failure and even sterelization efforts can fail no matter what. To go against that which is natural by choosing the disordered you set yourself up for failure.
We could say the same thing about the practice of medicine......if you think you are going to defeat death.....you are setting yourself up for failure.
You act as if it is compulsory that a woman need to have sexual intercourse and become pregnant at some time in her life. She makes the choice to engage in sexual intercourse and as a result and consequence a pregnancy may occur. If you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex, choosing to not do something is what is pro-choice.
Priests can't even live their whole lives celibate, what makes you think the average man or woman can?
The child(ren) are not at fault for how they come into this world nor for who brings them in the world. Perhaps you should be preaching personal responsibility instead of misanthropy.
Aborting an unwanted pregnancy IS practicing responsibility. Misanthropy? LOL Because I want women to have control over their reproductive lives? Really?
You say they wouldn't have the ability to care but upon being murdered they suddenly do, take your faithless and perverse perspectives elsewhere. You should look into the sin of presumption.
And how exactly do you know a fetus suddenly cares whether it is aborted? Because you think it? Because you think your god thinks it?
I think you should make your wish of living in a theocracy come true....... move to the Middle East, you would fit in nicely there......the United States is not the place for you.
This is not about choice, what pro-abortion/contraception types code as "choice" is truly anti-consequence. You don't want to face the consequences of a pregnancy so you try to defeat the life-giving purpose of sexual intercourse. What you fail or refuse to acknowledge is the immense and irreversable damage contraception and/or abortion can do to a person as well as their partner(s) and child(ren).
Immense and irreversable damage caused by birth contol and abortion? LOL There you go with that wishful thinking of yours again.
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.
