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.
Saying everyone should be ok with it removes their choice of what they do with their body and tells them what they should believe. No better than fervent prolifers saying no one should have any because they think it's wrong.
How does me having an opinion remove someone else's choice?
Quote:
If a person chooses it for themselves, well, I don't like it as a concept, but not my life. If a person chooses to be against the idea, for their own body and life, let them have the same option to NOT have to have one as long as they're not trying to say no one can.
Life is full of risks and harm to people in general. Psychological harm from having an abortion if you believe it's wrong may happen. I mourned when my first baby was a miscarriage, even though you would oh so helpfully try to point out it was only a poppyseed or something. It was a baby to me. I would really struggle with having an abortion, even if somehow "for the best" like if I was raped. Not sure if I could do it.
Life is not so black and white where we can all agree upon the worth of a baby/fetus/whatever your (general) belief that it is. I am not going to waver on this point for my own body (babies start at conception and there are very few reasons I would even consider an abortion). I do live my life accordingly and do not put myself into situations where I would need one.
So, you think that psychological harm from having an abortion within the first, say, three weeks of pregnancy would cause more harm than a pregnancy? Parents who give their children up for adoption can experience psychological trauma too. I'm sorry for your loss, by the way.
PP has had decades to figure out how to better handle it all. It has failed to do so & miserably.
If only 3% of all Planned Parenthood services are abortions? Let the independent abortion "women's health" clinics do the abortions. They take insurance or will put one on a payment plan, take a CC/money order just like PP will for the abortions they do. Sliding scale.
PP is willing to send "thousands" of their patients to the "wolves" or worse? Screw the other 97%?
It's not as if fed/state tax payers fund those abortions, right? So why is PP knocking it's head against a brick wall if they are all about "women's health"?
Just like PP doesn't provide mammograms, rather gives referrals to... PP can refer one to an abortion clinic. For profit abortion clinic/doctor. That takes the same form of payments that PP does, when one is going for an abortion.
You'd think if PP was all about women's health care and family planning and STD testing, etc., they'd have caved a long time ago and put women's healthcare (the 97% of what "they do") ahead of the 3%.
Why should PP go through all those gyrations to divorce their businesses that perform abortion, to satisfy some vindictive congressmen that are taking it out on poor women.
They should be focusing on why we have one of the highest unintended pregnancy rates of any industrialized nation, or focus on the deplorable foster care system. Instead of that they want to pull healthcare from poor women, explain the logic of what exactly that accomplishes.
Why should PP go through all those gyrations to divorce their businesses that perform abortion, to satisfy some vindictive congressmen that are taking it out on poor women.
You either adapt or convince enough people you are right.
Quote:
They should be focusing on why we have one of the highest unintended pregnancy rates of any industrialized nation, or focus on the deplorable foster care system. Instead of that they want to pull healthcare from poor women, explain the logic of what exactly that accomplishes.
We need to clarify pro-choice. It is deciding to terminate a pregnancy or continue it. Continuing a pregnancy makes two people parents, forever. Giving their child to a second set of parents is not the definition of pro-choice.
We need to clarify pro-choice. It is deciding to terminate a pregnancy or continue it. Continuing a pregnancy makes two people parents, forever. Giving their child to a second set of parents is not the definition of pro-choice.
How does me having an opinion remove someone else's choice?
So, you think that psychological harm from having an abortion within the first, say, three weeks of pregnancy would cause more harm than a pregnancy? Parents who give their children up for adoption can experience psychological trauma too. I'm sorry for your loss, by the way.
Thanks. It's fine now at least. Yes, adoption can cause emotional pain too, and some people might be more traumatized at the thought of killing a human vs. going through a pregnancy. It's really just complicated overall, isn't it?
If it's just your opinion and stops there, sure. I just never want to get to some place in society where we are all expected to entertain abortion as an option. Not everyone sees them as just poppyseed and kumquat simple organisms that we can snuff out like ants. I dunno. It was late and I am tired
Exactly. The whole point is choices, not "it can't include adoption ever because I don't like that choice."
The reason why adoption is not relevant to an unintended pregnancy is that a zygote, embryo or fetus cannot be adopted. Adoption is for children who need homes.
The reason why adoption is not relevant to an unintended pregnancy is that a zygote, embryo or fetus cannot be adopted. Adoption is for children who need homes.
So you would say that a rape victim has to go against their beliefs of not killing what is a child to them and have an abortion? Or keep the child, which would be difficult no matter how much they might love the child itself, just to satisfy your definition? *Shrug* it's an opinion, not fact, that adoption cannot be an option for people who end up with an unintended pregnancy for whatever reason and do not want an abortion themselves in conjunction with their beliefs.
You'd think if PP was all about women's health care and family planning and STD testing, etc., they'd have caved a long time ago and put women's healthcare (the 97% of what "they do") ahead of the 3%.
Except that Planned Parenthood is being singled out by the feds. Is every other organization in the country that provides abortions in addition to women's reproductive care also losing the ability to bill Medicaid or losing Title X finding?
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.
