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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2017, 05:34 PM
 
30,860 posts, read 36,771,477 times
Reputation: 34399

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominftl View Post
I seriously wonder how many pro lifers would bring a baby to term if it was the result of rape or incest. You all know talk is cheap and people would like to say what they think others want to hear. Especially the more opinioniated. Truth be told. I'm sure a lot of thought would be given to having such a baby. Just remember, you take a woman's right to choose out of the equation then you have NO options. If you don't believe in abortion, DON'T have one but why would you want to limit other women's options?
I think it's a valid point. But the % of abortions due to rape or incest is pretty small. We should all be horrified at nearly 1,000,000 abortions per year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2017, 05:48 PM
 
7,235 posts, read 7,006,280 times
Reputation: 12265
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
I think it's a valid point. But the % of abortions due to rape or incest is pretty small. We should all be horrified at nearly 1,000,000 abortions per year.
I am far more horrified at women being forced into being incubators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2017, 05:54 PM
 
9,393 posts, read 4,225,750 times
Reputation: 10389
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
You will pay more for unwanted children or children whose parents are not equipped to take care of them, and either dump them in foster care or expect the government to provide for them via welfare, food stamps, etc. for 18 years. Do the math.?
Read what I posted. If you want freedom choice, YOU pay for the consequences. Not me. Not the government. As long as there is a system in place to relieve people of the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of their choices, they'll continue to choose poorly. Again - I'm pro-choice - choose to engage in activities that result in babies and be prepared to raise said babies. We've become a society of enablers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2017, 06:14 PM
 
29,881 posts, read 11,440,468 times
Reputation: 18386
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
Another downside to being pro-life is that there are way too many humans on the planet And that in itself is promoting climate change, creating famines and causing many other species to go extinct.
But that can also be accomplished by being responsible and using birth control. I am pro choice but beyond pregnancy there are STD's some of which stay with you for life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2017, 10:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,701 posts, read 16,964,170 times
Reputation: 22089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I think it is quite sad that you don't see the irrationality, and even evil, in what you are saying.



You are making a false equivalence. This isn't a question of morality, but only of pragmatism. They couldn't actually save the lives of the embryos even if they tried. They are already dead. Or at least, 99.9999% would have died, so it is a pointless endeavor.


A more honest scenario might be, if a pregnant woman shows up at a hospital, and there was a complication in her pregnancy. Let us pretend that she was seven-months pregnant, and in this case, the doctors could either save her, or they could save her baby. Who should the doctors save?


That isn't such an easy answer, and over our history, this question has been answered differently by different people. And even today, many women would rather sacrifice their own lives, so that their unborn children can live.

I read a story the other day how a pregnant woman with cancer, refused chemo, because it would have killed her baby.

Was she a fool? Had you been in her shoes, would you have aborted the baby and taken the chemo?
Evil? Are you aware that most pro-lifers believe abortion is OK when it is used to save the life of the mother?


Embryos aren't alive? Mind telling me how in vitro fertilization works if they are dead?


When a pregnancy threatens the life of a woman, the decision whether or not to continue the pregnancy, just like abortion, should be up to the woman.


As far as your scenario, what if the father was killed shortly after the mother was impregnated and there are already children at home?


How many mothers would decide to leave all of those children orphans rather than abort? If a woman in that situation decided to abort would she be a fool?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2017, 10:48 PM
 
31,860 posts, read 14,841,144 times
Reputation: 13517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I think it is quite sad that you don't see the irrationality, and even evil, in what you are saying.



You are making a false equivalence. This isn't a question of morality, but only of pragmatism. They couldn't actually save the lives of the embryos even if they tried. They are already dead. Or at least, 99.9999% would have died, so it is a pointless endeavor.


A more honest scenario might be, if a pregnant woman shows up at a hospital, and there was a complication in her pregnancy. Let us pretend that she was seven-months pregnant, and in this case, the doctors could either save her, or they could save her baby. Who should the doctors save?


That isn't such an easy answer, and over our history, this question has been answered differently by different people. And even today, many women would rather sacrifice their own lives, so that their unborn children can live.

I read a story the other day how a pregnant woman with cancer, refused chemo, because it would have killed her baby.

Was she a fool? Had you been in her shoes, would you have aborted the baby and taken the chemo?
If it was the same story I read, she was an absolute fool because she ended up dying leaving 5 other children to survive without her. I find that extremely selfish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 04:42 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,863 posts, read 8,149,098 times
Reputation: 4590
Cruel dilemma of having cancer while pregnant: you need life saving chemo but it could damage your child | Daily Mail Online
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,160 posts, read 5,648,599 times
Reputation: 6193
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
I can't believe it is a big topic in the US. The civilized world had it sorted out a long time ago.
That's because the rest of the civilized world is mostly secular. We have lots of religious zealots here in the US who try to force their beliefs onto others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 10:33 AM
 
10,839 posts, read 14,639,159 times
Reputation: 7872
I read that and couldn't believe it. I sympathize this couple and felt throwing up when they say "we are pro-life". Jesus, this is NOT what pro-life means. Kill the mother to save a very early infant who has slim chance to survive in the first place?

In such circumstances, ALWAYS SAVE THE MOTHER FIRST!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2017, 10:37 AM
 
18,986 posts, read 8,999,490 times
Reputation: 14688
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
I read that and couldn't believe it. I sympathize this couple and felt throwing up when they say "we are pro-life". Jesus, this is NOT what pro-life means. Kill the mother to save a very early infant who has slim chance to survive in the first place?

In such circumstances, ALWAYS SAVE THE MOTHER FIRST!
I knew a good Catholic woman who had six kids, was pregnant with her seventh, and was told that if she continued with the pregnancy it would kill both her and the child. But good Catholic that she was, she refused to terminate the pregnancy. The baby died within minutes of being born and she died shortly thereafter, leaving six children, all under 14, without a mom.

I'm sure all the good anti-choice posters here would say she made the right decision--that it was God's decision to take her. Her six children, however, would probably beg to differ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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