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)
View Poll Results: Pro choice or pro life?
I am pro-life with children 79 18.12%
I am pro-life without children 69 15.83%
No opinion-don't care 18 4.13%
I am pro-choice with children 124 28.44%
I am pro-choice without children 146 33.49%
Voters: 436. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2009, 12:42 AM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,002 posts, read 12,358,226 times
Reputation: 4125

Advertisements

Wow am I the only one who thinks that each state should decide whether to allow abortion or not? Or who doesn't care?

All I ask is don't push religious fundamentalism and a belief system on me, and I will reciprocate.

Besides to me, I would never even fathom asking my mate to get an abortion - I'd want it carried to term and if the woman wouldn't want to deal with it, I would raise it.

but that is my belief system. I have zero right to impose that on others, and neither do you have any more. Period.

 
Old 06-07-2009, 12:54 AM
 
1,780 posts, read 2,352,440 times
Reputation: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Huh???? What the heck are you talking about??
sorry i meant selective service...most men have to do this. Very few are, infact almost non are exempt from this. We cannot register to vote without doing so.

Selective Service System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 06-07-2009, 01:02 AM
 
Location: memphis tn
530 posts, read 650,108 times
Reputation: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve View Post
Wow am I the only one who thinks that each state should decide whether to allow abortion or not? Or who doesn't care?

All I ask is don't push religious fundamentalism and a belief system on me, and I will reciprocate.

Besides to me, I would never even fathom asking my mate to get an abortion - I'd want it carried to term and if the woman wouldn't want to deal with it, I would raise it.

but that is my belief system. I have zero right to impose that on others, and neither do you have any more. Period.
I believe the right to abortion belongs to each individual that it effects. If you outlaw it in ky and its legal in In then people will just go there to get them , so what good does that serve? You my friend will find no religion here to be pushed..lol.
Do you realize how many more single mom's there ar vs. single dad's. Not to say that there aren't some ( i know several myself). It has become more prevelant in recent yrs. But the woman still has to indure 9 months and the birth, so that's where it gets grey. What if I said for 9 months you just have to go to jail and then you can get out but everyday there will be a reminder of your time there.
You know I have 6 tattoo's, but i would never force anyone else to get one, because it's not my body. I know apples and oranges right, but they are both fruit!
 
Old 06-07-2009, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,457,651 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve View Post
Wow am I the only one who thinks that each state should decide whether to allow abortion or not? Or who doesn't care?
If Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would be a state by state decision. It would remain legal in many states, would be banned in several, and would be more heavily restricted in several.

This is merely speculatory, but I think the predictions are fairly accurate:

USATODAY.com - 'Roe v. Wade': The divided states of America
 
Old 06-07-2009, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,220,937 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
If Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would be a state by state decision. It would remain legal in many states, would be banned in several, and would be more heavily restricted in several.

This is merely speculatory, but I think the predictions are fairly accurate:

USATODAY.com - 'Roe v. Wade': The divided states of America
I support overturning row versus wade and making it a states right issue.
 
Old 06-07-2009, 08:04 AM
 
6,993 posts, read 6,336,992 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by fracturedman View Post
well first, I would like to express that I do not think common sense even exists. We are all raised differently and do things differently therefor common sense cannot exist. Common sense is like religions everyone sees it different, what is common or right for me is not for you.

Also,


Parents have been fighting schools on this fact for years. Saying that a child in 7th, 8th and even 9th grade is too young to learn about sex ed. They also fight against schools teaching things other than math, science, english, and history. So the schools simply say fine you teach them....then the parents do not teach their kids the things that they need to know. Most parents these days do not set a good example anyhow. Parents these days are the biggest Hypocrites.
Whoa! You speak of that which you do not know! Not all schools have acquiesced to demands of parents re sex ed. I taught in a school system where all students took comprehensive sex ed classes. And how do you know that parents do not teach their children about sex? You need to back up your declarative statements with some stats. Same goes for "most parents these days do not set a good example" and "parents these days are the biggest hypocrites." You've just damned parents everywhere! Do you have children? Did you have lousy parents?

Quote:
If we would allow schools to teach kids early on say 7th and maybe even 6th grade and teach them sexual education and teach it right abortions would be less and less.
Many schools do teach them and, guess what? teenagers still get pregnant!

Quote:
But no we teach that the safest way to not get pregnant or get an STD is to not have sex...but if you are going to have sex use a condom, pull out, or use birth control...but if you dont want to use those or you do use them...you can just get an abortion and there is no harm done...DO YOU NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT LOGIC?
Not all schools teach abstinence only (my school district never did) and I've never heard of any school that teaches that abortion as birth control results in "no harm done."

You need to provide some facts to back up your assertions....

Last edited by ray1945; 06-07-2009 at 08:20 AM..
 
Old 06-07-2009, 08:05 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,381,370 times
Reputation: 4113
Default How far are Pro-Life men willing to personally go to stop abortion?

I have a question for all male Pro-Lifers. It may sound extreme at first, but I'd like you take a few moments to think about it before automatically rejecting it.

If you want abortions to be illegal, then you are obviously willing to accept the government being in control of women's bodies and lives and forcing women to use their bodies to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term and have a baby. That's what making abortion illegal means however you want to dress it up.

But just how FAR are you willing to go with your OWN bodies and giving up control over your own lives to stop abortions and all those unwanted fetuses from being “murdered”? It does take a man and a woman to create a baby right? Both are responsible, not just the woman.

Here's the hypothetical question:

Would you be willing to introduce a law that enforced every post-pubescent male to have a simple reversible vasectomy which they will not be legally allowed to reverse until they have entered into a contract with a woman where they are both in agreement that they want to have a child?

I bet you're thinking things like: That's ridiculous. How stupid. No Way!

But think about it for a minute:

We already have the technology and medical expertise to do this.

Your health (or even your life) wouldn't be put at risk nearly as much as a woman's could be if she is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and give birth.

Pregnancy can cause a lot of long term problems in a woman's body, unlike a simple reversible vasectomy procedure in men.

There would be very few side-effects that can damage your health like there can be for many women who take the Pill.

The procedure only takes about an hour so out of your life and is not really painful. Well nothing at all like the pain in giving birth. Just a bit of a mild discomfort for few days after the procedure.

Wouldn't this stop the majority of unwanted pregnancies and therefore any need for abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancies? Wouldn’t it go a long way in preventing all those unwanted babies from being born to women who don’t want them? Or prevent all those children being raised in foster care waiting for adoption? Being adopted can cause huge life-long emotional issues for people.

Is one hour from the lives of all post-pubescent males too much to ask if it will prevent all those fetuses being murdered by abortion?

I keep hearing Pro-life men saying that women who want an abortion are selfish not to give up a few months of their lives for the life of a fetus. So what say all you pro-life men? Is an hour or so of your life and accepting government control over your own bodies and lives too much to ask to save the lives of all those fetuses being "murdered" by abortion? If you’re willing to accept it for women, why not for yourselves?
 
Old 06-07-2009, 08:12 AM
 
6,734 posts, read 9,340,061 times
Reputation: 1857
I'm a pro-choicer, no kids, but I loathe late term abortions.
 
Old 06-07-2009, 08:18 AM
 
6,993 posts, read 6,336,992 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
I have a question for all male Pro-Lifers. It may sound extreme at first, but I'd like you take a few moments to think about it before automatically rejecting it.

If you want abortions to be illegal, then you are obviously willing to accept the government being in control of women's bodies and lives and forcing women to use their bodies to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term and have a baby. That's what making abortion illegal means however you want to dress it up.

But just how FAR are you willing to go with your OWN bodies and giving up control over your own lives to stop abortions and all those unwanted fetuses from being “murdered”? It does take a man and a woman to create a baby right? Both are responsible, not just the woman.

Here's the hypothetical question:

Would you be willing to introduce a law that enforced every post-pubescent male to have a simple reversible vasectomy which they will not be legally allowed to reverse until they have entered into a contract with a woman where they are both in agreement that they want to have a child?

I bet you're thinking things like: That's ridiculous. How stupid. No Way!

But think about it for a minute:

We already have the technology and medical expertise to do this.

Your health (or even your life) wouldn't be put at risk nearly as much as a woman's could be if she is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and give birth.

Pregnancy can cause a lot of long term problems in a woman's body, unlike a simple reversible vasectomy procedure in men.

There would be very few side-effects that can damage your health like there can be for many women who take the Pill.

The procedure only takes about an hour so out of your life and is not really painful. Well nothing at all like the pain in giving birth. Just a bit of a mild discomfort for few days after the procedure.

Wouldn't this stop the majority of unwanted pregnancies and therefore any need for abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancies? Wouldn’t it go a long way in preventing all those unwanted babies from being born to women who don’t want them? Or prevent all those children being raised in foster care waiting for adoption? Being adopted can cause huge life-long emotional issues for people.

Is one hour from the lives of all post-pubescent males too much to ask if it will prevent all those fetuses being murdered by abortion?

I keep hearing Pro-life men saying that women who want an abortion are selfish not to give up a few months of their lives for the life of a fetus. So what say all you pro-life men? Is an hour or so of your life and accepting government control over your own bodies and lives too much to ask to save the lives of all those fetuses being "murdered" by abortion? If you’re willing to accept it for women, why not for yourselves?
I don't think it is extreme at all. Your suggestion is a great idea. As I've said in other posts, one irresponsible man in one year can father dozens of babies. One irresponsible woman can have only one pregnancy. It is clear where birth control efforts should be focused.....
 
Old 06-07-2009, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,220,937 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
I have a question for all male Pro-Lifers. It may sound extreme at first, but I'd like you take a few moments to think about it before automatically rejecting it.

If you want abortions to be illegal, then you are obviously willing to accept the government being in control of women's bodies and lives and forcing women to use their bodies to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term and have a baby. That's what making abortion illegal means however you want to dress it up.
Its not about controlling a womans body it is about protecting the life of the unborn.

But just how FAR are you willing to go with your OWN bodies and giving up control over your own lives to stop abortions and all those unwanted fetuses from being “murdered”? It does take a man and a woman to create a baby right? Both are responsible, not just the woman.

Correct both are responsible . I hope the new male birth control works out

Here's the hypothetical question:

Would you be willing to introduce a law that enforced every post-pubescent male to have a simple reversible vasectomy which they will not be legally allowed to reverse until they have entered into a contract with a woman where they are both in agreement that they want to have a child?

I bet you're thinking things like: That's ridiculous. How stupid. No Way!

But think about it for a minute:

We already have the technology and medical expertise to do this.

Your health (or even your life) wouldn't be put at risk nearly as much as a woman's could be if she is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and give birth.

Pregnancy can cause a lot of long term problems in a woman's body, unlike a simple reversible vasectomy procedure in men.

There would be very few side-effects that can damage your health like there can be for many women who take the Pill.

The procedure only takes about an hour so out of your life and is not really painful. Well nothing at all like the pain in giving birth. Just a bit of a mild discomfort for few days after the procedure.

Wouldn't this stop the majority of unwanted pregnancies and therefore any need for abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancies? Wouldn’t it go a long way in preventing all those unwanted babies from being born to women who don’t want them? Or prevent all those children being raised in foster care waiting for adoption? Being adopted can cause huge life-long emotional issues for people.

Is one hour from the lives of all post-pubescent males too much to ask if it will prevent all those fetuses being murdered by abortion?

I keep hearing Pro-life men saying that women who want an abortion are selfish not to give up a few months of their lives for the life of a fetus. So what say all you pro-life men? Is an hour or so of your life and accepting government control over your own bodies and lives too much to ask to save the lives of all those fetuses being "murdered" by abortion? If you’re willing to accept it for women, why not for yourselves?
As far as your vasectomy law goes you are comparing apples to oranges. Abortion kills life. So abortion is not about who controls womans bodies. Forced vasecomtines would not stop abortions .
If you read through he thread we have had a close discussion as to castrating men.
The federal governemnt has no right to endorse genocide. Its not about who controls what body. Reverse row versus wade and return that to the states.
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.


Closed Thread


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