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.
In all my years of being sexually active, I only used condoms as protection and never once did I have an unwanted pregnancy. Condoms are cheap... where are you buying yours? A pregnancy test costs more than a box of condoms. BC pills are hormones that screw with a woman's body and have some serious side effects, so yeah, they should have to be acquired via a doctor imho. Women can also track their ovulation cycles and abstain from sex during that time. If you're still getting pregnant after all that, then wow, you must be super fertile.
How are so many women who don't want kids/would choose to have an abortion getting pregnant so easily while other families try and try for years or have multiple miscarriages before conceiving a planned pregnancy?
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control - here is a list of birth control methods and how effective they are. Condoms are 85% effective over the course of one year. Rely on condoms only over multiple years or decades and you will almost certainly get pregnant. Fertility awareness is similarly ineffective. Not all women have regular periods. An iud is 99% effective and is available without hormones, but yes, you need to see a doctor to have one inserted.
At the point of the majority of abortions happen in this country it is still a fetus. The woman is a fully functioning human being who is autonomous or at least should be to her own mind and wishes. She gets to choose what’s happening to her.
Townshend thanks for your post. I don't support these new abortion bills. I think there should still be access to abortion. I just hope that it is done for rape, incest, health of the mother or fetus.
Agree. Going to be bad times again if they take legal abortions off the table
Quote:
Originally Posted by zitsky
If she doesn't want the child, isn't it possible she would give it up for adoption? You make it sound so horrible.
It is horrible. You never know if the adoption worked out, if the adoptive parents good situation changed so that there's no money for food or they get divorced, child is in a one parent family now. There is a huge chance the adopted child will get abused. Not every adoptive mother can raise someone else's baby. They feel inferior because they couldn't birth their own child. You never know if your child went missing at some point like my friends daughter did. It looks like the adoptive father may have killed her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman
What is the problem with responsible birth control? It is cheaper and less traumatic than abortion.
No woman uses abortion as birth control. Abortions are also expensive as heck; over $500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zitsky
Thousands have given their babies up for adoption. I'm not saying its easy.
It's not easy. Everyone I know that either gave a baby up or were forced to; lived with extreme pain from that decision. My mother signed my brother away, she was new in the US, didn't speak much English. She then met my dad who said he'd raise him so she changed her mind. Catholic charities came knocking, demanding she had him over because she already signed. She wasn't able to be a good mother to any of her other 3 kids due to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middletwin
Because when we want someone to incubate a human for us, that's not adoption. Adoption is for children needing homes, not incubating humans nor adults finding humans to fulfill their need.
We have to remember though, that after the baby scoop era and legalization of abortion, there is a direct link to adoption agencies spear-heading the anti-choice movement. They simply had less product. And as a result, the definition for adoption changed from children needing homes to finding children for adults. Many families intuitively would never do this to their potential family member so a first trimester abortion aligns with their value system. For those whose ancestors were slaves, it's certainly understood because they realize the value of keeping their family together.
However, since the definition for adoption has been altered incorrectly, we see people posing adoption as a reason for unintended pregnancies - but the truth is, we can't adopt fetuses and if we try to make someone remain pregnant for our gain - well difficult as it is to admit - that's just a form of human trafficking. Adoption also, assumes we know the future. For example, if there is a fifty percent divorce rate, then the chances are some loving couple will be co-single parenting their child, so why not let the biological co-single parent their own child (as long as the child is not in danger) - assuming a couple decide to remain pregnant, though.
Hope this helps.
Agree that there is divorce in adopted households too
A woman should have full control over her body. The pro-fetus movement works until a baby is born. Afterwards, they disappear while the poor mother struggles. In many cases, the unwanted kid is abused and eventually becomes a ward of the state.
Abortion laws mainly hurt the poor and those who can't afford to go elsewhere. If I had a relative living in a state with restrictive laws, I would gladly assist that person financially to go where she can get it done. Because that is her decision to make.
Last edited by Rastafellow; 05-24-2019 at 06:20 PM..
Reason: change wording
All the usual irrelevant arguments supporting the child murderers here ....
The circumstances of conception and the circumstances of the mother bear no relationship on the fact that it is an innocent independent human life and deserves to be protected even to the detriment of the mother right up to the point of absolute medical necessity of essentially choosing between the lives of the two separate human lives. Including requiring the mother carrying the baby to take on a reasonable amount of risk if necessary.
End of story..... there would be under 1000 Abortions per year in this country if this was the law.
And that’s the way it should be.
The circumstances of the mother became secondary to the child’s the second of conception. Everyone has a right to control their body but it simply isn’t just their body anymore so that argument is moot. Whatever happens after birth is irrelevant to the question of murdering a child.
Anything else is just advocating murder for convenience.
Abortions are premeditated murder of defenceless children... there are no arguments that can possibly justify that.
All the usual irrelevant arguments supporting the child murderers here ....
The circumstances of conception and the circumstances of the mother bear no relationship on the fact that it is an innocent independent human life and deserves to be protected even to the detriment of the mother right up to the point of absolute medical necessity of essentially choosing between the lives of the two separate human lives. Including requiring the mother carrying the baby to take on a reasonable amount of risk if necessary.
End of story..... there would be under 1000 Abortions per year in this country if this was the law.
And that’s the way it should be.
The circumstances of the mother became secondary to the child’s the second of conception. Everyone has a right to control their body but it simply isn’t just their body anymore so that argument is moot. Whatever happens after birth is irrelevant to the question of murdering a child.
Anything else is just advocating murder for convenience.
Abortions are premeditated murder of defenceless children... there are no arguments that can possibly justify that.
Why is the fetus categorically more important than the woman carrying it?
Why is the fetus categorically more important than the woman carrying it?
The life is of equal value hence why a tiny % of Abortions will always be sadly necessary.
But the child’s right to life certainly takes precedence over a myriad of rights the mother would otherwise have.
The additional responsibility of motherhood places the woman in a position where the welfare of the child supplants many of her rights and unless adopted out this continues after the baby is born.
I don’t believe this only applies to the mother either as I would also subscribe the same additions of responsibility to the father of the child both during pregnancy and after the child is born. There is no acceptable way out of your responsibility to be a supportive father and many of your rights are subject to your responsibilities towards your child and by extension the mother of your child. If it’s your child it comes first no matter which parent you are.
...Including requiring the mother carrying the baby to take on a reasonable amount of risk if necessary.
So how much do you donate a year to help welfare Moms? How much do you donate to charities that help underprivileged kids' camps?
Do you support additional taxes to help raise children that are unwanted?
How much time to you give to a single Mother to help her out?
Or are you just vocal when it comes to abortion?
No one, no one is advocating that you choose abortion if you get pregnant. You cannot make that choice for someone else, it is not your business why they make that choice, or your business to judge their decision.
It is easy to be vocal about an issue, it is more difficult to support the aftermath. What exactly do you do to help Mothers take care of their babies?
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.
