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.
How about this one...In 1937, Subha Tulfah al Mussallat was a young Sunni woman in a broken marriage who discovered she was pregnant. In 1930s Iraq her options were quite limited. She could have an abortion something that was risky and she would have to travel to Baghdad, or she could get try to get re-married. After traveling to Baghdad for an abortion a religious family convinced her to keep the child so she returned home to Tikrit and got re-married.
And so it was in 1937, that a baby boy named Saddam Hussein was born in Tikrit Iraq...It cuts both ways hun.
You may not look at carrying a pregnancy as a burden.....but many women do.
If you are a woman alone......who is going to make up all of the lost paychecks.....who is going to pay for all of the medical expenses?
What if you end up with a problem pregnancy and miss so much work that you can't pay the rent or you lose your job?
Just because you had an easy go of it......it is very arrogant of you to assume that is how it is going to be for all women.
Regardless.....carrying a pregnancy is much more than an inconvenience.....especially if you do not want a child in the first place.
Pregnancy is a big deal and causese permanent, not so nice, changes to a woman's body....that may not be a big deal to you but it is a big deal to many.
And let's not forget the fact that women in this day and age still do die during childbirth. It happened to a 31 yr. old school teacher with two small children at home, in my area, just a few months ago. I am sure, going in, that she didn't think she was going to end up dead.....leaving her two other children motherless.
When you carry a pregnancy.....you are risking death.....and that is not a risk any woman should be forced to take against her will. And.....that is another good reason that the man should have no say in the matter.....he is not the one putting his life on the line.
I had one of the most complicated pregnancies possible and I'm still saying that. Preeclampsia, gestational diabetes; I seemed to hit the high risk pregnancy lottery. But let me ask this. How would this be different than any other medical condition that a person had? Because it's preventable? So are a lot of medical conditions, actually. But we should extinguish a life simply because there's a chance the pregnancy might be difficult? That's absurd.
Again, with the hyperbole. If a mother's life would be truly endangered by the pregnancy, then I think abortion is a viable medical procedure to consider. Oh, and I can drive out my driveway and be killed. Nothing in life is without risk, even an abortion, so a bit of a non-starter argument. Stop trying to make it seem that being pregnant in this day and age is equivalent to being pregnant in the 1800s. It's not and you're being disingenious by trying to play that emotion.
I look at this from a very logical point of view and not one based upon emotion. For non-incest, non-rape, and non-life threatening pregnancies, you have a life that was created from either a lack of responsibility or a failure of birth control. Statistics show the majority of unwanted pregnancies are from not using birth control. Okay, so you have this life. Two choices, then. Keep the child or give up the child for adoption. The vast majority of pregnancies are without complications. Again, just not seeing a valid argument for having an abortion. To avoid nine months of carrying the child? To avoid the possibility of an unusual medical issue with pregnancy? It's just not a valid argument.
Don't look at this from an emotional point of view? Tell that to the two motherless children that I referred to earlier.
Do you think that their mother knew going in that there was a good chance she was going to die and leave her children motherless? Since when can a doctor assure a woman 100% that she isn't going to be that one "hyperbole" that ends up dead?
And, by the way....when I get into my car and drive out of my driveway....I am VOLUNTARILY taking the risk that I could die. I am making the CHOICE to risk my life......why shouldn't a woman have the same choice when it comes to carrying a pregnancy? Why should women become property of the state once a pregnancy begins?
Your argument is the one that isn't valid.
You are the one that is looking at this from an emotional point of view.....giving a fetus, a clump of cells, more rights than a living, breathing, thinking woman.
And, I would also like to point out, that for someone who lives paycheck to paycheck, as many people do, missing all kinds of work to carry a pregnancy is a BIG DEAL. Having enough money to pay your rent and keep the heat on, is a BIG DEAL. Why don't you try to put yourself in someone else's shoes before you start judging others?
In 1954, Joanne Schiebel was a young unmarried college student who discovered that she was pregnant. In the 1950s, her options were limited. She could have had an abortion – but the procedure was both dangerous and illegal. She could have gotten married, but she wasn’t ready and didn’t want to interrupt her education. Joanne opted, instead, to give birth to the baby and put him up for adoption.
And so it was that in 1955, a California couple named Paul and Clara Jobs adopted a baby boy, born out of wedlock, whom they named Steven. Choose Life. Rest in Peace, Steve Jobs.
And what would have happened if Mansons mother, an unwed prostitute, if she had got an abortion?
The fact is i don't know why the debate rages, because abortion will never be illegalized. You are seeing all these pro life measures passed this year being blocked, which means they are going to be struck down. Seem's to make more sense for the pro life crowd to expend their energy on preventing pregnancies.
The fact is i don't know why the debate rages, because abortion will never be illegalized. You are seeing all these pro life measures passed this year being blocked, which means they are going to be struck down. Seem's to make more sense for the pro life crowd to expend their energy on preventing pregnancies.
The federal government will likely never outlaw abortion, this is probably true.
It is a possibility however for the right to be given back to the states, in which large swaths of the country could outlaw abortions, and setting in motion a series of events that will force women without means to visit back alley abortionists.
The argument to be made is this. Outlawing anything, never ends anything.
The federal government will likely never outlaw abortion, this is probably true.
It is a possibility however for the right to be given back to the states, in which large swaths of the country could outlaw abortions, and setting in motion a series of events that will force women without means to visit back alley abortionists.
The argument to be made is this. Outlawing anything, never ends anything.
Doubtful, we have seen states being eroded in authority for some time now. And given the Internet and sympathetic doctors abortions would continue even if it did happen, with limited ability for enforcement.
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.
