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.
Pregnancy is a temporary condition. All you have to do to get the unwanted child out is wait 9 months. Is a human life really not worth 9 months of inconvenience to you? If it's not worth that much, what is it worth?
This is about choosing to end a life for our own convenience. What does it say about us if we choose to do so?
This issue of women having children they cannot afford is another issue. That is a debate about responsibility. As to unborn babies being killed, adoption is an option. You don't have to keep the baby. There are plenty of couples who would love to adopt a new born.
And yes, my friend's situation was sad. Her mistake was thinking that legal meant moral or right. She was young and made a hasty decision only to find that once it was done she could not deny what she had destroyed. I'm glad she's finally found some peace. The granddaughter she saved has helped to heal her heart.
what is it that you do not understand. some women do not want to go through a pregnancy LABOR and DELIVER a child. and yes women not being able to afford to raise a child is part of the issue and one of the reasons they abort.
as your pal who regretted her abortion, some women regret forever their choice to give up their child for adoption.
I really don't think so. Not for those who are already educated anyways. I know that a fetus can "feel pain" and be operated on in the womb but this makes me no less pro-choice. I don't think anything would unless perhaps women were being forced to have abortions against their will.
We are the most regressive first world country regarding opinions of a fetus being a baby. It's basic science
What is basic science? Maybe nothing will ever convince you personally, but people more independent or moderate on the issue will eventually move towards being pro life.
Having different DNA does not change the fact that a fetus is attached to and part of the woman's body.
Every single thing a woman does with her body effects the fetus because of this parasitic relationship.
If that isn't true, why are pregnant women encouraged to eat well, not drink alcohol, not use certain drugs, not smoke?
You say slavery is wrong, yet you obviously have no problem with forcing a woman to be a slave to a fetus.
My body, my choice.
Being "attached to" and being "part of" are two different things.
Parasitic relationships by their definition are interactions between species in which the host is an involuntary participant.
The relationship between the mother and her fetus is one between members of the same species and is most commonly initiated by the mother`s actions in voluntarily copulating.
Slavery is another example of one party forcing a relationship upon another, yet you seem to not understand that the fetus does nothing to create the relationship he or she has with the mother.
It is the mother that, by her actions, forces the child into biological dependency without the consent of her offspring.
What is basic science? Maybe nothing will ever convince you personally, but people more independent or moderate on the issue will eventually move towards being pro life.
It is basic science that a fetus feels pain. I don't think that this means they should be brought into a potentially greater world of pain and I don't think that "feels pain" is some sanctity of life. Do you think pro-choice people are really that uneducated? It's not like we thought it was just swimming in lidocaine in our uterus.
You know what else is painful? Childbirth. So do we get to just hold the kid in because "feeling pain" is now suddenly not allowed? Oh that's right, we can't.
The lack of empathy for the woman's "pain" (and her life in general) is hypocrisy at best, misogyny at worst.
Being "attached to" and being "part of" are two different things.
Parasitic relationships by their definition are interactions between species in which the host is an involuntary participant.
The relationship between the mother and her fetus is one between members of the same species and is most commonly initiated by the mother`s actions in voluntarily copulating.
Slavery is another example of one party forcing a relationship upon another, yet you seem to not understand that the fetus does nothing to create the relationship he or she has with the mother.
It is the mother that, by her actions, forces the child into biological dependency without the consent of her offspring.
More Misogyny. It is not ONLY the mother who creates a fetus. Going by your logic, dad has also forced this blob into biological dependency.
Using your logic, you can take it all the way back to the sperm that leaves the body to impregnate a woman. Since this sperm is ENTERING THE WOMAN'S BODY, then the sperm is at fault for holding the mother slave.
It is indeed a parasitic relationship. Especially since the woman did not want the sperm to enter her body and attach to her egg.
And before you say something else misogynistic such as "she should have thought about that before she had sex." Don't. Just refer back to your own theory of who is keeping whom hostage and think about why you didn't continue with your thought and trace it all the way back to the sperm. ...
More Misogyny. It is not ONLY the mother who creates a fetus. Going by your logic, dad has also forced this [child] into biological dependency.
Using your logic, you can take it all the way back to the sperm that leaves the body to impregnate a woman. Since this sperm is ENTERING THE WOMAN'S BODY, then the sperm is at fault for holding the mother slave.
If this is an example of the extent of your "intelligence," tell us why we should bother considering your opinion on anything? This has to be one of the most twisted views of human reproduction (which in most cases takes place by the voluntary actions of two individuals) that I have ever read! It's laughable. Just laughable! Do you consider yourself to be educated??? Just wondering.
Is that what you call, 'logic?' I'm afraid you don't have one logical thought. Moreover, I don't think you even know what 'logic' is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums
It is indeed a parasitic relationship. Especially since the woman did not want the sperm to enter her body and attach to her egg.
Do you own a dictionary? Look up, "parasite," please. Try looking it up in an encyclopedia for an even better description.
Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. Traditionally parasite referred primarily to organisms visible to the naked eye, or macroparasites (such as helminths). Parasite now includes microparasites, which are typically smaller, such as protozoans,[1][2] viruses and bacteria.[3] Some examples of parasites include the plants mistletoe and cuscuta, and animals such as hookworms.
Perhaps you think a baby [referred to as a fetus, right up until birth], is similar to a hookworm?
http://www.pathologystudent.com/wp-c...9/06/fetus.jpg
At ten weeks, it sure does look like a baby, though small enough to fit in the palm of your hand. (I posted such an image of a ten week old baby [fetus] in the palm of a hand in another thread).
This is the kind of thinking that really gives "feminist" leftist a bad name, because it is utter stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums
And before you say something else misogynistic such as "she should have thought about that before she had sex." Don't. Just refer back to your own theory of who is keeping whom hostage and think about why you didn't continue with your thought and trace it all the way back to the sperm. ...
I'm not even sure what is meant by that statement. Again, it is just utter stupidity.
"It's just a fetus, it's not a living human being. It's okay to kill it"...todays abortion industry. "It's just a Jew, it's not a living human being. It's okay to kill it"....Nazi Party 1930s.
I'll never understand the fascination conservatives have with cutting welfare that will mean children go hungry. It's so plainly and obviously wrong. What values did these people grow up with?
(And to top it off, most of them pretend to be Christians.)
1. Christ taught charity. Welfare is not charity. Government pays for welfare from taxes. Taxes are not voluntary giving.
2. Cutting welfare does not mean children go hungry. That's pure leftist propaganda. The 1994 "Welfare to work" program (which Bill Clinton signed into law) was very successful. Obama ended it, and the number of people on welfare has skyrocketed. There is no longer any incentive for low income people to work. Government takes care of them. They have their "Obamaphone," they have Internet, TV, an automobile (or two), a roof over their head, they are well clothed. They have everything they could want, all at taxpayer expense.
"Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth." Proverbs 10:4
Only if her life is at stake. And you won't find a doctor who will perform an abortion at nine months for any other reason. I think most people who are pro-choice don't support third trimester abortions for any reason other than to save the life of the mother, so this is a straw man argument.
Really? Are you really that naïve?
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.
If it's not worth that much, what is it worth? 
Are you really that naïve?
