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.
pro choice professional activists are about choice, of which there are 3. birth adoption and abortion, a pro choice professional talks about all the choices and supports the woman's choice no matter which she wants. they do talk about adoption.
the choice should never be taken away from the individual woman, if she wanted her pregnancy transferred to another body instead of abortion then I would support her. otherwise it is her choice and none of my business what she does about her pregnancy.
sure the fetus is "alive" while it grows however that does not mean it is truly independent and living until it is born. it remains potential life. before you ask, no it is not ok to kill a newborn, or an elderly person who needs help because it is not able to care for itself. in these cases anyone can have the job that wants it, unlike an unwanted pregnancy that falls strictly on the individual woman
Okay, getting somewhere. We do not have any system in place now, so it is not even really an option, but shouldn't we think outside the box to try to start having win win scenarios? One where the baby lives and the woman does not have to live with that guilt?
And this is all the after the fact stuff. In all reality, I feel the strict religious followers and the church should change their ways and be open minded to various birth control methods, so we can be extremely pro-active to avoid unwanted pregnancies. That is where the battle really needs to be waged first, so abortions would be a very rare thing.
They did no such thing as even the ones I disagree with are educated.
It isn't a life but it's a developing life?
It can't survive on its own when most abortions occur but I wasn't discussing that.
more voodoo for you, a snippet from the decision of the supreme court. you can research the rest if you want.
While acknowledging that the right to abortion was not unlimited, Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Court, created a trimester framework to balance the fundamental right to abortion with the government's two legitimate interests: protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life."
Okay, getting somewhere. We do not have any system in place now, so it is not even really an option, but shouldn't we think outside the box to try to start having win win scenarios? One where the baby lives and the woman does not have to live with that guilt?
And this is all the after the fact stuff. In all reality, I feel the strict religious followers and the church should change their ways and be open minded to various birth control methods, so we can be extremely pro-active to avoid unwanted pregnancies. That is where the battle really needs to be waged first, so abortions would be a very rare thing.
not all women have guilt from an abortion in fact most don't. if a woman has the choice between an abortion or having her fetus harvested and put into another's uterus I would bet most would take the abortion. there is a sense of guilt in some woman who give their child up for adoption. I would suspect they would feel the same about having someone else gestate and raise their fetus. selfish? perhaps but why make the choice anymore complicated for a woman already having a difficult choice to make.
I feel the same way religious people/churches should be doing more to support poor women and young children as well as supporting birth control. we also have to get past "shame" lots of kids don't want to admit they need BC which is why they don't use it. it's shameful to some that they have sex or use BC.
more voodoo for you, a snippet from the decision of the supreme court. you can research the rest if you want.
While acknowledging that the right to abortion was not unlimited, Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Court, created a trimester framework to balance the fundamental right to abortion with the government's two legitimate interests: protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life."
That is what I said earlier today. Note, nowhere does it state that there is no life.
I know you know that as this has been done many times.
not all women have guilt from an abortion in fact most don't. if a woman has the choice between an abortion or having her fetus harvested and put into another's uterus I would bet most would take the abortion. there is a sense of guilt in some woman who give their child up for adoption. I would suspect they would feel the same about having someone else gestate and raise their fetus. selfish? perhaps but why make the choice anymore complicated for a woman already having a difficult choice to make.
I feel the same way religious people/churches should be doing more to support poor women and young children as well as supporting birth control. we also have to get past "shame" lots of kids don't want to admit they need BC which is why they don't use it. it's shameful to some that they have sex or use BC.
Naomi Wolfe in her book "Fire with Fire" writes that many women do have regrets and it does it a disservice and even harm to try and dismiss this aspect of abortion.
You do know late-term abortions are due to fetal abnormalities or risk to the life of the mother, right?
Are women "blood thirsty" for choosing to end a pregnancy because their child will be born with half a brain? Abortions at 6, 7, 8+ months are not done on a whim.
Regardless, pregnancy is physically risky for women. It should be up to them 100% if they take that health risk.
Pro choice people always want to bring up instances such as rape, incest or deformed babies as if these are the primary reasons for abortion when in fact the are more the exception than the rule.
Fact is the vast majority of abortions are done solely as a form of birth control for the convenience to the woman.
Do I think it should be illegal? No, but it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control either.
I said "pro choice professional activists", as they are the ones who appear to be excited about convincing women to terminate a life, rather than even consider any other option, including adoption. I feel for the woman who has to make a very tough decision.
If a woman chooses to no longer continue the pregnancy of a healthy viable fetus, are you against extracting it so it can later be adopted by someone on the long waiting list for newborns? Would you prefer the unborn to be terminated no matter what? If so, why? Why not let her remove herself from the pregnancy AND net terminate the unborn AND make the dreams come true for someone else?
Gee, I'm almost 70 and I have yet to meet anyone who is excited about convincing a woman to terminate a life, but I will afford you the benefit of the doubt - if you can prove any evidence other than anecdotal to support that, please do.
And unless the baby is white and 100% perfect that long waiting list dwindles to nothing. There are many babies who don't quite meet the requirements of the folks on that waiting list and end up in foster homes for the next 18 years.
And can you give an example of a physician aborting a viable fetus that was healthy and not suffering from horrible disabilities like microcephaly? IMO when you say something like that you are impugning the character of women as being salacious creatures, without morals or ethics who need to have rules to make sure that we can intervene and snatch the baby away before she has a chance to kill it.
Pro choice people always want to bring up instances such as rape, incest or deformed babies as if these are the primary reasons for abortion when in fact the are more the exception than the rule. Fact is the vast majority of abortions are done solely as a form of birth control for the convenience to the woman. Do I think it should be illegal? No, but it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control either.
Problem is that a good number of the most rabid 'pro-lifers' also oppose birth control and actively lobby to ensure that employers can prohibit their employee group health plans from providing birth control services.
Gee, I'm almost 70 and I have yet to meet anyone who is excited about convincing a woman to terminate a life, but I will afford you the benefit of the doubt - if you can prove any evidence other than anecdotal to support that, please do.
And unless the baby is white and 100% perfect that long waiting list dwindles to nothing. There are many babies who don't quite meet the requirements of the folks on that waiting list and end up in foster homes for the next 18 years.
No there isn't. The waiting list is so long as to make people go to other countries to adopt.
Quote:
And can you give an example of a physician aborting a viable fetus that was healthy and not suffering from horrible disabilities like microcephaly? IMO when you say something like that you are impugning the character of women as being salacious creatures, without morals or ethics who need to have rules to make sure that we can intervene and snatch the baby away before she has a chance to kill it.
Dr Martin Haskell. He was one of the originators of the ID&E method. He said he performed most of them for "maternal indications". When asked to explain this he said "age of the mother". Or in other words, she was a minor that hid her pregnancy for as long as possible.
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.
