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 06-29-2009, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,181,617 times
Reputation: 2535

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Many of the pro-choice people don't think there's any chance Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned. Odd, given that the pro-choice groups know that today it would likely be a 5-4 decision and that's why they were so insistent on wanting Obama elected over McCain.

Regardless, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, some states would keep it legal. Women in the states where it was illegal could simply travel to the "legal" states and have as many abortions as they wanted. Does that solve anything? I suppose it does, but still, it wouldn't KEEP women who live in any state from having abortions.
Correct some states would. In the mean time some steps can be taken. A prospective abortion victim should be shown the sonogram of her fetus before aborting it. The article i posted showed 98% of the woman shown the sonogram opt not to have an abortion, yet planned parent hood refuses to show them the sonogram

 
Old 06-29-2009, 12:57 PM
 
2,549 posts, read 2,713,077 times
Reputation: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by trmihall01 View Post
LOL! perhaps you and I can, but we know where our oneness and happiness lie, unlike most! I'm quite sure our meditational plane is worlds above and different than the rest. Love you anyway!
I'm blushing
 
Old 06-29-2009, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,121,249 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
two points. Not all babies you want aborted woudl be in foster care and from the same article.

Choices are available that have positive outcomes of unwanted pregnancies. There are 1.3 million couples awaiting a child and only 25,000 babies available in the U.S. right now, according to Fort Worth’s Gladney Center for Adoption. Imagine being able to place your baby in the eager and loving arms of a couple. You have not only given life to a child, but unselfishly given that child a chance for a warm and secure future, as well as answered the prayers of a childless couple.
Of course there is sadness and tears, but one can go on without the burden of guilt. Adoption is a win-win
So you've posted three times now that 1.3 million couples are waiting for children yet only 25,000 babies. Why can't these couples adopt one of the more than 100,000 CHILDREN who are in foster care and waiting for a permanent home? Why are they waiting for babies? This is according to Photolisting Adoption - where you can browse through the adoptable children.

Also, adoption is not a win-win, despite that you want it to be. Pregnancy can literally destroy a woman's life - even if she doesn't raise the child afterwards. There are so many "ifs" and conditions that adoption should not be the end-all solution to unwanted children. Pregnancy is not a cut and dry condition that is the same flowers and rainbows for everyone. There are so many dangers in being pregnant, some slight and minor - while others are serious and last forever.

So please answer (without another copy-pasta) why a woman should be forced to endure 40 weeks of pregnancy and delivery for a child that she does not want.

Why should a woman be forced against her will to carry a child just so that a couple (who are too selfish to adopt an older child) can raise an infant?

Do people really think that a woman who doesn't want the child in her will eat properly so as to provide proper sustenance for the child?

Do people really think that a drug-addicted woman who doesn't want her kid will stop using drugs during such pregnancy?

What about pants for pregnant women? Would somebody carrying an unwanted child be more apt to spend money on pregnancy pants... or stick with their normal pants (which will become quite tight during later months) and potentially harm the child?

While I love my daughter, having her nearly killed me. I could never willingly force somebody else to endure what I went through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee
I voted pro choice but have to add I will only be in favor of that if late term abortions will be forbidden by law!
At least in my state, late term abortions are indeed forbidden by law except in cases where the mother's health is at risk or if the child is dead. A 36-week pregger shouldn't be able to get an abortion just because she doesn't feel like having a baby. Heck, even I was foaming at the mouth when I read the story about a woman who shot herself to end her child's life... AFTER LABOR HAD ALREADY BEGAN.

I've stated many, many, many pages ago that I've had an abortion.

Because it was cheaper than going through a hospital, I went to Planned Parenthood. Wanna hear something interesting? Despite my abortion being a medically-necessary one... I got to see the sonogram of the child to be aborted. I heard the heartbeat and saw him/her on the screen. Then, I had to wait the mandatory 24 hours so that I could think about my decision.

I don't regret my decision to abort. It was medically necessary so that I can (hopefully) live a nice long life with the daughter I have.
 
Old 06-29-2009, 01:54 PM
 
341 posts, read 449,145 times
Reputation: 113
I'm in favor of 100% free birth control, condoms, etc. I don't even mind if they take a pinch outta my taxes as it is...they already take enough out to pay for these welfare mamas..
 
Old 06-29-2009, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,181,617 times
Reputation: 2535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio View Post
So you've posted three times now that 1.3 million couples are waiting for children yet only 25,000 babies. Why can't these couples adopt one of the more than 100,000 CHILDREN who are in foster care and waiting for a permanent home? Why are they waiting for babies? This is according to Photolisting Adoption - where you can browse through the adoptable children.

Also, adoption is not a win-win, despite that you want it to be. Pregnancy can literally destroy a woman's life - even if she doesn't raise the child afterwards. There are so many "ifs" and conditions that adoption should not be the end-all solution to unwanted children. Pregnancy is not a cut and dry condition that is the same flowers and rainbows for everyone. There are so many dangers in being pregnant, some slight and minor - while others are serious and last forever.

So please answer (without another copy-pasta) why a woman should be forced to endure 40 weeks of pregnancy and delivery for a child that she does not want.

Why should a woman be forced against her will to carry a child just so that a couple (who are too selfish to adopt an older child) can raise an infant?

Do people really think that a woman who doesn't want the child in her will eat properly so as to provide proper sustenance for the child?

Do people really think that a drug-addicted woman who doesn't want her kid will stop using drugs during such pregnancy?

What about pants for pregnant women? Would somebody carrying an unwanted child be more apt to spend money on pregnancy pants... or stick with their normal pants (which will become quite tight during later months) and potentially harm the child?

While I love my daughter, having her nearly killed me. I could never willingly force somebody else to endure what I went through.



At least in my state, late term abortions are indeed forbidden by law except in cases where the mother's health is at risk or if the child is dead. A 36-week pregger shouldn't be able to get an abortion just because she doesn't feel like having a baby. Heck, even I was foaming at the mouth when I read the story about a woman who shot herself to end her child's life... AFTER LABOR HAD ALREADY BEGAN.

I've stated many, many, many pages ago that I've had an abortion.

Because it was cheaper than going through a hospital, I went to Planned Parenthood. Wanna hear something interesting? Despite my abortion being a medically-necessary one... I got to see the sonogram of the child to be aborted. I heard the heartbeat and saw him/her on the screen. Then, I had to wait the mandatory 24 hours so that I could think about my decision.

I don't regret my decision to abort. It was medically necessary so that I can (hopefully) live a nice long life with the daughter I have.
1) Because she has options
2)If she gives it up for adoption through an adoption agency she will have a home food and care
3)Once again Adoption agencies like the gladney home can help her
4) once again an adoption agency will deal with her pants.

Now answer me
With third term abortion against the law (exceptions are health and incest)have we not taken away the mothers right to her own body?
why should third term abortions be illegal if the argument is the mother has the right to choose what to do with her body?


I am pleased planned parent hood let you see the sonogram that is not the policy of planned parent hood read hear. As for you needing it for your health, as i have stated that is fine

Meet Dr. Abort
 
Old 06-29-2009, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,392,175 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Correct some states would. In the mean time some steps can be taken. A prospective abortion victim should be shown the sonogram of her fetus before aborting it. The article i posted showed 98% of the woman shown the sonogram opt not to have an abortion, yet planned parent hood refuses to show them the sonogram
Which is a problem that needs to be corrected
 
Old 06-29-2009, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,121,249 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
1) Because she has options
2)If she gives it up for adoption through an adoption agency she will have a home food and care
3)Once again Adoption agencies like the gladney home can help her
4) once again an adoption agency will deal with her pants.

Now answer me
With third term abortion against the law (exceptions are health and incest)have we not taken away the mothers right to her own body?
why should third term abortions be illegal if the argument is the mother has the right to choose what to do with her body?


I am pleased planned parent hood let you see the sonogram that is not the policy of planned parent hood read hear. As for you needing it for your health, as i have stated that is fine
1) There are only two options for a woman who is pregnant: Abort or carry to term. That is not saying she has to keep the child, but there are only two options once pregnant. When a woman does not wish to carry to term, there is only one true option: abort.

2, 3, 4) Homes like Gladney are indeed great in what they do. They help women who are willing to endure pregnancy to bring a life into the world. They do not help women who do not wish to carry. Perhaps I should reword my questions to be more referential to women who do not wish to carry to term.

Should women be forced to carry-to-term if she does not wish to be pregnant?

In regards to the third-trimester and a woman's right to her own body... Basically, each state has its own regulations of when a woman is consenting to the child remaining in her body. In my state, that breaking point is the third trimester, or approximately 26 weeks.

How it worked with me is that at my 26 week appointment, my doctor explained that once he deems me 26 weeks, I would no longer be able to seek abortion except in cases of danger to the physical or mental health of myself (or child). With this explanation, he asked me, "Do you wish to continue the pregnancy and see it to term?" to which I answered yes to. At that point, I was giving consent for my daughter to continue to live in my body.

Personally, I think this is how it should be. Now, as to where the breaking point between mother's right to her body and the consent to the child remaining in her body... I think the breaking point should be around the time that a child would normally be able to function outside of the mother's body with minimal assistance - which is around 24-26 weeks.

Long story short, as I see it, a woman should have the right to decide for her body up until 24-26 weeks. At that point, her doctor should discuss with her about that breakpoint and the implications of continuing the pregnancy. Perhaps have the pregnant woman sign a document that states her consent from that day forth - with exceptions for physical/mental health.

As for getting to see the sonogram, I'm still on the fence about whether or not women should be forced to see them. However, I do think that the option of seeing the sonogram should be there.

Another point to make: It was recently affirmed that Partial Birth Abortions cannot happen in Virginia.
 
Old 06-29-2009, 03:39 PM
 
Location: memphis tn
530 posts, read 648,094 times
Reputation: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
two points. Not all babies you want aborted woudl be in foster care and from the same article.

Choices are available that have positive outcomes of unwanted pregnancies. There are 1.3 million couples awaiting a child and only 25,000 babies available in the U.S. right now, according to Fort Worth’s Gladney Center for Adoption. Imagine being able to place your baby in the eager and loving arms of a couple. You have not only given life to a child, but unselfishly given that child a chance for a warm and secure future, as well as answered the prayers of a childless couple.
Of course there is sadness and tears, but one can go on without the burden of guilt. Adoption is a win-win
So if there are 1.3 million people waiting to adopt, and you out law abortion then in two yrs everyone will have adopted all the children they wanted and your stuck with another 800,000 a yr to worry about! So the problem is solved for two yrs, then what?
 
Old 06-29-2009, 03:41 PM
 
Location: memphis tn
530 posts, read 648,094 times
Reputation: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I'm afraid that if abortion was illegal, there'd be more abortions because women would feel more desperate when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I'm afraid they'd simply do whatever it took to kill their babies - and possibly kill themselves in the process - out of fear. The one good thing about it being legal is that women know they have a choice and, thus, are possibly less likely to be desperately wanting the pregnancy to end.
Once again, thank you for bieng the Pro- life voice of reason onthis thread!
 
Old 06-29-2009, 03:43 PM
 
Location: memphis tn
530 posts, read 648,094 times
Reputation: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Many of the pro-choice people don't think there's any chance Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned. Odd, given that the pro-choice groups know that today it would likely be a 5-4 decision and that's why they were so insistent on wanting Obama elected over McCain.

Regardless, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, some states would keep it legal. Women in the states where it was illegal could simply travel to the "legal" states and have as many abortions as they wanted. Does that solve anything? I suppose it does, but still, it wouldn't KEEP women who live in any state from having abortions.
Once again you are correct, except for there are alot of reasons I voted for Obama over McCain and abortion really wasn't one of them!
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