Do you support abortion as

[jillio]

I am NOT Anti choice. In fact I feel I am more Pro choice then you are because I believe in extending choice to the unborn child too. The choice of life over death. That is ALWAYS preferable regardless of the certcumstances.

So all this talk of Pro choice is just loaded pro abortion jargen. We've already established that in previous threads.

As for the woman's right to kill her baby. What about men's rights to not have their baby murdered when they would be quite happy to act as care giver. What about the babies rights to be born. What about the rights of the woman who is being presurized by family or irresponsible boyfriend into aborting in the first place. Besides the fetus is NOT part of the body it's seperate.

Do you really think that I should have been killed of before birth just because I am disabled?

A fetus cannot make an independent choice. Please, please show me a case where an embryo has been consulted about anything and been capable of making an independent choice, and then acting on that choice. That is completely absurd.

You are not extending choice, you are limiting choice to only those values with which you agree.

Who said anything about killing anyone just because they are disabled? Now you are just being silly, on top of being emotional about something that is neither emotional, nor moral. It is legal. Morally, it is about when life begins, and you and everyone else is entitled to decide that for themselves. Legally it is about viability and a woman's right to make a medical decision between her and her physician without interference from the government or outside fanat6ical fringe groups.

 

[dreama]

Quite frankly, that is personal information, and not something I am comfortable revealing in such a judgemental atmposphere.

And yes, rape surviors ( I prefer survivor to victim) do often experience guilt. And to force her to carry a pregnancy to term and then surrender a child for adoption does absolutely nothing to relieve that guilt. It compounds it. We, as part of crisis intervention, offer the "morning after" pill to these women. They don't even know if conception has occurred at this point. It is more likely that it hasn't. But if it has, it is dealt with right then. They don't feel guilt over taking a morning after pill. They are in a state of psychological trauma, and the last thing they want is to have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy on top of dealing with the issues of rape. You would deny these women that as well.

If you'd bothered to read my post properly you would have noticed I am not against the morning after pill.

Abortions cause a lot of physcological trauma on a woman. Much more so then bringing the child to term and then putting it up for adoption.

I would rather not have had to disclose what happened to me either but since you were insisting that I didn't know what being raped felt like I just felt I had to put you straight on that one.

 

[jillio]

They already do. Secular beliefs are no differant to religious beliefs. In fact they can be just as restrictive such as many health and safety regulations that I've come across which think it is unsafe for intelligent adults to climb ladders thus all the top shelves at my university were removed which meant I didn't have enough space to put my things.

Plus I am not allowed to donate blood because someone considers that as an epileptic It could endanger my health even after explaining to them that I only suffer petit mal epilepsy so it's no big issue if I had a fit after donating blood.

Believe me there are lots of ways a secular government with a 'nanny state' attitude can govern your life just as much as a religious one would. I can't even get myself steralised.

And on top of that they want to make abortion laws even less strict and you can actually be sent to prison for writting a booklet saying that it's wrong to murder babies. How is that for freedom of speech?

Secular beliefs are quite different from religious beliefs, and that is exactly why one is determined to be secular, and the other determined to be religious. Moral beliefs can be secular or religiously based. However, they are still not the foudation for legal principle. Whether your moral beliefs are secualr or religious...you still do not have the right to force them on anyone else. You are free to accept them for yourself only.

 

[jillio]

If you'd bothered to read my post properly you would have noticed I am not against the morning after pill.

Abortions cause a lot of physcological trauma on a woman. Much more so then bringing the child to term and then putting it up for adoption. I would rather not have had to disclose what happened to me either but since you were insisting that I didn't know what being raped felt like I just felt I had to put you straight on that one.

You have absolutely nothing to substantiate that. All of the data points to exactly the oppposite, especially when it has been collected in acceptable standards and methods.

You didn't even have the laws of your own country right. How can you possibly speak to a whole population of women regarding psychological and statistical data based on the law?

 

[jillio]

If you'd bothered to read my post properly you would have noticed I am not against the morning after pill.

Abortions cause a lot of physcological trauma on a woman. Much more so then bringing the child to term and then putting it up for adoption.

I would rather not have had to disclose what happened to me either but since you were insisting that I didn't know what being raped felt like I just felt I had to put you straight on that one.

I thought you said that life begins at the moment of conception. If you believe that, then you have just blown your whole argument, because the morning after pill is effective only after conception has occurred. So, under your reasoning, it would result in murder just as much as if an abortion were performed 2 weeks or 2 months into the preganancy. They all involve termination of the product of conception.

And you were free to choose whether to disclose or not. I was free to make the same choice. That is exactly what the discussion regarding the legality of abortion is all about. You chose to disclose, I chose not to. I can't force you not to, and you cannot force me to, because it is a matter of personal choice, what the individual is comfortable with, and personal circumstance. I can't force you to have an abortion, and you cannot force me not to, if that is the choice I make for myself and my life.

 

[dreama]

Well, providing that is so, then the laws are different. Roe V Wade grants elective abortion decision rights only to the end of the first trimester. An abortion can be performed into the 2nd trimester only with documented medical reasons.

I would suggest that you visit the following website. It outlines preganancy termination laws for all of Europe, including Great Britian. It also shows that your statement regarding the law is completely false.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Europe's abortion rules

Availability: Under certain conditions

Gestational limit: 24 weeks

Conditions: Abortion is allowed in England, Wales and Scotland to save a woman's life, for health, economic or social reasons. Two registered medical practitioners must certify that the required medical grounds have been met.

The procedure must be carried out, except in emergency, in a National Health Service hospital or in a nursing home, private hospital or other approved place. The consent of the spouse is not a prerequisite of the medical termination.

So how come what I said was false? It says 24 weeks. I said 24 weeks. The only thing it doesn't mention is about the disabled babies. But that article doen'st mention it but it doesn't say that rules aren't differant for disabled babies either. As for prison sentences for those that educate the public about not commiting murder that is still being debated in parliment at the moment. They want to do away with two doctors. I think rules are way too lax at the momement. After all these laws are passed the prisons will be full of pro lifers who's only crime is to care about unborne children while REAL criminals walk around scot free.

Just because an unborn child can't make choices in the womb doesn't give people the right to kill it. It will make choices soon enough after it's come out as long as it comes out alive.

It's ALWAYS wrong to kill. To KILL somebody wether they are a fetus or a human is ALWAYS murder. NOBODY has the right to commit MURDER EVER!

 

[dreama]

I thought you said that life begins at the moment of conception. If you believe that, then you have just blown your whole argument, because the morning after pill is effective only after conception has occurred. So, under your reasoning, it would result in murder just as much as if an abortion were performed 2 weeks or 2 months into the preganancy. They all involve termination of the product of conception.

And you were free to choose whether to disclose or not. I was free to make the same choice. That is exactly what the discussion regarding the legality of abortion is all about. You chose to disclose, I chose not to. I can't force you not to, and you cannot force me to, because it is a matter of personal choice, what the individual is comfortable with, and personal circumstance. I can't force you to have an abortion, and you cannot force me not to, if that is the choice I make for myself and my life.

Where did EVER say about life beginning at conception. Just let me know because I don't know WHEN life begins.

But I do no know that a fetus has life and possibly earlier but I don't really know.

Why would you want to force me to commit murder for?

 

[jillio]

Where did EVER say about life beginning at conception. Just let me know because I don't know WHEN life begins.

But I do no know that a fetus has life and possibly earlier but I don't really know.

Why would you want to force me to commit murder for?

If you don;t know when life begins, then you cannot term an abortion "murder", because for murder to ahve occurred, life has to be present.

You are full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

You cannot possibly know that a 10 week fetus has life,( and medical science has even substantiated the fact that a fetus 10 weeks into gestation is not viable, and therefore, cannot survive as an independent life), if you don't even know when life begins. You are defeating your own arguments. In order for your arguments of abortion being "murder", you have to definitively define when life begins.

 

[jillio]

So how come what I said was false? It says 24 weeks. I said 24 weeks. The only thing it doesn't mention is about the disabled babies. But that article doen'st mention it but it doesn't say that rules aren't differant for disabled babies either. As for prison sentences for those that educate the public about not commiting murder that is still being debated in parliment at the moment. They want to do away with two doctors. I think rules are way too lax at the momement. After all these laws are passed the prisons will be full of pro lifers who's only crime is to care about unborne children while REAL criminals walk around scot free.

Just because an unborn child can't make choices in the womb doesn't give people the right to kill it. It will make choices soon enough after it's come out as long as it comes out alive.

It's ALWAYS wrong to kill. To KILL somebody wether they are a fetus or a human is ALWAYS murder. NOBODY has the right to commit MURDER EVER!

No one has the right to murder. This is correct. But, by your own admission in your posts, abortion cannot be defined as murder. Murder is the taking away of life, and if you can't determine that life has begun, then murder has not occurred.

Again, you are assigning personhood without even a clear idea of when life begins. You need to more clearly define the standards by which you are forming your opinions, because at this point, all you are doing is contradicting yourself and defeating your own arguments.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Bond font means "bold font" Sprongs I don't understand.

Well, usually, pro-choicers don't get offend whosever is mocked unborn children because they are just a pro-choice who don't give a damn about phony unborn children (all of them) and all of their future descendants, and YOU if you were an unimportance fetus as a low non-person. So I mocked unborn children as if they are unwanted and worthless and nothing speical. Do you have a problem with that, eh? Well, you are a pro-choice so you should not feel offended by my mocking comments toward those so-tiny nasty demons.

Besides, I'm not surprise if you upset what I just said. For what if I offend you, please take an apology from me...

 

[PowerON]

I only support on rape and the victim need to get abortion ASAP.

"Oh god (by raper) bless me to have baby." :roll:

 

[jillio]

Just to play devil's advocate here:

Why is it that a woman who has been a victim of violence is granted a right to choose while a woman who has not does not have the same right? I don't think we grant rights based on victim status.

The "pro-lifers" claim that an embryo is a baby. If that embryo is indeed a baby, it is a baby either way. So we say it is okay to abort the child of a rapist, but not a child of any other father?

That's where the argument gets sticky. Who decides which embryos are to be aborted and which aren't? Does law enforcement decide? A rape has occurred, so they decide that the woman can have an abortion? Does the woman decide? How do we know that a rape actually occurred without getting law enforcement involved? Do we make the woman wait to have an abortion until after a court trial and the rapist has been found guilty? What if he is not found guilty based on a technicality. Do we force that woman to carry the preganancy to term just because a court of law decided to set the rapist free?

To limit the right to choose to such circumstances leaves too many loopholes and unanswered questions. Best to leave the choice to the woman and her physician.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Just to play devil's advocate here:

Why is it that a woman who has been a victim of violence is granted a right to choose while a woman who has not does not have the same right? I don't think we grant rights based on victim status.

The "pro-lifers" claim that an embryo is a baby. If that embryo is indeed a baby, it is a baby either way. So we say it is okay to abort the child of a rapist, but not a child of any other father?

That's where the argument gets sticky. Who decides which embryos are to be aborted and which aren't? Does law enforcement decide? A rape has occurred, so they decide that the woman can have an abortion? Does the woman decide? How do we know that a rape actually occurred without getting law enforcement involved? Do we make the woman wait to have an abortion until after a court trial and the rapist has been found guilty? What if he is not found guilty based on a technicality. Do we force that woman to carry the preganancy to term just because a court of law decided to set the rapist free?

To limit the right to choose to such circumstances leaves too many loopholes and unanswered questions. Best to leave the choice to the woman and her physician.

I have my own opinion:

A problem is numerous and common in our society today... It always will have a tragedy to be raped, I'd aware of that... A several of my friends have been through this trauma too. Besides, I know the demons they face and it is an extreme psychologoical trauma to have a reminder in any child. Nevertheless, is really that child's life worth ending in the attempt to make another's life much easier? Maybe you may think so... but the crime was committed and the child is an effect. A child should not be the crime's second victim... #506

But, as for your quote (from above) - Yes, that's a problem. I don't like abortions for some personal reasons... However, each woman (or girl) has a right to make a choice for herself, I believe so.

I always wonder it's kinda of strange if it is okay to abort rapist's bastard child but not other fathers of babies? It's really annoying me... Since it's vile rape experiences so it's better to let victims make a desicion.

 

[Bottesini]

Well, usually, pro-choicers don't get offend whosever is mocked unborn children because they are just a pro-choice who don't give a damn about phony unborn children (all of them) and all of their future descendants, and YOU if you were an unimportance fetus as a low non-person. So I mocked unborn children as if they are unwanted and worthless and nothing speical. Do you have a problem with that, eh? Well, you are a pro-choice so you should not feel offended by my mocking comments toward those so-tiny nasty demons.

Besides, I'm not surprise if you upset what I just said. For what if I offend you, please take an apology from me...

I do not know what you are talking about. Tousi asked what does "bond font' and 'sprongs' mean. I was answering him. I am not offended by you.Are you just trying to pick a fight?

I think it would be a mistake on your part if you are.

 

[jillio]

I have my own opinion:


But, as for your quote (from above) - Yes, that's a problem. I don't like abortions for some personal reasons... However, each woman (or girl) has a right to make a choice for herself, I believe so.

I always wonder it's kinda of strange if it is okay to abort rapist's bastard child but not other fathers of babies? It's really annoying me... Since it's vile rape experiences so it's better to let victims make a desicion.

Exactly. But then we get into the sticky issue of deciding who has been raped and who hasn't. Do we take the woman's word for it, or do we need to have some sort of proof from a court of law that she has been raped in order to allow her an abortion? There is just no way to enforce restrictions like that.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Exactly. But then we get into the sticky issue of deciding who has been raped and who hasn't. Do we take the woman's word for it, or do we need to have some sort of proof from a court of law that she has been raped in order to allow her an abortion? There is just no way to enforce restrictions like that.

Of course. It should not have it done for...

 

[Liza]

Tricky to impose one's personal beliefs on another when this country has a myriad of personal beliefs. Biden said it best:

A Roman Catholic, Biden said he accepts his church's teachings that life begins at conception, but that the issue is personal for him. He said it wouldn't be right to impose his views on others who are just as religious as he is.

"I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

Obama says he regrets abortion answer  - Barack Obama News - MSNBC.com

 

[jillio]

Tricky to impose one's personal beliefs on another when this country has a myriad of personal beliefs. Biden said it best:



Obama says he regrets abortion answerÂ* - Barack Obama News - MSNBC.com

Exactly. That is the whole issue behind the right to choose.

 

[KarissaMann05]

I do not know what you are talking about. Tousi asked what does "bond font' and 'sprongs' mean. I was answering him. I am not offended by you.Are you just trying to pick a fight?

I think it would be a mistake on your part if you are.

And I saw a few words in your quote: "sprongs I don't understand", and I explained it. No, I am not pick a fight. I sometimes feel annoy whenever unborn children/fetuses are put down so I picked on them as I was refered to those fetuses.

 

[Liza]

Exactly. That is the whole issue behind the right to choose.

Right.. if you don't want an abortion because of your personal feelings or belief, don't get it done. Simple yet powerful, thanks to having the choice to not do this. The government would be giving you a lot of trust to do the right thing by your own beliefs and personal feelings. To take that away displays a serious lack of trust in the decision-making process of every US citizen and undermines their various personal beliefs.