Those that are Pro choice: is there a point or are there any situations when getting someone getting an abortion is wrong? Those that are Pro life: are there any situations or are there any times it's ok for someone to get an abortion?
I'm pro-choice, yet I feel there are definitely times when it is just wrong. Pro-choice doesn't mean we believe abortion is always ok or that we take it lightly. It's pro-choice, not pro-baby-killing-because-we-can.
I think abortion is okay in 3 situations.
1-rape 2-mothers health 3-babys health
Why does a woman get to choose when it's rape?
Because when it's rape she didn't make a choice to conceive the child. Someone else did without her consent or permission. She was not technically responsible in creating the child. On the emotional side, it's not fair for her, the child, her family
her husband or boyfriend or partner if she has one or anyone.
So basically, you can tell a woman what she can do when you think it's ok too?
I personally think it's ok to get abortions in those 3 situations & it's moral in those 3 but not in others. I didn't say I wanted them to make all abortions except these illegal or anything. Just voicing what i see is right & wrong as the ques. asks
And @abolitionist: she can keep the baby if she wants to, but
It was morally wrong what happened to her.
What about the mother's mental health?
In what way?
How about if a woman wants an abortion she has one. If someone thinks the fetus has rights then give it a ride in your uterus. Don't look at it like murder, look at it like an eviction. (Sarcasm)
I think about the last half of the pregnancy is abortion free zone. By that point the brain is starting to develop and make a real baby.
Before that is it a fake baby?
You know exactly what I meant.
Some would say it's a real baby all the way some less but it is a baby and it's real. I know what you meant. You think it's a lump of protein for 4.5 months.
Pro-life here. No. Abortion is always wrong.
So even life of the mother? Or is that the exception?
There are almost no situations where a mothers life is at risk and where an abortion would correct it. It's statistically insignificant. I would be surprised that if the law was enacted and ten people were affected in 50 years.
Pro choice not your body not your choice
"Not your body, not your choice" is the argument made by pro-lifers.
It can be used by anyone fuck pro lifers
I'm prolife but I can understand why people would want an abortion MORE(key word) in cases of rape and incest. I'm still trying to make up my mind on disability.....
Not for me to judge.
I like you. Have a follow.
What a wishy-washy stance.
What a respectful thread on abortion! What a first! Great people all around.
It does seem calmer than usual
I think if you get pregnant, that it's just meant to happen. If it's not then God will take care of it; not us. Even if the child is a rape or molestation child, they could grow up to be great followers of Christ and save a lot of people in their...
...life time. We don't know what Gods plan is, so we have no right to kill an innocent being just because we were done wrong by someone else or just don't want it.
If God will take care of it because he has plans for it, couldn't he also make an abortion attempt fail?
I'm getting flashbacks of Richard Mourdock from last year...
Yes, but because he gave us free will, that's not always the case.
Ren, I have two friends who have been raped (that I know of) and both of them had daughters as a result, who are now in their 20s. Both they and their Moms are amazing women who overcame a horrible thing. I'm not saying it's easy, but knowing those for women has definitely influenced my thinking.
I dunno. I can't figure out exactly precisely where I think the line is, but I feel like there probably is one (and it's probably gray and fuzzy, not fine and black). I also don't know if it's just moral or if it should be legal. Any legal
restrictions, anyway, should be based on sound science and should always have room themselves for exceptions just in case.
Being pro choice doesn't mean you support abortions or even agree with it, it just means you feel like women can make that decision without the government telling them what they have to do
Abo, I didn't have space due to the limits to put something about that in the question
That wasn't at you, I just wanted it out it out there.
It doesn't mean you support abortions, it means you approve of them. There's a very fine line to delineate the difference.
I never support murder.
If you never support murder then you are an anti-war pacifist and don't support killing someone in self defense
There is a difference between killing and murder.
I only accept it in rape and incest cases.
Why rape? Is that child not gods child?
That is a good point. What's the difference between that life and another life? You're still giving the choice to the mother in this case, so why not all?
Although, I'm guessing that you two are playing devil's advocate, I actually think you asked very good questions. I don't support it. Ever.
Even life of the mother pinky?
It's wrong when a woman uses abortion instead of birth control. Multiple abortions because you haven't figured out how to use birth control burns my ass.
To me it's only acceptable in cases of rape, incest, or severe disability.
I love people with severe disabilities :/. It would be hard to handle as a parent, there is no doubt. But they are people, too.
They are people. And I've had the pleasure of volunteering with a center on a few occasion, but it is ultimately the choice of the parents. If they can't take that responsibility, then I cannot judge them.
How do you justify making abortions illegal in all other cases?
I considered life to start at 8 weeks when there's a heartbeat. If someone's alive they are granted certain rights to life. It was the mothers choice to have sex, it shouldnt be the child's fault that it has to die/not being born/ cease existence.
Population control of democrats comes to mind. And maybe pro abortion would let it live if it's crowning.
Wow. I was going to leave a lengthy comment exploring the extreme stupidity of your post, but I think that I might just leave you to drink your own bathwater for a little while longer.
Thought it would be fun to explore different options. When a group seems to promote abortion of the poorest I think of some scenarios as to why. Population management is just one.aborting in the 4th trimester is cruel.
Nobody promotes abortion. You have such a distorted view of the pro-choice movement, it makes me wonder how you feel qualified to say anything at all.
I,m not a pro lifer. I do think it's murder but it's on you. So go murder you hair, your toenail and whatever else. Maybe murder the sperm first.
That is how Planned Parenthood came about, rons. To reduce the population of a certain sector of citizens.
Pro-choice here. If the baby is in her body, it's her property and thus she should have the ability to abort whenever she would like. The fetus should be treated like every other body part - for example, I can cut my hear and clip my toes at will...
so why should abortion be any different?
Because the fetus is a living thing
So is my toe. It's got living cells in it. Adult stem cells can divide when there's a wound. Are you in favor of singling those out and protecting those?
It's meaningless whether or not it is a living thing. If there is a bug on my arm, I'm going to kill it - same principle.
Cold hearted! Really cold! Babies and toenails! Never thought of it that way, hmmm.
Cold hearted? We were listing living things. Sorry we offended you. He said we should protect living things, so we gave him living things to start protecting.
You're comparing children to bugs!? As a libertarian Cole I would have thought you would have appreciated the basic right to life.
skinner: I do believe in the right to life for humans - but, a fetus is not a human. Many libertarians (including Rothbard and Block) take a very similar approach to abortion.
I thought libertarians life personal control of ones own life? How is pro-life a libertarian position?
Most doctors won't help you randomly cut off a body part indiscriminately, though. I agree that a woman has an absolute right over her body, but it isn't quite accurate to say there are absolutely no limits whatsoever from a medical perspective.
Then I'll cut it off myself. If enough people started doing that, then I'm sure it would be provided in a safe environment (provided there was a reason for my amputating my limbs).
Sorry, sometimes things I say make sense, and then sometimes...
Cole have you studied biology yet?
Haha Beach I know people do that - it makes me think of that Grey's Anatomy episode where dude just takes a chainsaw to his leg and goes to town. I'm actually extremely pro-choice, just noting that it isn't exactly the same as any random body part.
A fetus is human. It's just the early stages of human growth. It is also not part of the mother's body. It has its own DNA, heart, lungs, brain, etc. If you're choosing science as the basis for your belief at least be truthful.
I noticed I agree with Cole on a lot aside from economics, that's pretty interesting, I he always posts good replies.
YEP, cold hearted! When you consider an embryo the equivalent to a toenail or a hair or a snot it's just plain cold hearted! Sorry.
Ron, calling someone cold hearted for having a different perspective is not helpful. I could just as easily accuse pro-lifers of personally hating women as evidenced by wanting them to carry pregnancies and give birth against their will.
That's not logical to say pro-lifers hate women. It can be considered cold-hearted to compare a growing human being to a body part. There's no comparison there.
Kscott, pro-lifers want to impose extreme physical burdens on women and restrict their rights in a way it has no notions of doing to men. This is a FACT. Characterize however helps you sleep at night, but it is a fact. It is comparable.
You know how to prevent "extreme physical burdens" that are unwanted? Don't get pregnant. Pro-lifers want to protect innocent life, not punish women.
Men can't get pregnant, you know, so...
You can't force a woman NOT to get pregnant AND not allow her to control her own pregnancy! What are you? A dictator? You yell at me over the constitution, and then you propose unconstitutional things!
She can control her own pregnancy, just not murder the innocent life growing inside. I support the constitution the way it was written prior to Roe v Wade.
For anyone who cares to join me, I'm just going to start ignoring pro-lifers. I can only be called "murderer" so many times before I get nasty, which pisses me off bc I'm not a nasty person. I'm just done. So, kscott and others, you're ignored now.
Not all pro-lifers btw. Just the name callers. Call me a "murderer," buh-bye.
@bethany, why do you think I stopped commenting? Kscott can't comment without making someone feel ridiculous. I'll take back that comment I posted earlier about being surprised an abortion thread was so respectful. Well that's been ruined.
Yeah, Beach, I'm sitting here beating myself up for letting curly get the best of me earlier. I politely asked him to stop name calling, he said he wouldn't, I lashed out in a flash of anger and now I'm upset I did it. So I'm just ignoring them all.
Pro lifers- pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-healthcare and thinks kids should starve if their parents are losers
I value my relaxed weekends too much for this shit. I am all for thoughtful conversations, but when you keep yelling "murderer" at frightened young women continually over & over, it's clear there's no reasoned discussion to be had. Done trying.
Poor Ab, just don 't get it! I know nice democraps that don't believe in abortion, believe in death sentences, and opposite what you said. Same for republidopes. Can't pigeonhole.
They always feel morally superior to all of "us."
Did I mention parties? I'm talking majority of pro lifers as a group. Keep up
Ab, why would a person that believes that life begins at inception also believe that kid should starve because of poor parents? Why degrade them to that point if they have their pro life convictions. Silly.
The lawmakers who support banning abortion always propose cutting food stamps. Who's that affect?
So abolitionist it's good to be pro life in Regards to convicts but it's bad in regards to children? Pick one and stick with it, be pro life or pro death.
I could care less if the state executes ppl
Excuse me I thought we were talking about an individuals belief in abortion and not lawmakers. Sorry.
Lawmakers aren't individuals?
I didn't call you or anyone else on here a murderer but, please, continue playing the victim role. I said aborting an innocent life is murder. Disagree? Whatever lets you sleep at night. But a civilized society doesn't kill innocent human life.
And I don't think kids should starve. If they have deadbeat parents they should be taken away from them and given a real chance with a family that love them. Providing free money that they'll use for their beer and drug habit is not helping children.
And for the record, I think its extremely depressing that a woman would call having a child an "extreme physical burden." Please tell me you don't have children or even plan to. I would feel terrible for that child.
Kscott was the logical voice in this conversation. The other side switched over to ad hominem half way through.
Actually, civilized societies don't let legislators tell women that they have to have medical tools forced in them when abortion is perfectly legal.
Thank you, rightway.
Beach, other than the abortion performed via medicine, how do you think they are performed? By sticking metal tools into them, tearing apart the fetus, and sucking out the remnants. Sound civilized? I worked in surgery for
14 yrs and have seen the procedure up close and personal. It's foul. You want rights for all humans, yes? Just not the ones born yet. You realize kids are also dependent upon others as are many disabled. Development continues throughout your life too
If you feel ridiculous its because internally you know it's wrong. Yes, I do think many people have lost their way and all sense of morality in pursuit of their personal wants and needs.
While abortion is always immoral it should be legal until 20 weeks
If it is immoral why should it be legal? That is an interesting opinion.
Government should not be concerned with people's personal morality. That's why I'm in favor of legalizing many forms of drugs
WHAT?! Do you just change your argument for ever poll? You just said elsewhere that government should enact mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds because they really shouldn't even allow abortions.
It is not just personal morality skinner. We aren't talking about what the mother does to herself, but what is done to her child. This involves two people, not one. And one of them has no say in whether it lives or dies.
Come on! Make it 21! Personally I think you should be able to abort until they react the age of majority!
@Beach I didn't change my argument I never said they should have ultrasounds I just said I'm not actively opposed to it. Also I never said they shouldn't allow abortions
@Curly: I believe, based on the scientific rules of life, that the fetus is not a love until 20 weeks.
You're kidding me. Okay. Well, like I said on the other poll where you said that, keep being like THOSE republicans.
Okay nice talking to you too beach.
Beach is way off the far left diving board.
What proven scientific rule of says the 20 weeks it the point of human life? Hello Tom Cruise!
What do you mean not alive? Because clearly it is alive, or at the very least made up of living tissues. Besides, the definition of life is debated in science, and IMO doesn't apply here b/c it is in the middle of reproduction/development.
@curly, I misunderstand.
@moderate, Yeah :D I've softened, though.
Until the fetus is alive I think it is safe to abort. Look at the beginning of the 3rd page
Tell me exactly how you think a 20 week old fetus does not fit these categories.
Adult stem cells do this, too.
...or fit the description, rather.
Every cell in your body fits this description, beach. That's why I said at the very least a fetus is made up of living tissues; it is not a rock. But when considering these factors, you need to consider the entire organism, that is the whole fetus.
Stem cells nor specialized cells fit everything on that list. Only a biological organism does, which has multiple systems of organs made up of tissues and cells.
At 20 weeks. If you poke it will it move on it's own free will?
Yes Ron, and that is not the only way to stimulate, but I know what u mean :)
Kskott, that's why I said the organism as a whole needs to be considered. Individual cells do replicate, but in a eukaryotic organism that does not equate to reproduction of the entire organism, i know.
Beach, let me give u a correct application of those criteria, ok? It's very simple, really.
Homo sapiens are alive, according to the criteria of life above. A fetus is a Homo sapiens. Ergo, a fetus is alive.
Curly, I was supporting your statements
I know buddy, I was just clarifying myself :)
I think that if a woman has had multiple abortions due to a lack of being responsible then that's probably taking it too far. I wouldn't say anything and it's her right to choose but at some point you need to learn responsibility rather than using
Abortion as birth control. Otherwise, I can't think of any other situations that would be crossing the line.
As pro-life, yes. If the life of the mother is at risk. At that point, it is a life for a life scenario, and it is not my place to judge which life is more valuable.
It becomes wrong a certain amount of time into the pregnancy.
How much time?
I'd have to do more research into what systems develop at what times to be able to accurately determine a time.
What does that matter? What systems would it depend on?
Well, I know that a fetus doesn't have the nerve endings required to feel anything until around 20 weeks, and those nerves aren't connected to the brain until several weeks after that. I'd also have to look into how long it takes for the brain to
develop before I could decide.
So ending the life of a person with an underdeveloped nervous system is ok? Essentially, that is what you're saying, yea?
It's here as long as its in her body taking her nutrients from her bloodstream supported by her eating habits.
Notice all the HERS and no OURS.
It "is" her? So up until her due date, she has two brains? Four arms, four legs, 2 spines? It is obviously a separate entity. That's kind of the whole point of reproduction, after all.
That's where I stand, Skarface.
You're misunderstanding me. Hers meaning it is not yours. Meaning that while it relies on her nutrients and her life, it belongs to her, not you.
If I had a tumor (which is living) I wouldn't expect you to say that I can't cut it out because of what it has the POTENTIAL to become.
Haha well of course it is not mine! And do not equate a tumor with a developing child. A fetus IS a developing human being, it cannot be anything else besides that. A tumor is not developing into another individual.
Besides, with your previously stated view, anything that lives off off your nutrients IS you. Are parasites "you", because they live within u and use your nutrients? No, they are separate entities.
Once again, I did not say they ARE her. No where did I say that, and then I repeated that I did not say that.
Also, that's why I included that last sentence "potential to become something."
Alright then, what does it matter that the child belongs to her, and not me? She has the right to kill her own children, but I don't have the right to kill her children? Is that what you're saying?
A fetus isn't a child. Do you look at an egg and say "that's a chicken!" because if not, you're being inconsistent.
I'm saying she has a right to end her OWN pregnancy, yes. Radical thought, I know. Small govt and personal freedoms aren't that common within the Republican Party.
Is it a fertilized egg? In that case, it is a developing chicken. You destroy that fertilized egg, you stop a chicken from existing. Embryo, fetus, infant, adolescent, adult; these are all descriptors of the same being, just different stages of dev.
Ah, ok. So she has the right to end her OWN child's life. Well, here is where debate goes no further, and we acknowledge that we disagree. Completely, utterly, disagree. Why even stop at a fetus. You aren't legally your own until 18, after all.
I'm pro-choice, but "morally" I think an abortion should be done ASAP after finding out one is pregnant, if that's the route they decide to take, and only done late in if the fetus has severe physical or mental disabilities discovered.
But I don't legally think its wrong, it's just a personal feeling of how I'd hope others went about it.
My issue with this are the huge number of restrictions put on abortions. Wait periods, restricted access, travel times, etc. All of these are tactics used by pro-fetus groups to close the window for legal, safe abortions.
So personally your first post, legally the status quo?
That's how I feel as well. I think 22 weeks is more then enough time to figure it out
I can definitely agree with that Kris. Aren't late term abortions illegal in most places anyway?
22 weeks, if you are a person who lives in an area with adequate sex education, no wait periods, close access, and monetary assistance.
Kelsey: depends on the state.
I get what you're saying cite, and agree when it comes to those people, I just don't experience that in Oregon. Either way it's not like I would do anything to prevent anyone from getting an abortion.
I have a friend who found out she was pregnant at 3 weeks and didn't get an abortion (which she knew immediately she wanted) until 12 weeks. We don't have to jump through hoops here, she was just putting it off. And she hates kids so it wasn't like
she was having some inner debate on whether or not to do it, she was just being lazy. I would never prevent her from it either way I just think if you know you're going to do it and you have the opportunity then get it done.
I know most people commenting are likely pro-choice. For me, here in Texas, we need to be very careful of laws like this. It's a trap to make abortion effectively illegal, but many pro-choice people will vote in favor.
Yeah I've heard a lot of sketchy things are happening in Texas regarding abortions lately.
There is a reason I watched that filibuster as long as I could online.
I will not question a woman's right to have agency of her body. I will not second guess her decisions in regards to her body.
Her body. Not mine. Not anyone else's. Hers.
You know when you say things like this, you're practically taunting someone pro-life to say, "it's not just her body. It's the body of her child within her that is being destroyed."
I know. It bothers me not at all.
How does it not bother you? We aren't talking about what she does with her body. You're right, I don't have any say in how she cuts her hair or what she does to her own arms and legs. We ARE talking about the other body, who has a right to live too.
She has a right to live. She has volition and agency. A fetus does not. It's her body. It's her choice.
dude, you just agreed with me that it isn't just her body. She is NOT making a decision for herself alone, she is making a decision for two people. And one of those people, the child, doesn't get a say in whether it lives or dies. that's wrong.
If you read my statement as agreement, then you're doing it wrong.
Curly, if we assume for a moment that your distinction is the proper one, i.e., that the primary difference between your position and cite's is that a fetus is not part of a woman's body, then in that case, do you agree a pregnant woman has the right
to control her own body and do as she wishes with it?
Yea, she can do what she wants with her body. It's her body. What she or anyone else for that matter should not be able to do, is dictate whether another individual lies or dies based on personal whim.
You keep attempting to interpret my words through your filters. Remember, when reading my posts I do not accept or recognize a fetus as a person.
Okay - what if she wants to skydive, drink copiously, eat raw meat and fish and food from street vendors, scuba dive, work at a chemical plant, and continue taking her prescription amphetamines/benzos/SSRIs? These are all legal for adults.
Bethany, because all those things affect both her and her child, you know this. Are you trying to catch me in some sort of contradiction? Because I'm not seeing it.
The contradiction is that you are saying that a pregnant woman's legal rights as an adult should be curtailed based on the fact that she is pregnant. So this IS, in fact, a debate about what she should be allowed to do with her body.
Not the simply the fact that she is pregnant, but the fact that those things do not solely affect her and her own health. All of those things are not worried about the mother's health, they are looking out for the child's health, as am I.
Her food, drink, medications, ability to make a living, and mental wellbeing most certainly are about her health. And her actions affect the fetus only because she is pregnant - so yes, it is purely about her status of pregnancy.
Oh wait I see what you're saying - that people don't mind curtailing women's rights because they don't care about women's health. I can't say I disagree, although I have never seen a pro-lifer admit that before.
Haha oh you are quite the word twister aren't you? I care about women. I am married to one, after all. What I don't understand, is why do you completely disregard the health of the child on the whims of the mother?
Pregnancy intricately involves a woman's body - I am aware of this, I'm not stupid. But the woman's body is not what is at stake here, it is not the woman's body being destroyed, or that is allowed to be murdered on the volition of her parent.
Curly, it's not any more helpful to claim I "don't care" about the fetus than for me to claim you don't care about women. That was my point; I thought the sarcasm was obvious. As you note, pregnancy inherently involves weighing some EXTREME physical
burdens against a potential child's ability to grow long enough to have a functioning body. No pro-choice person pretends it is an easy decision. I wish pro-lifers would stop so pretending. You are asking a LOT of pregnant women and it frustrates me
when I see people pretending that carrying a pregnancy to term is no big deal. Especially when those people aren't ever going to be asked to make those sacrifices. The way the pro-life movement writes women off in its rhetoric is disrespectful IMO.
You may be right to a degree, and I apologize if that is how it comes across. I know how difficult pregnancy is, I am not trying to undermine that. But you must try to understand, that when contrasted against murder, several months of discomfort...
becomes disproportionately insignificant. It is not out of disrespect to women and their difficulties that you may hear such language. Rather it is out of the unbelievable shock that human life could be so devalued that u hear extreme language.
I appreciate the apology, but again, terms like "murder" don't help. I understand and acknowledge that an abortion ends the life of a human fetus. I understand that you (understandably) place a very high value on that life. I don't think it is fair
You are correct. The shock of so devaluing a woman and reducing her simply to an incubator enslaved to a fetus with zero agency can cause passionate responses.
or helpful to call a woman a "murderer" simply because she does not wish to host that valuable life INSIDE HER BODY. It may be undesirable or even wrong, but to call it "murder" is inherently, IMO, to devalue the woman's bodily integrity. The only
way for her to avoid pregnancy - something that is dangerous and physically painful and may cause permanent damage to her body - is to kill the fetus. That's just the state of modern medicine. IMO it is cruel to tell a woman that if she does not
want to subject herself to those extreme sacrifices, she is a "murderer." I wish that more pro-lifers would exercise just an ounce of empathy for the women they are asking to undertake these extreme and risky and painful sacrifices.
To unjustly end a life is murder, no? One who murders is a murderer, no? Why not call it what it is. I will tell you what the issue is. Dehumanization. The unborn have been dehumanized. Literally. It disgusts me.
, I don't think every woman who gets an abortion is a conscious murderer. They see it like cite does, "just" a "fetus." But if that's wrong, then they are murderers;who wants that? No none. They're just scared, and wish they weren't pregnant.
"They're just scared, and wish they weren't pregnant." Yes! That's precisely my point! Calling them "murderers" and presuming to decide that their decision is "unjust" is basically imposing your judgment in place of theirs. Who are you to tell them
they don't have the right not to play host to another living being? If you have a parasite in your stomach that causes you occasional gas and nausea, you have the right to remove (i.e., kill) it. I know that a parasite is not human but I am trying to
get you to understand how terrifying it is to be told you do not have the right to live independently in your own body. Can you even conceive of that??? I concede this is a choice of two undesirable options but I cannot choose the option that imposes
on the rights of someone who IS HERE AND IS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENT HUMAN BEING just to save the chance that another being will eventually grow into being likewise fully functioning and independent. It isn't about "dehumanizing" a fetus; it is
about recognizing the reality and difficulty of the situation in a nuanced and rational way.
I know they're scared and don't want to be pregnant, but my point is that that innocent intention does not change the gruesome reality that they're still murdering their children! They don't want to be murderers, so they don't believe it's murder.
That is wishful thinking, that is not justification for ending your child's life.
Curly: what gives you the right to say that? And, have you ever been told that if YOU want to kick out someone who has taken up residence in YOUR body, YOU are a murderer? I highly doubt it. I do not see you working on exercising much empathy here.
I'm sorry, but the choice is not whether or not to kill your baby once your pregnant. The choice is whether or not to get pregnant, or take the risk of getting pregnant.
I, as every American is, am guaranteed the right to life. I have every right to protect my fellow Americans, and my fellow humans, right to live. That means protecting the unborn. I completely understand how scary an unwanted pregnancy would be.
Let me tell you what I want, hmm? Maybe that will make you feel better. I want contraception available to every woman, I want every woman to have affordable reproductive Health service, I want them to have the ability to safe fully and guiltlessly
As an American, do you have the right to live inside another person's body? No. You don't even have the right to live in someone else's house. In some states, it is legal to LITERALLY KILL someone just for trespassing. Should we change those laws?
Give up an unwanted child to adoption. Basically, I will support anything and everything to help a woman deal with her pregnancy and care for her unexpected child, EXCEPT killing that child! That is murder, it is utterly inexcusable.
And the choice to have sex is not the choice to become pregnant. I'm not having the slut-shaming conversation with you. It's tired, it's played out, and it's beyond sexist.
Okay, so want to change the law so people have to host squatters for nine months, and then they can kick them out to find a new home? Or is it only women on whom you are willing to impose the AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION to keep someone alive?
Curly, I will ask you one last time to stop calling dear friends of mine "murderers." If you won't stop, this conversation is over.
The man is as much to blame for a woman getting pregnant as she is. And the men who ditch the chick and baby are fucking assholes who are the scum of the earth, IMO. They are the problem, too. I'm not guilting sluts. I'm saying sex makes babies.
Haha, so getting pregnant is *tresspassing*? Wow, I've never heard that one before. Any excuse to justify ending an unwanted child's life. By this point, we both know this convo is going no where. I will not stop calling murder what it is, but I do..
Okay, misogynist. I tried to be polite, but you just don't know when to quit with the name-calling. We can talk again someday if you grow the ability to consider others' perspectives.
...have sympathy for your friends. They have been lied to, told that what they've doing is responsible and safe. It's not necissarily their fault they think the murder of the unborn is a permissible alternative to pregnancy. The entire democratic
Party has been trying to convince them of it for their entire lives, under the guise of a "right to choose." No one has the right to chose an innocent child. It is not the babies fault the mother is pregnant, either.
I DO consider others perspectives Bethany, and you know it. You even agreed with me. Can u even consider the possibility that what your friends did was wrong, and that they were fooled into thinking it was ok? Even consider the possibility? No.
I am not a misogynist. I haven't called you a single name. I am calling murder murder. I am not saying your friends were cruel intentioned, but I am saying that what they did was wrong. Even if they didn't understand it.
If the mother's life is truly in danger, then yes, an abortion may be justified.