Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply puritysourcelabs US-PHARMACIES
UGL OZ Raptor Labs UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAKUS-PHARMACIESRaptor Labs

Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

FreakMonster

New member
When does human person hood begin?

The press, religious leaders, and others often emphasize uncompromising differences between pro-life and pro-choice beliefs. But, in reality, the two sides agree on almost everything: An ovum is a form of life.
An ovum is not a human person.
A spermatozoa is a form of life.
A spermatozoa is not a human person.
At or shortly after conception, a fertilized ovum is a form of life.
An embryo is a form of life.
A fetus is a form of life.
A newborn baby is a form of life.
A newborn baby is a human person.
Somewhere during the nine months between the ovum-spermatozoa stage and the newborn baby, human personhood begins.
When human personhood begins, an abortion should not be allowed, except under very unusual circumstances.


The only real difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers involves the question when does human personhood begins. Most pro-lifers believe it happens at conception. Most pro-choicers say that it happens later in pregnancy.
 
Hate to re-hash this topic, but pro-life. Choice is made to have intercourse, and consequences can occur. Let the flames begin.
 
pro choice

what happens to the unwanted baby. that not a life for a child. a child should be loved with all your heart. let them have a baby only if they are going to love it and take care of it.
 
I'm both. A woman has a right to choose. But she should not put herself in a position that she has to.

As long as capital punishment exists, I won't understand the pro-life movement that doesn't urge abolishment of capital punishment.

Until then I feel free to ignore their BS.
 
strongchick said:
I'm both. A woman has a right to choose. But she should not put herself in a position that she has to.

As long as capital punishment exists, I won't understand the pro-life movement that doesn't urge abolishment of capital punishment.

Until then I feel free to ignore their BS.

I like how you move from a mature statement to labeling others' opinions as bs. The difference between capital punishment and abortion has already been discussed, you're welcome to search for it.
 
For the love of God do we have to go over this shit again!!??!?! Every two weeks we talk about abortion, and you know what?

Nobody changes their minds!!! Instead it becomes a 10 page arguement!! You guys are wasting your time.
 
The Nature Boy said:
For the love of God do we have to go over this shit again!!??!?! Every two weeks we talk about abortion, and you know what?

Nobody changes their minds!!! Instead it becomes a 10 page arguement!! You guys are wasting your time.

Nevermind, I'm all for abortion.

























j/k :)
 
Days of the Tantric said:
Although my Irish Catholic family would never speak to me again, if they knew, I am definitely pro-choice. That does not mean, though, that I would have urged anyone I was with to get an abortion. I would probably lean more toward pro life if it came to me taking part in that decision on a personal basis, but I do believe women should have the right to choose.

I see no difference between late-term abortions and murder.

If you want to fuck, you'd better deal with the consequences. What is so wrong with adoption?
 
The Nature Boy said:
For the love of God do we have to go over this shit again!!??!?! Every two weeks we talk about abortion, and you know what?

Nobody changes their minds!!! Instead it becomes a 10 page arguement!! You guys are wasting your time.

Sorry bro, I didn't know this topic was discussed so much in the past. If you want I'll delete it!!!!!!!!
 
FreakMonster said:


Sorry bro, I didn't know this topic was discussed so much in the past. If you want I'll delete it!!!!!!!!

doesnt' matter to me, it wasn't really addressed to you. I was merely talking to myself. My beef is that nothing changes when it comes to abortion. People rarely change their minds on the subject.

Personally I think we need to kill more people.
 
For myself, I'm pro life (enless there was a rape that resulted in pregnancy). I don't think I could have an abortion nor could I imagine giving a baby up for adoption enless the circumstance was stated as above.

I think that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she's ready to be a parent. I am also SO glad that abortion is legal as it's done in a safe and sterile enviroment the scary non-professional ones done prior to legalization. It would be an unbelievably hard decision to make but ultimately, people need to do what's best for themselves.
 
dgreenhill said:
How about we develope a new code its called Pro-responsiblity..

That way everyone is happy..because you take full responsiblity for your actions before, during and after the sexual act.

sounds like pro-life to me.
 
Of course I'm pro-choice. Anyone who has actually been through an abortion with a woman knows what a trauma it is. It's always depicted by pro-lifers as something frivolously undertaken and it is not. It is an immensely difficult and painful decision.

People can have their own opinions about this but until they are actually in the situation -- as in the case of medically necessary abortions -- they have no idea.

Nobody's requiring pro-lifers to abort fetuses.
 
ttlpkg said:


Especially for the innocent recepient.

If you believe consciousness and sentience begin in utero, then, of course, YOU should not abort a fetus -- not that you can personally carry one. But if your wife feels the same way, cool.

As a psychologist, I've supported women on both sides of this. I think it's personal. Nobody should have to justify themselves.
 
For all the pro-lifers who say that abortion is wrong except if the victim is raped, what is the difference? It's still murder isn't it?
 
gorilla_boy said:


EXACTLY.

Someone has to speak for them.

If prolifers put nearly as much energy into advocating for America's unbelievably abused children, they'd do us all a favor.

But in my experience the same people who claim they want to speak for the entire class of the "unborn," inevitably say the rest of us shouldn't interfere in the upbringing of other people's children. It's an almost predictable contradiction.
 
smallmovesal said:
well then the pro life people can keep the fetuses and they'll be adopted. problem solved.

yeah right. tell that to all the kids an orphanages. oh where, I ask you, are the pro-lifers to help these poor children??? :bawling:
 
The Nature Boy said:


yeah right. tell that to all the kids an orphanages. oh where, I ask you, are the pro-lifers to help these poor children??? :bawling:

exactly....

well, I'm late for lunch, as much as I'd like to work myself into a frothing rage over abortion.
 
I'm pro-choice, pro-privacy rights....I'm certainly not anti-choice and anti-privacy.

It's really a simple issue: Does a woman have the constitutionally protected right to privacy? Thus far the Supreme Court, under Justice Blackmun, has said---YES!!! Abortion is protected by the United States Constitution under the substantive due process clause/right to privacy principle, has been for about 30 years. But, with the Bush v. Gore extremist court, there might be an upcoming battle to protect our nation's health and a woman's fundamental right to privacy. Surely, the women in our great nation will prevail.

Ryan.
 
smallmovesal said:


good point.

it would seem to me, and this maybe a generalization so I don't want to cause an uproar.... but the pro-lifers only care about fetuses, they don't seem to care about babies once they're born. What happens to the black kid that nobody wants to adopt? Or the kid with AIDS? OR the kid with downs syndrome? Oh where are you pro-lifers?!?!?!

Also, lets pretend we live in a fantasy world where there are no abortions. WHO'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE FUCKING KIDS THAT DON'T GET ADOPTED!?!?!??! Oh no, not us. We don't want to spend money on social programs to take care of those damn kids.
 
The Nature Boy said:


Also, lets pretend we live in a fantasy world where there are no abortions. WHO'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE FUCKING KIDS THAT DON'T GET ADOPTED!?!?!??! Oh no, not us. We don't want to spend money on social programs to take care of those damn kids.

We should export them as food to the Koreans, in order to discourage the consumption of dogs.
 
musclebrains said:


We should export them as food to the Koreans, in order to discourage the consumption of dogs.

no shit. the unwanted kids who dont' get adopted are basically treated like unwanted dogs. And unwanted dogs can bite when they are allowed to run free in society. A child without loving parents and love in it;s life is a walking time bomb.
 
The Nature Boy said:


yeah right. tell that to all the kids an orphanages. oh where, I ask you, are the pro-lifers to help these poor children??? :bawling:

We're keeping our pants on and our legs down. Can't handle the consequences, don't partake in the deed. I really like how you expressed your disappointment at the intiation of this thread, but now go with the majority and bash pro-life advocates. Which is it? Are you disappointed, or just a hypocrite?
 
musclebrains said:


If prolifers put nearly as much energy into advocating for America's unbelievably abused children, they'd do us all a favor.

But in my experience the same people who claim they want to speak for the entire class of the "unborn," inevitably say the rest of us shouldn't interfere in the upbringing of other people's children. It's an almost predictable contradiction.


Of course, you would see this. I would like to see what you mentioned happen. Channel that "energy" into the children, the abused children. Won't happen.....too much like right.
 
spentagn said:


We're keeping our pants on and our legs down. Can't handle the consequences, don't partake in the deed. I really like how you expressed your disappointment at the intiation of this thread, but now go with the majority and bash pro-life advocates. Which is it? Are you disappointed, or just a hypocrite?

no i got dragged into this stupid thread. I'm not bashing pro-life advocates, I'm bashing the pro-life stance. I have plenty of friends that are pro-life.

But lets look at what you just said. And answer this. Assuming not everyone has the morals and dicipline as yourself, what of those poor children that go unadopted? Do we not care for them anymore, because their irresponsible parents didn't "keep thieir pants on and legs down"? What should we do? You're a bright person. You tell me.

Notice I'm not trying to change anyones mind because it's impossible, as I stated before.
 
The Nature Boy said:


no i got dragged into this stupid thread. I'm not bashing pro-life advocates, I'm bashing the pro-life stance. I have plenty of friends that are pro-life.

ok. thin line. But noone "dragged you in."

The Nature Boy said:

But lets look at what you just said. And answer this. Assuming not everyone has the morals and dicipline as yourself, what of those poor children that go unadopted? Do we not care for them anymore, because their irresponsible parents didn't "keep thieir pants on and legs down"? What should we do? You're a bright person. You tell me.

Unadopted children are still cared for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not imagining foster care as some rosey environment, but their physical needs are met. Granted, Maslow wouldn't be satisfied, but he's dead. What should we do? Is there any answer I could give that could possibly suffice on this issue to a group that doesn't agree with me? I think not. As you yourself just said:
Notice I'm not trying to change anyones mind because it's impossible, as I stated before.

But NOTHING could convince me that aborting a life, especially if to soley prevent the risk of not being adopted, is in any way worth it. The opportunity cost is too high. What could that life have become? Who would that child have been? What if?

And on a side note, people that doubt the return of Jesus: It will most likely be prevented because some young, unwed virgin will be surprised at immaculate conception, and society will demand that that child be aborted. Tongue in cheek, folks.
 
spentagn said:


ok. thin line. But noone "dragged you in."


why are you harping on this subject? why do you care? I stated that this topic basically sucked because nothing changes when it's all said and done. However, I felt that my valued and enlightened insight was needed on this thread. If you want to argue on the topic, lets do so. However if you want to bicker on why I posted my intelligent opinions on this thread and call me a hypocrite we can PM each other and spare these good people such nonsense.

Look, I agree abortion is wrong. But there is much that is wrong with society, and abortion is a necessary evil, IMO. I'm sure if we examined those in prison, we can learn a lot from prisoners. I ask you to guess, and be objective now, what sort of family life did those inmates have? did they even have one? would society have been better of had they not been born?

And again, I'll say this one more time. Those that grow up unloved and unwanted, will exact a terrible toll on society. Abortion eliminates that. It's wrong. But sadly true.
 
I am Pro-Choice. I believe every man and woman has a right to choose whether or not they want to have sex.

I don't see what the big debate is about.

-Warik
 
The Nature Boy said:
Look, I agree abortion is wrong. But there is much that is wrong with society, and abortion is a necessary evil, IMO.

There is no such thing as a necessary evil. All evil is unnecessary. We cannot abandon our morals and our principles whenever it becomes convenient for us. Innocent life is precious and should be preserved at all costs. All sentient beings have the right to choose their fates.

Why don't we apply this to slavery? All the big fat white plantation owners couldn't possibly work those fields alone, and it would be much to expensive to hire a lot of hands to do the work for them, so they just buy some slaves cheap and have them work. Is slavery a barbaric stain on humanity's past, or is it also a "necessary evil?"

-Warik
 
Warik said:
I am Pro-Choice. I believe every man and woman has a right to choose whether or not they want to have sex.

I don't see what the big debate is about.

-Warik

:rolleyes:

that was lame. you can do better than that.
 
The Nature Boy said:


why are you harping on this subject? why do you care? I stated that this topic basically sucked because nothing changes when it's all said and done. However, I felt that my valued and enlightened insight was needed on this thread. If you want to argue on the topic, lets do so. However if you want to bicker on why I posted my intelligent opinions on this thread and call me a hypocrite we can PM each other and spare these good people such nonsense.

Look, I agree abortion is wrong. But there is much that is wrong with society, and abortion is a necessary evil, IMO. I'm sure if we examined those in prison, we can learn a lot from prisoners. I ask you to guess, and be objective now, what sort of family life did those inmates have? did they even have one? would society have been better of had they not been born?

And again, I'll say this one more time. Those that grow up unloved and unwanted, will exact a terrible toll on society. Abortion eliminates that. It's wrong. But sadly true.

Would abortions have to occur if people, who weren't willing to accept the consequences, didn't partake in sexual intercourse? Your correlation between inmates and abortion is weak. I'd imagine that many of today's abortions actually are performed on middle and upperclass girls, who have every means of raising a child. And besides, prison populations show an unproportionally high number of XYY males, XXY females, and minorities. Maybe we should just abort those fetuses then, right?

I find it amusing that you suggest I bicker about your motivations for posting on this thread. Maybe next time you'll quote and reply to the meat of my response. In other words, if you choose to respond, don't just quote this paragraph and ignore the substance.
 
spentagn said:
if you choose to respond, just quote this paragraph and ignore the substance.

ok. :D

actually i wanted to ask you if you have ever had sex and been afraid the girl was pregnant, OR if you have ever had sex with someone you weren't necessarily sure you'd want to raise a child with.
 
Pro-choice. I'm not a christian, and I don't appreciate it when people try to lay their christian beliefs on me, especially here in the US, where church and state are divided by law.
 
smallmovesal said:

actually i wanted to ask you if you have ever had sex and been afraid the girl was pregnant, OR if you have ever had sex with someone you weren't necessarily sure you'd want to raise a child with.

The ultimate selfish act would be to kill the unborn baby because of those type of reasons. Of course you could justify it by saying to yourself: "I wouldn't want to bring a baby into the world until I can provide the best type of loving home. It wouldn't be fair to the child."

So let's just kill it so it won't cramp my style.
 
Most of you will probably skip this cause it is so long but:

For all those who say Oh, well, if you want to have sex then be responsible or deal with the consequences. If only it were so simplistic. ACCIDENTS happen regardless of how responsible you are, whether you use birth control pills, condoms, etc. Unless you are infertile, no fail-safe bc methods exist. Condoms break. Pills fail.

For those who believe that abortion is murder, how do you feel about mercy killing? Because an unwanted child is unwanted for many many reasons and likely to have a miserable life. There may be no emotional support for the mother, not even the a-hole who bolted. No financial support. What's funny is, most pro-lifers also seem to want to take away the welfare program. Have your eyes been opened to see those mothers barely making it by at the local shelter with their 10 kids because they don't belive in abortion or cannot afford it?? How do you propose a problem like that be solved?

For men who have very strong opinions about this, please do not ever tell a woman what to do on this issue. Hopefully you can understand that you will understand that you can never fully comprehend what a women must go through mentally and physically when she is faced with such an extraordinary decision.

I speak from seeing these things happen with my own eyes. I speak from knowing women who have struggled with the decision. That doesn't mean there are no women who are frivolous with abortion, they'll get what is coming to them, and they are not yours or my problem to deal with.
 
that's really harsh.

have you ever known anyone who's gone through an abortion? it's a very tough decision to make and not trivial at all.

i don't know how i personally would handle the news of a pregnancy but i sure as hell wouldn't judge someone else for choosing to abort.

regardless, you missed the point of my statement. i asked him that because he stated essentially that one should keep his/her pants on if child-rearing is not in the cards... so i asked if he's ever in his life engaged in that type of behaviour.
 
polarpixie said:
Most of you will probably skip this cause it is so long but:

ACCIDENTS happen regardless of how responsible you are, whether you use birth control pills, condoms, etc. Unless you are infertile, no fail-safe bc methods exist. Condoms break. Pills fail.

{Therefore don't have sex if you're not willing to see the possible pregnancy through}

What's funny is, most pro-lifers also seem to want to take away the welfare program. Have your eyes been opened to see those mothers barely making it by at the local shelter

{Many of those shelters are owned by churches supported by conservatives}

For men who have very strong opinions about this, please do not ever tell a woman what to do on this issue

{That is BS in my opinion. Why should a man have any less to say about it? It takes two to tango. If you don't think the man has a vote in wheter or not the baby is born, then are you advocating that he has no responsibility if she decides against his will to have the baby? No child support?}

 
Dead beat Daddyism .

If you are going to take away the right to choose, then we need a foolproof way to get men to share in the responsibility for those children.


I don't understand how pro-life men can preach when they can just walk away. And don't tell me about laws and courts enforcing child support.
 
ttlpkg said:


Sorry smalls if I missed the point, but surely you agree, there is nothing more harsh than abortion.

what are you specifically referencing with your usage of the word "harsh"? that word doesn't quite fit into the context of abortion.

obviously you and i don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, and i feel like you are trying to convince me that i shouldn't feel the way i do. i'm not going to change my stance.

i'm saying that we shouldn't stand in judgement of someone who does what they feel is the best thing to do under the circumstances. it's personal and everyone is different imo.

and perhaps i'll then point you to the question i've asked of spentagon.. have you ever done that?
 
strongchick said:
Dead beat Daddyism .

The Myth of Deadbeat Dads

By Stuart A. Miller
Mr. Miller is the senior legislative analyst for the American Fathers Coalition in Washington, DC



Child-support collection has recently become a big issue in Washington. President Clinton issued an executive order this week, requiring all federal agencies to facilitate the payment of father's debts. And Health and Human Services Secretary Donne Shalala testified that if we collected all of the child support owed by Americans, we would reduce the $200 billion welfare cost by 25%. In fact, Republicans and Democrats alike count on increased child support collections as a cornerstone of their welfare reform plans.

You don't have to be a member of the world champion U.S. Math Olympiad team to see that there is something wrong with those calculations. Even under the raciest projections of the government's Annual Child Support Report. in 1992 (the last year for which data is available), there was about $10.9 Billion court-ordered child support owed by all Americans and, of that a little more than $6 billion was paid. This leaves $4.9 billion in unpaid child support in 1992.– far short of the $5O billion Ms. Shalala hopes to raise.

But It's virtually impossible even to collect the smaller amount of child support obligations. We've tried many times over the past 10 years, yet no effort has increased the percentage of collections for welfare mothers (the biggest target group) by more than 1%.

This is due to a number of factors. First, of the 30% of child support payments not collected, a significant number are owed by fathers who are imprisoned. A high percentage of prisoners have child support obligations, and as many as one-third of the inmates in many county jails are there in the first place because of child support noncompliance.

Many of the other delinquent fathers are addicts, alcoholics, disabled, mentally incapacitated, unemployed, or otherwise unable to pay pre-set child support amounts. But the largest number of all delinquents are those who simply don't exist.

Recently, the Florida Department of Revenue, the agency responsible For child support enforcement In that state, sent out 700,000 notices of allegedly delinquent fathers, The summonses demanded immediate payment or the recipient would be incarcerated.

Subsequently, officials acknowledged that probably 500,000 of those notices were sent to individuals who actually did not owe child support. One of those recipients, daniel Wells, died eight years ago in a traffic accident, but the state still wanted him to cough up $160,000 in past due support! (About the same amount of money Florida wasted on postage for the notices) .

Nor is this an isolated case. The General Accounting Office found in 1992 that as many as 14% of fathers who owe child support are dead. The report further stated that 56% of fathers who owe support "cannot afford to pay the amount ordered."

The easiest way, then, to increase the figures on child-support collections is simply for the government to make an accurate tally. Until this happens, it's Impossible to discus remedies for the child-support problem.

Once a serious discussion gets under way, one of the first items on the agenda should be the Inherent unfairness in taking something away from people and then making them paying for it. Most fathers are deeply committed to their children, yet a 1991 Census Bureau study found that about half of fathers receive no Court-ordered visitation. When fathers do receive visitation, almost 80%k pay all of their child support on time and in full. When fathers receive joint custody, The child support compliance rate Jumps to more than 90%.

Joint Custody is the cure to the child support problem and is the closest thing to a two-parent family that we can give a child. Unfortunately, more than 90% of litigated divorces result in an award of sole custody to the mother.



Even when fathers do receive court-ordered access to their children. Their visitation attempts are often met with interference by the mothers. Joan Berlin Kelley and Judith Wellerstein, in "Surviving the Break-Up" (Basic Books,1990), found that almost half of all mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children following separation or divorce Sanford Braver, a University of Arizona psychologist, confirmed these figures and found that up to 40% of mothers interfere with the dad's relationship with his kids.

Given this documented connection between a father's access to his Children and the payment of child support, why does Washington seem intent on punishing the father? What about the mother who creates a climate encouraging non-Compliance?

One way around this problem may be to make child-support obligations more equitable. At the moment, child support is almost exclusively the burden of fathers. The federal Office of Income Security Policy found in 1991 that less than 30% of custodial fathers receive a child support, award, whereas almost 80% of custodial mothers do.

Yet, about 47% of those mothers who are ordered to pay support totally default oh their obligation, In the interest of fairness, if nothing else, policy makers should make an effort to collect child support from both delinquent fathers and mothers.

But of course the only real long-term answer is to support the two-parent family – preferably in marriage and, if that doesn't work, through joint custody arrangements. We need to re-engage fathers in their children's lives. Draconian transfer-of-wealth schemes will continue to be as ineffective In the future as they have proved to be in the past, no matter how aggressively they are enforced.
 
ttlpkg said:


Walking away is wrong. But abortion is worse than walking away. It is murder.

Given one can't force men to support their children, moral judgements aside, the courts have no business forcing women to have children.
 
strongchick said:


Given one can't force men to support their children, moral judgements aside, the courts have no business forcing women to have children.

agreed.

and on that topic, you would be embarrassed to see the amount of delinquent MEN who have family orders placed on their files where i work... to take money from gov't services they apply for and are entitled to. i have yet to see that on ONE woman's file, though i'm sure that happens too.

it's sick how many there are, really.
 
Last edited:
Don't have sex? Ok. You're right.

You've assumed that I am making the typical argument of A man should have no say in it. That's not what I'm saying. Of course he has a vote. What I am trying to say is that rather than his vote counting for 50% (or hell, 100%?!? in some cases), it should be more like 40%, because a man will never FULLY understand what a woman must go thru for obvious reasons. She is the one who must carry the baby. She is the one who can not abandon (at least not within those 9 months, if she chooses not to abort). Most of the weight is on the woman's shoulders.

Did you know that the health of an unwanted baby may be severly affected in the womb if the mother is emotionally stressed? Not to mention if she doesn't take care of her self and turns to drugs, alcohol, smoking, or simply malnutrtion.

I'm just saying that it's not so simple. It's not so black and white. Choices allow individuals to research and do what is right for them. If the decision end ups being an immoral one (immoral being a subjective term in this issue) it is not up to you to judge.
 
smallmovesal said:


what are you specifically referencing with your usage of the word "harsh"? that word doesn't quite fit into the context of abortion.

i'm saying that we shouldn't stand in judgement of someone who does what they feel is the best thing to do under the circumstances. it's personal and everyone is different imo.

and perhaps i'll then point you to the question i've asked of spentagon.. have you ever done that?

Harsh. Cruel. Mean. Wrong.

How can murder of an innocent be the best thing to do under any circumstances?

Have I ever been faced with difficult decisions regarding pregnancy? Yes.
 
strongchick said:


Given one can't force men to support their children, moral judgements aside, the courts have no business forcing women to have children.

Let's hope moral judgements are never aside. The courts do have the responsibility to protect the lives of innocents.
 
you should post a poll...


when does a collection of cells become a human, that's the question right?

partial birth abotions just make me :sick:
 
ttlpkg said:


Harsh. Cruel. Mean. Wrong.

How can murder of an innocent be the best thing to do under any circumstances?

Have I ever been faced with difficult decisions regarding pregnancy? Yes.


But you speak from the perspective of a _responsible_ sperm squirter.

There are many out there unfit to raise a child.
 
smallmovesal said:
that's really harsh.

have you ever known anyone who's gone through an abortion? it's a very tough decision to make and not trivial at all.

i don't know how i personally would handle the news of a pregnancy but i sure as hell wouldn't judge someone else for choosing to abort.

regardless, you missed the point of my statement. i asked him that because he stated essentially that one should keep his/her pants on if child-rearing is not in the cards... so i asked if he's ever in his life engaged in that type of behaviour.

abortion is NOT a contraceptive
 
polarpixie said:
If the decision end ups being an immoral one (immoral being a subjective term in this issue) it is not up to you to judge.

But it is our duty to be the voice and advocate or the unborn.
 
Hey ttl, props to you for accepting your share of the responsibility. It looks to me like you're pretty happy you did too (avatar). Sadly, one reason why abortion is even a consideration for some women is that there are alot of boys who are not willing to shoulder that responsibility.
 
ttlpkg said:


Have I ever been faced with difficult decisions regarding pregnancy? Yes.

ok but that's just part of the question. i asked if you have ever had sex with someone who you had no intentions of specifically creating or rearing a child with.

have you?
 
i cant believe what some of you are saying, its not like you are pro CHOICE, its more like you are pro ABORTION.

if we became a society of pro life, people would be FORCED to practice safe sex, and im certain that in due time the number of abortions desired would GREATLY reduce.

with these attitudes, abortions become (or i should say, will REMAIN) as secondary methods of birth control, which they absolutely should NEVER be.

other than in cases of rape or perhaps incest, really think about what an abortion is...sure, the woman has to go through a LOT of stress in those 9 months, which i won't even begin to describe...but perhaps she should have thought of that before she had sex in a situation in which she KNEW she would NOT be able to support a child.

&#@(*&#@(*r3098y:rolleyes:
 
smallmovesal said:


ok but that's just part of the question. i asked if you have ever had sex with someone who you had no intentions of specifically creating or rearing a child with.

have you?

That's a very personal question. The answer is yes, but in the back of my mind I had to ask: "damn, what do I do if she gets pregnant?, God forbid!". The answer would be to encourage and support that the baby be born, possibly for adoption, etc. The lesson learned for me is to try to avoid such situations, and keep a condom in my wallet at all times just in case I'm seduced by some vixen unawares.
 
mattcanning99 said:


other than in cases of rape or perhaps incest, really think about what an abortion is...sure, the woman has to go through a LOT of stress in those 9 months, which i won't even begin to describe...but perhaps she should have thought of that before she had sex in a situation in which she KNEW she would NOT be able to support a child.

&#@(*&#@(*r3098y:rolleyes:

at the same time it's like you are saying the woman should be "punished" with pregnancy for an err in judgement. what about the father?
 
ttlpkg said:


That's a very personal question. The answer is yes, but in the back of my mind I had to ask: "damn, what do I do if she gets pregnant?, God forbid!". The answer would be to encourage and support that the baby be born, possibly for adoption, etc. The lesson learned for me is to try to avoid such situations, and keep a condom in my wallet at all times just in case I'm seduced by some vixen unawares.

EXACTLY...having sex in a situation where you do not WANT a child is one thing...there is a BIG difference between having sex in a situation where you are UNWILLING to support the child if one is born.
 
Last edited:
smallmovesal said:


at the same time it's like you are saying the woman should be "punished" with pregnancy for an err in judgement. what about the father?

physically, the father can't support the child, so there is NO way to share many of the pains on the part of the woman, however, more legal efforts should be put forth to FORCING the man to provide support, if at the very LEAST, financial support. pregnancy is as much the responsibility of the man as the woman, although, unfortunately, it can never entirely be like that...so men who get women pregnant should be made to support the child (in pregnancy, and in birth) as much as possible.
 
gorilla_boy said:


But it is our duty to be the voice and advocate or the unborn.

True. Abortion does need to be regulated and people do need to have educated opinions on what the best path to take is regarding the legality of abortion. Hell, otherwise, abortion would be legal up to the point where the baby is a day away from being born! *shudder*.

As far as judging the immorality of it all, and making bold statements that abortion is murder even in the very early stages where no one can agree on when 'life begins', I think I'll leave that up to God to do the judging. Anyone who thinks that is murder, I would have more respect for if they also backed up that statement by never stepping on an ant, never swatting a fly, never eating eggs, never eating meat, never putting their dog to sleep.
 
ttlpkg said:


That's a very personal question. The answer is yes, but in the back of my mind I had to ask: "damn, what do I do if she gets pregnant?, God forbid!". The answer would be to encourage and support that the baby be born, possibly for adoption, etc. The lesson learned for me is to try to avoid such situations, and keep a condom in my wallet at all times just in case I'm seduced by some vixen unawares.

you realise why i had to ask then, right? i think it's noble of you to claim you'd take responsibility for any pregnancy that might occur, but at the same time you are contradicting your statement to "keep your peeper in your pants"...

condoms fail... even if you wear one

could you support the amount of kids you'd have for every woman you've slept with? doubtful. do you see my point? i just don't see how you could stand in judgement when you engage/have engaged in the behaviour that produces these circumstances.
 
It's not the mans decision to make, nor the gov't. The woman is the one who has to carry that baby to term and it is her body - she bears the risk of having that child. If you are Pro-life you have not really thought about this from a woman's point of view (pig).
 
FACT:

it is more likely for a cellular mutation causing Panda bears to mutate and take over the world than it is for both a condom and a birth control pill to fail.

(actual fact)
 
smallmovesal said:


you realise why i had to ask then, right? i think it's noble of you to claim you'd take responsibility for any pregnancy that might occur, but at the same time you are contradicting your statement to "keep your peeper in your pants"...

condoms fail... even if you wear one

could you support the amount of kids you'd have for every woman you've slept with? doubtful. do you see my point? i just don't see how you could stand in judgement when you engage/have engaged in the behaviour that produces these circumstances.

I don't think I said, that, but if I had I would have said, "keep your peeper in your pants or be prepared to pay the consequences"

Easy now, I am not Don Juan here, although I admitted to making mistakes like that. I stated that I was prepared to support the birth of the child, with adoption as an option, never abortion.
 
smallmovesal said:
could you support the amount of kids you'd have for every woman you've slept with? doubtful. do you see my point? i just don't see how you could stand in judgement when you engage/have engaged in the behaviour that produces these circumstances.

i think your theoretical question is (correct me if im wrong):

Q: if every woman youve slept with got pregnant, would you be able to support all babies?

A: probably unlikely.

but it would never come to that. if a man slept with 10 women, that happens, but if a man, got the first woman pregnant, i dont think he would sleep with / impregnant 9 more.
 
mattcanning99 said:
FACT:

it is more likely for a cellular mutation causing Panda bears to mutate and take over the world than it is for both a condom and a birth control pill to fail.

(actual fact)

when used together, not separately.

my friend is pregnant from her iron pills causing her birth control to be ineffective.

if a woman does not take her pill at the same time daily she has a higher risk of pregnancy.

and that's just the birth control pill.
 
smallmovesal said:


you realise why i had to ask then, right? i think it's noble of you to claim you'd take responsibility for any pregnancy that might occur, but at the same time you are contradicting your statement to "keep your peeper in your pants"...

condoms fail... even if you wear one

could you support the amount of kids you'd have for every woman you've slept with? doubtful. do you see my point? i just don't see how you could stand in judgement when you engage/have engaged in the behaviour that produces these circumstances.

I absatively posolutely agree.
 
mattcanning99 said:


i think your theoretical question is (correct me if im wrong):

Q: if every woman youve slept with got pregnant, would you be able to support all babies?

A: probably unlikely.

but it would never come to that. if a man slept with 10 women, that happens, but if a man, got the first woman pregnant, i dont think he would sleep with / impregnant 9 more.

UHHH work for the government for a while and you'll see that more guys do that than you'd think.
 
Jimsbbc said:
It's not the mans decision to make, nor the gov't. The woman is the one who has to carry that baby to term and it is her body - she bears the risk of having that child. If you are Pro-life you have not really thought about this from a woman's point of view (pig).

once again, abortion is NOT a contraceptive
 
Jimsbbc said:
It's not the mans decision to make, nor the gov't. The woman is the one who has to carry that baby to term and it is her body - she bears the risk of having that child. If you are Pro-life you have not really thought about this from a woman's point of view (pig).

It is of course the man's decision too. It is her body and their child. If you want the govt out then you of course don't expect tax payer funding for abortion.
 
smallmovesal said:
UHHH work for the government for a while and you'll see that more guys do that than you'd think.

yeah, i do work for the government (sadly:(), and i understand what you are saying.

maybe the best solution would be to cut off these men's dicks...however, it wont happen. im sure there is a solution to this: if a man does that, he deserves some kind of disciplinary action.
 
mattcanning99 said:


exactly...is that so much to ask?

in my mind it isn't, however, at the same time i don't judge people who don't want to mess with their bodies hormonally by taking the pill... and i know of one person who gained thirty pounds in two months on the pill and can't take it anymore because her body reacts so badly to it. granted, that's an extreme.

and i'd like to see statistics on how many people actually use more than one birth control method. i bet it's very low.
 
(terribly off-subject)

smalls, your left upper arm is looking pretty well cut in that avatar. Are you hitting triceps especially hard these days?
 
Top Bottom