Abortion!

Not only is that not necessary, it's illegal. You can't perform 'legal' abortions that late in the pregnancy.

 

People need to read more. We're going in circles.

 

I think that it is in the end up to the woman but there should be limitations on it. For one thing, if a baby is still in the mother at 4 months or more, unless they are really ignorant to the fact they were carrying for 4 months, the pregnancy shouldn't be allowed to be terminated. At 6 months + a baby is capable of surviving outside the womb, though until the 7 month time, they more than likely will require an incubator. I know this because I am a twin and we were born 2 months early. I'd also add on that if a woman wants to 'get rid of a baby' at 7 months time, the man should be asked if he wants it, and if not, parents of the families, and then an attempt should be made to put the child up for adoption because if the mother isn't going to care for it, she isn't. Not everyone is made to be a great parent. Look at what's out there if we need proof. There are a variety of reasons for abortions such as rape, just not being ready to have a kid, oops, the condom broke, missed a day on the pill, whatever. If you have sex, of course you should know any time you do it that a woman could get pregnant. I'm just not sure that people should be 'punished' for it and if they feel they are being punished instead of happy there is a kid potentially on the way, they just aren't in the right mind frame to deal with it.

With the new 'day after pill' I think if it's made available to women and those teens active in sex, a lot of later abortions might just become a thing of the past. Europeans have used it for some time and it has taken forever in the U.S. to become legal. Also, if a teen is actively engaging in sex, having better sex education and birth control pills as options would be a good thing. The abstinence voices do not reach teens that are hormonal. Let's face it...who is going to listen to someone saying 'no sex till you are married or old enough' when they are curious now? Certainly some, but not all. If people went and could get these situations under wraps, many abortions in actual clinics would be a thing of the past and the people that bomb them or kill the doctors would also have to get their butts back to work and find something more constructive to do. Of course, there are those who are religious who protest the day after pill, but it seems to me to be a very responsible thing if they were incapable of being responsible prior to that, and shows that the person is just not ready to have a child yet. If we went by what all religious people said, we wouldn't use condoms or birth control pills either. Contraception is useful and spares people a lot of problems. Also, the day after pill is hella less expensive than getting an actual abortion and in cases of rape etc, they may be able to use it too and not have the attention drawn to them that going to an abortion clinic has.

 

Circles can be lovely though...

 

Explain what circles you are mentioning please? I just answered the first question and read through things and am not seeing what you mean.

 

Well,

I certanly think that abortion should be avalible to rape victims no strings attached. It's just simply not fair. What if the mother never wanted to have a child in the first place? Now every time she sees that kid's face she'll think of the horrible inccident that happend to her.

Although, if you were fooling around with someone and knew of the consequences, if you were to get an abortion, make sure the embryo is still very young. If it has a heart beat AND brain waves, it's alive. Then it's considered murder.

A person can live with a heart beat and no brain waves. They're brain dead. An alive and well person has both. Therefore, the fetus is alive with both. Before that, like I said, it's murder, and wrong.

 

I think one of the points though brought up is how do you decide if a woman was raped or not? And what if she and a man had sex but he turns out to be a total jerk and runs off on her, or she finds out he's sleeping around with 3 other girls? She's going to feel betrayed and also not able to support that kid possibly. The male isn't going to do anything to help her unless the law forces him to so unless she's pretty vindictive and wants a person like that in her life, or is so co-dependent that's necessary, she might just want an abortion. Also, if someone is raped, the woman might just not want it publicized and out there. Some women prefer to not say anything and move on with their lives, or they are too scared. Who decides then if she was raped and so the abortion can happen? How long would it take for this to become a reality? You can't tell a woman is pregnant for a good couple few weeks. Court proceedings are a monster. Someone is innocent until proven guilty, so what power does a woman have then to just get an abortion and not have all the song and dance surrounding people deciding if she was raped or not?

In this situation, I do think you have to choose one way or the other to be. You either will allow a woman the right to do with her body as she wants to, or you say no, because there's no real way to support the 'if she was raped' deal without invading her privacy and publicizing things, or making her rapist be tried for months. By the time some cases are over for rape, the baby may have been already born or in the final trimester where it could survive outside the womb.

 

i think abortion is bad, adoption is the answer cuz you can find the kid when they grow up, if they're dead you cant.
oh and this is not a good idea.......
...as far as the not demented side of me goes.....

 

oookay...

If the mother didn't want the baby, there are adoption clinics everywhere. You can even leave your baby at a fire department ANONYMOUSLY!!! Choice is good, but look. Why kill something defenseless? For all we know, we've already killed the person to lead us to world peace (I'm being dramatic here)

 

Or they could be the next serial rapist/killer, if you want to be even more dramatic. And feeding them could mean the death of another, already living person elsewhere who could find the cure to cancer. It's impossible to know, or to judge based on this kind of argument.

For myself, I doubt I could ever have an abortion. Am I willing to restrict other women from making this choice on the basis of what their unborn fetus could/would/should be? Absolutely not.

Whether people like to believe it or not, infanticide has been practiced for as long as there have been humans who had to choose between survival of the mother or death by famine in times of need. It's still practiced today by adults who kill a young girl's dreams and future by imposing their view of sexual morality on her by forcing her to bear and care for a child she may never have even known she could have.

There are way too many unknowns. This is not something you can simplify with a statement like 'it's wrong'. And until you walk a mile in a pregnant teenage girl's sneakers, don't be so quick to judge how she got there or what she should do about it.

No-one ever considers what a price women pay when they have a baby in terms of their health. For nine months, you have what essentially amounts to a parasite in your body taking a third or more of your nutrients away from you. That's whether you eat right or not, because with some vitamins like folic acid, it has to be present in enough quantities in the mother for a year BEFORE pregnancy to prevent deficiencies in her or the fetus.

All kinds of things happen to a girl's body besides her 'getting fat'. Some are reversible, like breast enlargement. Others, like diabetes and its effects, are not.

As for leaving your baby at a fire station anonymously....uh WHAT? Do you think it's somehow easier to leave your born child who is maybe a few days old with complete strangers than it is to take a morning after pill or have an abortion a month into the pregnancy? Have you held a baby in your arms before? They're cute. Insanely cute and cuddly. It's like the Pringles' commercial: Once you pop you can't stop.

Or is it just that I'm forgetting that all women who would give up their children in the first place or choose not to have them at all are just necessarily cold, unfeeling, heartless ****s? I am sorry, but there is no such thing as a 'maternal' instinct that all 'good' females have, telling them to nourish, nurture, and socialize every infant or young person they lay eyes upon. There is a 'parental' instinct, which most normal people of either gender possess, despite how people think guys are supposed to not have it because they're supposed to be tough.

Think about that next time you see a guy put himself between two kids duking it out or checking out that pregnant chick in the mall. It's not just him being 'macho', although it could be. He's thinking 'boy if that were my kid, I'd spank/hug/yell/be so proud.'

 

People also forget that animals even are not given the best 'parental instincts' and animals will abandon kids, dump them out of nests, some eat their kids etc. Some will kill another parent's offspring so that they can encourage mating possibilities with a female. Abortions and dumping off kids happens often and if there's no way to stop it, which is better? It'd be nice if these activists against abortion actually chose to adopt some of the children that waste away in orphanages or foster homes but they mostly don't. How can people be 'pro-life' and then not do anything to care for these kids that do pop up that no one can take care of but the government?

 

Many people have different views onaortion and I too have been in many debates about it. No we shouldn't destroy made life but what will you do with a baby that you don't want? Peoples choice.

() circles...

 

Yes, I think choice has to be the ultimate answer here.

It's just the point people tend to always bring up adoption as the ultimate answer. But if a baby isn't adopted immediately adopted as an infant, its chances get slimmer and slimmer as it gets older. The adoption process in the US is such a grueling battle of red tape and takes a determined person with a certain lifestyle (steady job, opposite-gender spouse, upper middle-class income where one spouse is always home to care for the child, etc.) that no-one just walks in to an agency and out with one less than six months to a year or more later. This is why so many go overseas where criteria is less selective. But even then the process can be extremely difficult, and when all else fails, people pay money to 'buy' babies that are either kidnapped or voluntarily given up by mothers who are in dire straits financially or just want cold hard cash on the black market.

It takes a certain kind of person to adopt an older child, because everyone thinks that if you raise a kid from an infant, they're just naturally more likely to take after you. And let's not forget where these kids came from. Their mothers obviously had reasons to give up their child, reasons that it was 'unwanted', and some of that might have to do with it either being born with special needs they couldn't cope with. That doesn't just mean birth defects or mental ******ation, it can mean the child was addicted to drugs as a result of the mother's addiction and will have behavioral and emotional problems the rest of its life. It takes an even more unique and compassionate person to raise a child like that.

 

I view Abortion as killing someone, that baby you kill could have been anyone, the president, a social worker, or maybe a server engineer. Think of the alternatives, adoption is always good option (In california a child that is born can be left in the hospital if wanted.)

 

The whole point is it is the choice of the woman. It is her body, she has sole responsiblity over the child. If she wants to terminate the pregancy then it's her right. She can live with the consequences.

 

That alternative might be a good way to go, but it depends on the situation. What if, lets just say, you're 15 years old and you get raped and become pregnant? Would you want to have a baby at 15? Having a baby changes a woman's body forever. Most people are not ready at young ages. So you're saying that this person should be forced to have a baby after she was sexually harassed and violated in a way that she was not accepting of or not ready for?

Sometimes it is even better to get an abortion becuase the baby would have a horrible life should it be born. If a baby is going to be born and then live a horrible life where it is beaten and neglected, is it better to abort it before it has emotions, before it can feel?

It is all up to the woman who is pregnant with the baby. Only she knows the circumstances. I personally would not get an abortion, but like I said, it always depends on the circumstance. Do you think that people who get abortions are excited about it? Do you think they are enthused about the concept of aborting their own child? Of course not. It depends on the situation. Abortions are not cheap and easy to do, either. Not to mention the emotional battle the woman would probably go through if she did end up getting an abortion.

It just really pisses me off sometimes when people try to impose their views on other people who are in completely different circumstances. Sure, if
you're against abortion, go ahead and be against abortion, but don't try and change the rest of the country's views. If you don't like it, don't have one, but don't try to force decisions upon others.

Those bumper stickers that say "What part of THOUGH SHALT NOT KILL don't you understand" also really piss me off. I know those are slightly off topic, but it annoys me that people think that that rule applies to abortions, as in, fetuses who can't feel, but not in the concept of war, where the people are all grown men or women with families and stories of their own. Think of it this way: The innocent civilian you kill could have been anything, the president, a social worker, or maybe a server engineer.

Anyways, I underline my point, it all depends on the situation and circumstance.
​

 

All your points are pathetic.

 

Your last one was pretty pathetic too.

Your opinion of 'humans existing the moment egg and sperm combine' is an opinion--and far more flawed than you either know or refuse to believe. A cell that at some point is as generic as a cell of bone marrow does not definitively make it a human being. Do you consider a bone marrow cell a human being? Sure, it's 'alive', but it's not a human being. We place emotional and sympathetic value in the 'potential' of human life, and thus pass off a zygote as 'human' instantaneously after conception, even though that'd be incorrect--and even more incorrect to start labeling others 'idiots' for saying otherwise.

If the answer to 'when' human life begins is so incredibly simple, why is abortion a controversial issue? Because it's opinionated as to when it starts and there's no one overpowering 'truth' (as you call it) to it.

You ought to change your poor mentality of basing your opinions as solid fact and of the way you think things 'should be' when there's hardly any general consensus on it. The way of the world isn't shaped by your ideals, unfortunately.

 

Nor is it by yours, so your argument is as nil as mine.

 

I don't recall ever giving my own opinion and calling it 'right'. I also didn't go around calling other people idiots for differing views; I have my opinion, others have theirs.

You're so quick to retaliate that you missed the entire point: No one knows when life begins; that's why people debate over it. There is no right answer.

You only make yourself look like a ignorant, narrow-minded fool for making personal attacks on others for having a different view than yours.