What's your position?
Printable View
What's your position?
For.
With more funding going into teaching young people safe sex and free contraception provided to all ages. In this way the need for abortions can be lessened in the future.
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I could never have one under any circumstances but I would never judge anyone else for choosing to.
I voted for under certain circumstances.
I personally couldn't ever have done it, except under one of those circumstances.
As for someone else, there are just too many factors for me to say that I'm altogether for it or against it.
Some of the reasons I'm not altogether against abortion:
A baby that is not wanted but kept may not be loved and cared for as he/she should be. Not every woman would choose to give a child up for adoption just because she didn't have an abortion, but the parents may end up regretting having the baby and transferring those feelings onto him/her.
It's not my right to tell someone else what to do with their body.
Some of the reasons I'm not for abortion:
The man's rights go out the window. What if the man who fathered that child wants to keep it? So what if it's the woman who has to carry it, doesn't the father have as much right to that child, and as much right to that decision? I don't know the laws everywhere, but I do know someone who's ex girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes, and it still hurts him to this day. He has no children and would have given anything for that child. I mean a woman has the right to birth a child against a man's wishes and demand child support from him, but he can't demand that a child he wants be born so that he may care for it? Not a very fair system in my opinion.
Second, birth control is better taught and practiced before pregnancy.
The waiting list for adoption is astronomical.
Human life is precious.
I'm generally for abortion, but you do make an excellent point.Quote:
I mean a woman has the right to birth a child against a man's wishes and demand child support from him, but he can't demand that a child he wants be born so that he may care for it? Not a very fair system in my opinion.
Though, still maybe not a reason for a ban unless special circumstances.
Maybe a right for adoption by the father should he so wish.
I'm not gonna get to detailed into this one.
For, only under circumstances that require, otherwise against.
I think the man should have absolutely no say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikkiD
It ain't his body. Nuff said. :dry:
I dont think many men who are stuck in the pregnency situation would want to father children. Not a good argument. And no, human life aint precious. It has no real meaning, no real truths, no universal morals. :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by NikkiD
What happened to my reply? :unsure:
It's his DNA. And if she has the child, he is responsible for it. He should have a say in whether his child can be born. All this "it's her body" is crap. The baby inside was made by both of them, it's not hers alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
EDIT: If that is the case, then why are men forced to pay child support for children that they didn't want their girlfriends to have? It's her body, right? It's her decision? Why should he be forced to pay for her decision?
I am not for abortion personally, but i am pro choice. I haven't voted because i don't feel any option represents that.
That's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikkiD
BTW-Men are sometimes required to pay support for children who are not their own; even when proper paternity is not questioned, and the birth-father is not in hiding.
I know this, because it happened to me-15 years-worth-the court acknowledged all of these facts, but decided that I was it, and that was all she wrote.
for: if the baby will be severly handicapped or the mother will probably die
against: pretty much every other circumstance. if you got yourself pregnant it's your own selfish fault, stick it out and get the baby adopted. if you get raped though tough luck, 10 months out of your life is nothing on the whole life of the baby, again just get it adopted
100% for abortion, which has been practiced all throughout history. Herbal lore was common knowledge through the ages,and widely practiced, as was contraceptive measures.
I'm against abortion but only if the mother's life is endangered then I'm for.that's the only reason I can think of for legalising abortion.I do not think it's right to abort a handicapped babies.Are they not human beings?If that is the case,why not we kill other handicapped people?
i posted too early in the morning. now i think its only wrong after the fetus starts to look cute. the law got it right
I am not for it as a personal choice for myself however i am pro choice. I believe in the right of adults to make their own decisions under correct medical guidelines. I would like to see tighter controls on the time allowed.
I totally agree there, yet I am pro choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by human_pet
Killing the handicapped, as long as they are not in pain, is way unfair. We let criminals live yet we don't want a handicapped person to be alive because we'll feel sorry for them??
Given the choice, I'd live handicapped, as long as I wasn't in constant agony. It'd be the ultimate contemplation, wouldn't it? No worries, just thought.
If I got a woman pregnant, I could never live with agreeing to an abortion.
As an agnostic, that would be that embryo's only chance at existence.
For those who like to believe in God, I'm sure he would sort that shit out. I'm not sure why they worry about this subject. No loving God would penalize one who is killed, unborn.
He had sex with her. Babies are a byproduct of sex. :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by NikkiD
No one has the right to control another's body, however.
1. As far as payment, paternity has next to nothing to do with it. That is all about the state not footing the bill for taking care of the child themselves. It helps keeps welfare down (at least for the mom). The state will pin fatherhood on the closest man standing near a pregnant woman if they could. The law doesn't allow such luxuries but it's damn close and rather scary.
The problem is that there are those that consider an embryo not to be a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Then there are those that consider an embryo the same as a crying 1 year-old.
I say it's the (possibly not)mother's right to choose. And I'd rather someone who knew they couldn't take care of their child or wouldn't care for it did it. It isn't right what some people do to unwanted children.
But that it should be considered carefully as it can be very bad for someone who goes through it, what with feelings of guilt and everything. Not to mention the fact that the world might lose a possible genious or somesuch. So I don't like people who'd do it just 'cos they don't feel like having a child right now or because it doesn't fit their career-plans or something. Or for that matter 'cos it turned out to have some handicap in the making.
If every unplanned child got aborted I wouldn't have been around today.
EDit1&2: The father should have a say tho', if the mother to be decided to keep the child and decided he was to be its father, can't spring one of them surprises on someone like eighteen years later or force someone else into taking care of a child.
The mother should have the right to decide if she was to be a mother, but not if the biological father was to be a father.
I tend to think of when one becomes human in terms of processing power. An embryo the size of my finger does not have the capability to form coherent thoughts the way someone older can, it's probably not sentient as it is.
Bugger if we all have souls tho', 'cos every soul would deserve at least one chance at life, I think.
testing...
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
hey, if it means i have one less person to compete with for some bread, then sure. Abortion is totally blown out of proportion. Anyone who thinks a rape victim etc shouldnt have an abortion should have been aborted themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I will here reproduce a selected relevent excerpt from a recent column by William F. Buckley, which is, I think, a very succinct summing-up of JPaul's point.
I echo both the point and sentiment.
Herewith:
By one line of reasoning, a woman has the right to do what she chooses with her own body. That position can be taken, and was taken before Roe v. Wade came into town, by many who defended the right to abort. What the Supreme Court contributed was a constitutional validation. If abortion is a “right,” then perhaps the people who exercise that right are no more contumacious than people who write articles and take political positions. That would be a fundamentalist view of human rights, and there are those who believe that...(any who)...affirm the right to abort...(are)...doing nothing more merely than affirming the exercise of human rights in general.
Other analysts...(are)...fooled by the respect...(they feel)...for the Supreme Court. Since the Court had ruled that abortion was okay, what more argument was there to dwell upon?
There is, of course, the difficulty that the Supreme Court is capable of judgments which, on reflection, observers are free to question, and even to oppose. The overriding question being, of course, whether in the exercise of a “right,” the right of someone else has been transgressed upon. In this case, obviously, the right of the unborn child. If the child has a right, surely it is to live. Therefore, to end his life is to go beyond the plausible limits of the mother’s right.
On abortion, the views of some, pre-Roe and post-Roe, were that no judicial reasoning can validate the expression of freedom when it is invoked in order to obliterate another human life.
Whilst I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here, what concerns me is that if we do not draw a line under the limits of 'rights to life' we are in danger of creating a climate that is not only anti-abortion, but also, fundamentally anti-contraception.
The use of the coil actively prevents implantation of a fertilized egg which therefore constitutes abortion.
In my opinion, time limits should be low and carefully monitored and we need to know that there is a difference between contraception, abortion and murder.
I tend towards the view that as the women is the vehicle for conception and carriage of the fetus she has the over-riding say in the matter.
Consequently, I lean towards what is called "choice". However, I do not think that abortion is the best means of birth control and I am increasingly uneasy with just how commonplace it has become.
Notwithstanding ethical or religious arguments, for the want of a condom or pill or coil, valuable medical resources are being used for something that is almost entirely preventable; rape or over-riding medical concerns being obvious exceptions.
I would like to see less reliance on abortion and greater use of intelligent "choice" before the event of conception. This can include abstinence if the individuals feel moved to go down that route but I cannot agree with those who would die in a ditch over extending education and availability of other birth control techniques. There is an underlying socio/religious agenda in the pro-life campaign that repels me and, I suspect, the broader public.
In short I have opted for the third way. :ermm: This is not an endorsement of New Labour.
i vote for
theres plenty of people already
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Nicely put that man! :)
Uh yeah, so are you for or against abortion? :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think an embryo has rights. I however think there is a "cutoff" point as to what is a baby and what is not. For instance, abortion at the 7th month is out of the question.
Though many efforts have been expended, scientific and otherwise, to divine the precise moment life begins, I gather you have determined the 7th month to be the appropriate cutoff; might I inquire how you arrived at this conclusion, or are you merely demonstrating your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Ok then, what instances EXACTLY? :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Btw, saying that you hated the post and had no option but to respond was worse than the response that you were apologizing for. :lol: :lol:
Good friends, good beer :beerchug:
Read carefully. I said the 7th month is out of the question not the appropriate cutoff. Nice try though for someone who, hmmm, himself, hasn't voiced a stance. Maybe I can find it somewhere by using the Advanced Search. :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I gotcha. So basically, you don't want to say what instances you think abortion is cool besides saving the mom (which you stated earlier) nor will you say saving the mom is the only reason. You are not stating this because of the sake of debate or something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Makes perfect sense.
On a side note:
Never go out on a limb....on the internet. :blink:
I cant vote here..
Although personally against it, i believe in the Right of the woman to choose.. which means id be voting for...
:blink:
I understand but some things are black and white as far as what stance one takes regarding a person's rights....Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Folks on here are getting all uppity and what not at the wording of the poll.
Maybe a mod can change it to
Abortion: For or Against ....the Right. :dry:
No really, change it.
Sure I would love to see no abortions but the issue is are you for or against the right of a woman to have one.
Example....
In instances of rape, incest, or saving the mom, I believe the female has the sole right to chose in ANY case. The only conundrum I have is when in the term is too late.
k, then its FOR... The womans Right to Choose