Pro-abortion

[karisma]

Laws are only a reflection of some deeper spiritual situation. To make abortion illegal will deny people the choice they have at the moment and probably send abortion underground. The problem is people are not being educated properly and to educate society it needs to realise its error first.
With rising levels of STD’s, AIDS and abortions society is soon going have to realise that its god of sex is not much of a god. No-one should be able to say they aren’t ready or it’s a mistake, if one has sexual intercourse the natural result will be conception so if it occurs it’s a failure of the precautions, not a mistake.
By saying ‘pro-choice’ it gives the impression that one may choose. Abortion should only be available in special circumstances for medical reasons, and the choice not for the mother!
In the UK there now aren’t enough doctors to carry out all the abortions wanted, many doctors are refusing to do abortions. So this should make the task of the government easier, like ‘sorry you cant have abortions by choice as we cant get anyone properly qualified to do them’

A simple question: why do you want abortions to be illegal other than for medical reasons?

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

In the UK there now aren’t enough doctors to carry out all the abortions wanted, many doctors are refusing to do abortions. So this should make the task of the government easier, like ‘sorry you cant have abortions by choice as we cant get anyone properly qualified to do them’

They could train nurse-midwives to do them. I don't know about the UK, but the American College of Nurse Midiwves allows nurse-midwives to do abortions if the state laws allow it.

To make abortion illegal will deny people the choice they have at the moment and probably send abortion underground.

Exactly, and driving it underground would mean that it would be unregulated, and dangerous. That's the reason that abortion should be kept fully legal.

 

[The Gregorian]

In the UK there now aren’t enough doctors to carry out all the abortions wanted, many doctors are refusing to do abortions. So this should make the task of the government easier, like ‘sorry you cant have abortions by choice as we cant get anyone properly qualified to do them’

I agree... women have the right to choose to murder someone because it's more convenient than putting a patch on once a month... Doctors have the right to not feel like performing the procedure... or any procedure. If you come in with a bullet wound, doctors should have the right to choose to just not do anything if it's inconvenient for 'em. Like... if it's inconvenient to save... say.... mexicans. They come in for a flu, doctors should be able to just put 'em to sleep so they don't have to bother with paperwork and all that.

Same with cops... They catch a criminal going over the posted speed limit... they could DO paperwork and FILE reports and all that... or they could just put the offender down right then... What's wrong with that? This is america! We have the right to choose.

Or like if I choose I don't like my car... I should just be able to take someone else's... it's my freedom of choice, right?

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

Ok, understand I'm not flaming you. I'm just wondering if you can give me an example of "another option" for a woman who has a life-threatening pregnancy.

In that case then careful monitoring and directly treating the mother's condition without intentionally or directly harming the fetus. This may unintentionally bring on a spontaneous abortion, or bring on labour before the child is viable. Still tragic, but without willfully ending the life. Abortions performed for this reason are a very small minority.

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

Exactly, and driving it underground would mean that it would be unregulated, and dangerous. That's the reason that abortion should be kept fully legal.

then why does the industry fight hard against better regulation?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear karisma,

A simple question: why do you want abortions to be illegal other than for medical reasons?

Because otherwise it is like genocide. Life begins at conception, without conception there can be no life, so one shouldn’t t terminate the life.
Why would you want abortion?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear NDNgirl4ever,
the UK there now aren’t enough doctors to carry out all the abortions wanted, many doctors are refusing to do abortions. So this should make the task of the government easier, like ‘sorry you cant have abortions by choice as we cant get anyone properly qualified to do them’

They could train nurse-midwives to do them. I don't know about the

UK, but the American College of Nurse Midiwves allows nurse-midwives to do abortions if the state laws allow it.

they could train hospital porters, if they are that stupid.

Exactly, and driving it underground would mean that it would be unregulated, and dangerous. That's the reason that abortion should be kept fully legal.

very funny. As if the terminating of a life isn’t dangerous to the life being terminated

 

[karisma]

I agree... women have the right to choose to murder someone because it's more convenient than putting a patch on once a month...

You're thinking about it in the wrong way... women dont' have the "right" to kill it, but they have the right not to have unwanted humans leaching off their bodily resources, and they have the right to have that intruder removed. It's removal ultimately results in it's death as it cannot survive on it's own.

Besides, birth control fails sometimes. It happens.

 

[karisma]

Dear karisma,
Because otherwise it is like genocide. Life begins at conception, without conception there can be no life, so one shouldn’t t terminate the life.
Why would you want abortion?

So you want to stop abortions because you want to save lives, even if it means the violation of women's right to bodily integrity?

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

You're thinking about it in the wrong way... women dont' have the "right" to kill it, but they have the right not to have unwanted humans leaching off their bodily resources, and they have the right to have that intruder removed. It's removal ultimately results in it's death as it cannot survive on it's own.

Besides, birth control fails sometimes. It happens.

well of course when you put it like that abortion is easier to sell to a frightened woman isn't it?

Abortion should not be a 'back up' birth control!

 

[happyfreak14]

In that case then careful monitoring and directly treating the mother's condition without intentionally or directly harming the fetus. This may unintentionally bring on a spontaneous abortion, or bring on labour before the child is viable. Still tragic, but without willfully ending the life. Abortions performed for this reason are a very small minority.

How do you directly treat, say, an ectopic pregnancy without endangering the fetus?

 

[KET20]

How do you directly treat, say, an ectopic pregnancy without endangering the fetus?

Yeah, I was sort of wondering that as well...

 

[Assisi]

So you want to stop abortions because you want to save lives, even if it means the violation of women's right to bodily integrity?

That sounds reasonable to me. Do I have the right to 'bodily integrity' if it means you will lose your life?

 

[KET20]

That sounds reasonable to me. Do I have the right to 'bodily integrity' if it means you will lose your life?

Of course you do. Bodily integrity is something people will kill for. I'd kill for it, and I bet you would too. If someone is harming you, you have every right to use force to stop them. Self-defense. (Not really applicable to conversation at hand in this specific way, but I wanted to answer your question.)

 

[The Gregorian]

You're thinking about it in the wrong way... women dont' have the "right" to kill it, but they have the right not to have unwanted humans leaching off their bodily resources, and they have the right to have that intruder removed.

I didn't want to turn this into one of these debates....

But do you REALIZE how disgusting and inhuman of a statement that was you just uttered?

You consider your CHILD an "intruder to be removed?!"

If it's such an inconvenient time to have children that if "the worst should happen" you'd have to kill it... don't have sex. If it's that important, get yourself steralized...

... Again... where does this end? Say you have a kid... they're 16, and they get pregnant. THEIR child is not only leeching off of them, but will cost YOU money. Since it would then be inconvenient for you, are YOU allowed to falcon punch your daughter so it will be less of a burdon upon you? Or just straight out kill her for being an inconvenience at that point?

 

[The Gregorian]

That sounds reasonable to me. Do I have the right to 'bodily integrity' if it means you will lose your life?

So if a couple are still dating... girl gets pregnant. The boy's actually very excited about being a father, but the girl decides she's not ready. The girl may chose to kill the boy's child with or without his consent.

Likewise, if the girl wanted to keep it, but the boy wasn't ready to be a father, does HE have the right to end the baby's life with or without the mother's consent?

Yes, the girl's the only one that has to give birth, but the boy's the one that will have to pay child support for 18 years, which is much longer than 9 months of discomfort.

Or do men have NO say in the matter, while women are completely free to kill OUR children without so much as asking us?

Or don't you see that as a problem too? Yes... you're protecting your body... but you're killing OUR child doing it? Are men not allowed to protect our children, by physically stopping someone from harming them? Do we not have that basic right?

Or are we legally obligated to stand aside while you murder our child simply because you find it an inconvenience? Even if we offer to take it and not have you be bothered at all after it's birth, you still have the right to say "well, I don't want my figure ruined, so I'd rather just kill it so I look prettier."

 

[Assisi]

Gregorian, I'm prolife. I definitely value the life of the unborn (and call me biased, but in particular my unborn children) above my health, not to mention my figure.

KET20, perhaps this term 'bodily integrity' needs to be defined. But if someone came in threatening to, say, cut off my arm, I wouldn't say I had the right to kill him.

Gregorian, you bring up a good point about men. It seems that this is all too often a women's problem.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Karisma,

but they have the right not to have unwanted humans leaching off their bodily resources,

they aren’t unwanted, they were the risk the woman took when having sex.

So you want to stop abortions because you want to save lives, even if it means the violation of women's right to bodily integrity?

Absolutely, I want to stop abortions to save lives, the woman shouldn’t have taken the risk with the sex in the first place.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

Yes, the girl's the only one that has to give birth, but the boy's the one that will have to pay child support for 18 years, which is much longer than 9 months of discomfort

And in cases like that, it's usually the woman who ends up raising the child(feed, clothe ect) for 18 years, which is much harder than writing a check (and so is pregnancy!). When it comes to pregnancy and having kids, women have it a lot harder than men. Whatever a man may go through is nothing compared to what happens to the woman(and it's alot more than discomfort in many cases). In fact, men have it rather easy. They can just walk away, or get off with only sending a check. Many men never even see their children. A man can get a woman pregnant, wlak away, and never have to deal with it. No matter what the woman chooses to do, she must face and deal with the pregnancy, and none of the options are easy.

No, a man does not have a say in whether or not an abortion is performed. He is not the one who is pregnant. He does not have the right to tell her what medical procedures she can and can't have. The only people who have the authority to make decisions about a pregnancy and birth is the woman and her doctor/midwife. No one else. It's the woman who has to go through the weight gain, changes in body structure and organ functioning, the risk of diseases like pre-eclampsia and gestional diabetes, and the pain of labor. So no, since he doesn't have to deal with the physical effects of carrying a pregnancy, a man does not have a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion. you may not like it, but that's the way it is.

they aren’t unwanted, they were the risk the woman took when having sex.

I guess if you get in a car, that means that you want to be paralyzed in an traffic accident. After all, that's the risk you take by driving, so you must have wanted it to happen.

It seems that this is all too often a women's problem.

That's because 99% of the time, it is totally the woman's problem.

 

[karisma]

well of course when you put it like that abortion is easier to sell to a frightened woman isn't it?

No one "sells" abortions. It's made clear it's an available option to those in need.

Abortion should not be a 'back up' birth control!

Well that's exactly what it is. It prevents a birth. Maybe what you mean is it should not be a primary birth control? It's not.