Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let me be clearer with the hopes that you'll understand.
Pregnancy isn't a choice. It's an outcome. Sex is the choice.
Clever choice of words.
Abortion should be the fetus' decision.
Are you going to ask the damned fetus if it wants an abortion?
How about you ask a newborn baby if it wants a bath, or its nappy changed, or if it wants to sleep? Don't be such a tool.
Since we obviously can't, perhaps we should wait until they're old enough and ask them if they would like to continue living?
And no sweetie, I don't want to punish women. I don't want to punish anyone.
Pregnancy is their decision; not mine.
You however seem to want to punish an innocent fetus for something they have nothing to do with.
You want to punish women for having sex. You hate women and wish to control them. You are a sick freak.
A fetus is not innocent. It is nothing.
You're sick.
Great. So you want to punish the woman for getting pregnant by forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want.
Not to mention your rotten views on rape.
GTFO of a woman's body. Abortion is HER decision, not yours.
The anti-execution bunch surreptitiously film executions and the videos are often shown as evidence of "cruel and unusual punishment".....
Whoa, hold on there. Who said anything about prison?
I'm just against abortions. If a woman gets pregnant then she has the baby. It's as simple that.
If she doesn't want the baby she can give him or her up for adoption. She should have thought of that before she chose to have sex.
Actually I think what you are against is manslaughter or murder. But right now abortion is neither so the argument is an argument of morality, unless laws change. It is a sad state of affairs that we have convinced the minorities that abortion is the answer, but that has been the goal of Planned Parenthood from the beginning.
The good thing is that the number of abortions are decreasing. Maybe because of better access by minorities to birth control. Maybe through education. Maybe because women are finding out the truth. At any rate here are the reasons for abortion from 2004.
A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion:[44]
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest
Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is it then, if someone murders a pregnant woman and her "fetus" that person is charged with murder of both the woman and the child? Why the child if that child is nothing but a lump of nothing? But yet a woman can end the life of that child with no consequences?
Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.
And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.
Those are all choices.
Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.
And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.
And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.
While I agree with everything you said, except I wouldn't have a problem with abortion after a rape.
The problem I have is, conservative Christian women generally do not get abortions. Liberal women do.
In Canada abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. For women who are underage, the choice is hers and there is no parental consent involved.
If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. The fact that you think a woman's choice ends when she has sex shows that your real agenda is to enforce chastity.
Half the women who have abortions are married with one or more children. Are you seriously suggesting married women abstain from sex with their husbands unless it's for procreation? You knows that's grounds for divorce in some jurisdictions.
Have you not heard of contraceptives? They allow you to have sex without getting pregnant.
If you don't want a baby, use them. They're not just for single people you know.
Yeah, we know, you hate religion, that's your problem......Fact of the matter is, my religion has nothing to do with my feelings on the issue. It's about what is right, period.
Now, how about the "Freedom" of the unborn, who have no choice in the matter, yet may suffer being brutally killed in the womb by a sick psychopath with doctors credentials, at the request of a heartless, irresponsible moron?
This is the twenty first century, the education is already there. A woman damn sure knows the possible ramifications of spreading her legs, yet many are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions, so they use abortion as their back up birth control, and it's beyond disgusting,.....as are those who support it, and claim that these women are somehow victims who deserve sympathy.
Sorry but, the sympathy goes 100% to the innocent life who was brutally killed, and had no "choice" whatsoever in the matter.
Anyhow, it's Easter Sunday, and it's time to get ready to go to church, pay respects, and come home to prepare the awesome dinner we have planned.....Definitely a much more pleasant experience than discussing the wanton killing of innocent life with a bunch of damn ghouls, and other assorted lunatics.
"dispose of IT"I'll just restate what I said to you in the other thread (that you conveniently disappeared from). It's intellectual dishonesty to argue that abortion is about a "woman's body", since an abortion directly targets the body of another.
Not the point. That fetus is inside the woman's body, and she has the authority to dispose of it if she wishes.
You seriously are a sick, twisted fuckin' human being.
In Canada abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. For women who are underage, the choice is hers and there is no parental consent involved.
If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. The fact that you think a woman's choice ends when she has sex shows that your real agenda is to enforce chastity.
Half the women who have abortions are married with one or more children. Are you seriously suggesting married women abstain from sex with their husbands unless it's for procreation? You knows that's grounds for divorce in some jurisdictions.
Have you not heard of contraceptives? They allow you to have sex without getting pregnant.
If you don't want a baby, use them. They're not just for single people you know.
Have you never heard of contraceptives not working? The pill is not good for women's bodies. I know a woman who would like to have a kid but cannot because she was damaged by using the pill.
Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.
And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.
Those are all choices.
Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.
And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.
And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.
So you think you have the right to demand that women take an unwanted pregnancy to term.
But you think you believe in the freedom of the individual, right?
Think again, because you don't believe in individual rights freedom.
If a person does not have the legal and absolutely control over their own body, they are not truly free.
Women are not your slaves.
....talking-snakes!!
Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.
And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.
Those are all choices.
Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.
And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.
And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.
Why is it still, after all this time, still the woman's responsibility to prevent pregnancy? Why isn't it the man's responsibility just as much as the woman's?
If a man wants to insure there is no pregnancy, so he doesn't have to take responsibility to raise a child, so there is never a question for him of abortion, it is really simple: he can abstain from sex or he can get a vasectomy. Condoms are not an effective method of birth control. And he should not rely on the woman to take birth control pills. He should take responsibility for his own part in the possibility of pregnancy.
Men who are afraid to get a vasectomy are men who have no right at all to say anything about abortion or about their having to pay to raise a child they didn't want. If a man leaves birth control up to the woman, he has no right to have any say if a pregnancy occurs.
I don't think men in general have any right to say anything about abortion. When you can get pregnant, then you can have a say in abortion. Until then, as being pregnant is not something you will ever have to deal with, it is not up to you on any level to dictate what a woman does with her body.
And the IRONY is so extreme: those who have so many issues with the government interfering in their personal lives have no problem dictating to a woman possibly the most private, intimate and sensitive issue in a woman's life. How dare you? You bitch to high heaven if someone tries to tell you what kind of food to eat, but you have no problem dictating to others personal choices that are far more important, personal and intimate than what one eats. Hypocrites.
You're also right that birth control is not 100% safe. If you absolutely don't want/aren't ready for kids, then wait until you have sex.
Should women be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies? Absolutely.
And they have plenty of options to choose from. Birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and natural sex.
Those are all choices.
Pregnancy isn't a choice; it's the outcome of a decision that had a choice.
And abortions aren't about a woman's body; they're about another body, very much alive, forming within the woman's body. So a woman's "right-to-choose" should be about what the woman does with her body; not the body of an infant she chose to have.
And if we can all agree that every human being is born with the inherent right to live, then abortions are clear violations of this right. As the baby is never consulted with when abortions are decided.
Why is it still, after all this time, still the woman's responsibility to prevent pregnancy? Why isn't it the man's responsibility just as much as the woman's?
If a man wants to insure there is no pregnancy, so he doesn't have to take responsibility to raise a child, so there is never a question for him of abortion, it is really simple: he can abstain from sex or he can get a vasectomy. Condoms are not an effective method of birth control. And he should not rely on the woman to take birth control pills. He should take responsibility for his own part in the possibility of pregnancy.
Men who are afraid to get a vasectomy are men who have no right at all to say anything about abortion or about their having to pay to raise a child they didn't want. If a man leaves birth control up to the woman, he has no right to have any say if a pregnancy occurs.
I don't think men in general have any right to say anything about abortion. When you can get pregnant, then you can have a say in abortion. Until then, as being pregnant is not something you will ever have to deal with, it is not up to you on any level to dictate what a woman does with her body.
And the IRONY is so extreme: those who have so many issues with the government interfering in their personal lives have no problem dictating to a woman possibly the most private, intimate and sensitive issue in a woman's life. How dare you? You bitch to high heaven if someone tries to tell you what kind of food to eat, but you have no problem dictating to others personal choices that are far more important, personal and intimate than what one eats. Hypocrites.
You're right; both women and men should be equally responsible for the children they bring into the world together.
You're also right that birth control is not 100% safe. If you absolutely don't want/aren't ready for kids, then wait until you have sex.
And we're hypocrites for fighting for the rights of unborn children that have no voice yet? Fine. We're hypocrites. We don't want government in our lives, yet we do want the government to outlaw a murderous procedure.
I'm pretty sure no one "owns" their own body unless, of course, you're going to argue dualism (i.e., you exist before you exist). And that's without pointing out that no one has complete rule to use and do to their body as they see fit as it is. I'm not sure why pro-choicers love to ignore the latter, but it's comical (especially when you see the same people using that line simultaneously trying to ban someone from smoking or drinking sugary drinks).
Constitutionally there was never any explicit protection for the fetus whatsoever. Barring the establishment of personhood rights for the fetus that equate to rights for you and me,
the fetus is a part of a woman's body, and nothing more.
Did you take biology? If the unborn child is part of her body then how in the hell is it ever born???? Why does the unborn child not share the same DNA? It is a lie to say the unborn child is part of a woman's body.
But I guess in your opinion one can not be against abortion without going out and burning down abortion clinics. Yet you can say you are all for protecting children after they are born but I seriously doubt you give on ounce of caring for the 16 year old American killed, by alleged accident, by American drones.
False dichotomy. If, say, you support a person's right to self-defense, does that mean you also support wanton murder?
There is no self-defense involved in an abortion that isn't being performed to protect the life or health of the mother. Think before you post, as a courtesy to those of us who do.
As per usual, my post goes way over your head.
There's a reason I called your post a false dichotomy. It isn't A or B, as you assume. Much like no one in their right mind would argue that because, say, you think that someone should have the ability to defend themselves against Individual A that you believe that Individual A can be killed "just because".
Constitutionally there was never any explicit protection for the fetus whatsoever.
And...? Before the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, neither did Blacks/slaves. The above isn't an argument in any form.
Barring the establishment of personhood rights for the fetus that equate to rights for you and me, the fetus is a part of a woman's body, and nothing more.
Never mind the fact that some never seemed to pass sixth grade biology, if the above quoted is true, then why isn't abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy?
Abortion is legal, or more precisely, can be made legal by any state throughout the pregnancy. The Supreme Court did not recognize personhood rights for the fetus;
had they done so, they would have effectively banned abortion during whatever part of the pregnancy they recognized personhood rights for the fetus.
There is no self-defense involved in an abortion that isn't being performed to protect the life or health of the mother. Think before you post, as a courtesy to those of us who do.
As per usual, my post goes way over your head.
There's a reason I called your post a false dichotomy. It isn't A or B, as you assume. Much like no one in their right mind would argue that because, say, you think that someone should have the ability to defend themselves against Individual A that you believe that Individual A can be killed "just because".
Constitutionally there was never any explicit protection for the fetus whatsoever.
And...? Before the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, neither did Blacks/slaves. The above isn't an argument in any form.
There hasn't been a constitutional amendment to explicitly protect the fetus. Thank you for proving my point.
