Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
james2mart

Abortion in the US

Where are you on abortion?  

92 members have voted

  1. 1. Life or Choice?

    • Pro-life
      33
    • Pro-choice
      55
    • Undecided
      4

173 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Wildcat, its quite obvious from your speech that you have a negative view of sex, honestly, there is a difference in points of views, reason being, giving a teen a condom works, preaching to them about the error of their ways doesnt, its simple logic, therefore we should use what works rather than what doesnt, it doesnt matter whether you LIKE it or not, the fact of the matter is, contraception reduces pregnancy and STDs, and no, if the condom breaks they are not screwed, there are still other factors in play (whether the woman is taking birth control pills {which she should be taking} whether you were having sex in the middle of the menstral cycle, or at the beginning and the end). If you educate yourself more on sex rather than rejecting it, you might be pleasantly suprised...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Wildcat, its quite obvious from your speech that you have a negative view of sex, honestly, there is a difference in points of views, reason being, giving a teen a condom works, preaching to them about the error of their ways doesnt, its simple logic, therefore we should use what works rather than what doesnt, it doesnt matter whether you LIKE it or not, the fact of the matter is, contraception reduces pregnancy and STDs, and no, if the condom breaks they are not screwed, there are still other factors in play (whether the woman is taking birth control pills {which she should be taking} whether you were having sex in the middle of the menstral cycle, or at the beginning and the end). If you educate yourself more on sex rather than rejecting it, you might be pleasantly suprised...

 

How's this for logic. What percentage of teenagers who don't have sex get pregnant? Zero. That's the only thing that can absolutely guarantee no teen pregnancies. That's logic for ya. Would it work? Probably, if you didn't have people going to schools giving out free condoms, and if Abortion was illegal, and there really wasn't a very available way to prevent pregnancy to teenagers.

 

The true fact of the matter is that the only way to prevent STD's is abstinence. Sorry, but that's the truth. You can try using a condom, and other preventative measures, but eventually one of those measures are going to fail. It's a fact. I don't see the point in wasting my life, and my health for a few seconds of pleasure. It's just stupid.

 

I don't have a negative view on Sex. I just have a Negative view on people who abuse Sex. People who treat it as simply a joy ride, and not for what it truly is. The point of Sex isn't pleasure, its most basic form is for reproduction. I don't understand how people can seriously get so surprised when they find out they're pregnant, even though they've had unprotected sex for months. I'm fine with sex, as long as it's with one consenting partner only.

 

It's not like I don't know about Sex, it's just I don't approve of abusing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How's this for logic. What percentage of teenagers who don't have sex get pregnant? Zero. That's the only thing that can absolutely guarantee no teen pregnancies. That's logic for ya. Would it work? Probably, if you didn't have people going to schools giving out free condoms, and if Abortion was illegal, and there really wasn't a very available way to prevent pregnancy to teenagers.

 

The true fact of the matter is that the only way to prevent STD's is abstinence. Sorry, but that's the truth. You can try using a condom, and other preventative measures, but eventually one of those measures are going to fail. It's a fact. I don't see the point in wasting my life, and my health for a few seconds of pleasure. It's just stupid.

 

I don't have a negative view on Sex. I just have a Negative view on people who abuse Sex. People who treat it as simply a joy ride, and not for what it truly is. The point of Sex isn't pleasure, its most basic form is for reproduction. I don't understand how people can seriously get so surprised when they find out they're pregnant, even though they've had unprotected sex for months. I'm fine with sex, as long as it's with one consenting partner only.

 

It's not like I don't know about Sex, it's just I don't approve of abusing it.

 

HOWS THIS for logic. theres no way you can get people to stop having sex (even if you make them feel guilty for doing something perfectly natural). Which state has the highest rate of unwanted teen pregnancy? If im not mistaken, its the state thats the most adament about abstinence only: TEXAS!. Seriously, you cant control everybody, you will never get everybody to not have sex, so, you do the best you can for people who CHOOSE to have sex, dont tell people not to have sex and then deny them any kind of protection if they want to have sex, sure absinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs FOR SURE, but if one uses contraceptives properly, the odds of this happening are actually pretty low. most of the reason why contraceptives fail is because of human error, not the faultyness of the contraceptives.

 

Quite frankly, teaching kids about different forms of protection is the right form of education, regardless of your moral beliefs, simple reason being: not everybody emphasizes sex as a holy act, and thats ok, different methods for different people, if the fear of gods wrath thing works for you, go for it, if a condom works for another person, go for that too, it really doesnt matter. Its not an issue we really need to concern ourself with, kids are going to have sex whether we like it or not, so, we might as well give them all the saftey nets they can get their hands on, not 100% but its better than nothing in my opinion.

 

 

Also, just out of curiousity, have you ever had sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They never gave out free condoms at my Highschool. Even I had sex by graduation. +GASP+

No one in my class (or any other class when I was in) got pregnant (and I would have heard about someone having a baby). Maybe every girl got pregnant from sex, and every one had an abortion. But there's no way of knowing that.

Next, we'll have a discussion about how health class causes teen pregnancy.

 

I can tell you one thing though. Sex education isnt thorough enough. It's still mostly abstinence propaganda. (at least when I took it, which was 15 years ago).

 

EDIT: I'd like to make another point. Abortions occured before Roe V Wade. I dont know the statistics. But no one does, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gwprod is right, when I took health class in my first year of highschool, I was told just about every day "the only 100% thing is abstinence, otherwise you WILL get somebody pregnant and you WILL get stds" scaring kids is no way to prevent pregnancy, and stds, educating them is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wildcat...first thanks for putting words into my mouth...I don't consider abortion murder. Infact until that fetus can survive outside the womb i look at it no different that removing a tumor or shedding skin cells each time you scratch your arm. If you can't live outside anothers body how can you have a 'soul'?

 

about my source, googled it, and I agree it's obviously showing from one view...where's your objective data? {censored} where's your skewed data? and yes I'd like to see the abuse rates of illegal drugs in countries where marijuana is legal. I would expect the rates to be fairly low for abuse. it's not a gateway drug and is fairly valuable medically but that's another conversation. Just like the commercials on TV that tried to scare kids from using drugs, it won't work with sex and STDs. You want ot scare kids, show them the effects of syphillis upfront in real life...not a book. or better yet the long term effects of untreated syphillis.

 

What is abusing sex? you mean actually having it on a regular basis or do you actually mean premature, unprotected sex? or do you believe any sex without the intent of procreation abuse?

 

There's NEVER a reason for abortion? how about when the life of the mother is at risk? What did the mother do to deserve to die if? If the mother dies there's a good chance the fetus will also die (if it's early on). You'll sentence a mass murder to death, i'm fine with that they deserves it (I'd be inline to give bin laden a once over), but why a pregnant woman? You planted your seed but you don't have to die if things go wrong, why should she?

 

Condoms really don't break all that much and have a 99.9% rate of effectiveness for STD prevention and just as high a rate for preventing pregnancy...IF USED RIGHT! When used in conjunction with birthcontrol pills, it gets even closer to 100% effectiveness. read the insert the next time you break into a box of trojans and pay attention. If you don't pinch the tip, the condom will expand incorrectly when ejaculation occurs increasing the pressure on the condom therefore increasing the possibility of rupture. My highschool didn't hand out condoms, they did check if I had a gun though.

 

Secular Liberals? it's an oxymoron. Telling adolescents to use condoms is no different than teaching them to eat healthy and exercise so they don't become obese (which I'll bet you're not opposed to). it's not preaching! During undergrad I never got stopped in front of the student union by anyone handing out condoms (I would have stopped)...I was almost stopped several times by asses handing out bibles and preaching about it wearing their WWJD bracelets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wildcat...first thanks for putting words into my mouth...I don't consider abortion murder. Infact until that fetus can survive outside the womb i look at it no different that removing a tumor or shedding skin cells each time you scratch your arm. If you can't live outside anothers body how can you have a 'soul'?

 

So I got a quick question, if the baby can survive outside the womb then its different? What do you say about babies 10-20 years ago that could not live because they were so premature? Are they no different then removing a tumor or shedding skin? I say this because now, a baby weighing in at 14oz can actually survive. 20 years ago this baby would not make it. Advancements in the medical field made this possible.

 

In 15 years it maybe possible to have a baby survive at half that weight or even less. Are they then more human then the current 7 oz babies that are no different then a tumor?

 

I had a friend that once said a baby should be able to be aborted until the baby is totally seperated from the mother. So when I said, if a women gives birth she can kill it right after as long as the cord is still attatched...and my friend said yes....WOW

 

I really don't want to get into abortion discussions because this discussion always leads to people flipping out on both sides. I just love to bring this point up because the logic you have is bad. Determining when a fetus is "human" or has a soul is going to change every 10-20 years, unless you believe its a life right when the sperm and egg unite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you natas, deciding when a fetus is a human or has a soul is a futile arguement. Your weights are off but I it's irrelevant and I see your arguement. There are babies born prematurely that weigh as low as 2lbs maybe less that live. The upper high for weight can vary but 14lbs babies are now common place thanks to the prevelance of diabetes and obesitiy. a 7oz baby will probably not survive even today, a 7lb baby is late term and would survive just fine provided it's lungs were developed ~26 weeks (add steroids and the lungs develop quicker).

 

I don't agree with your friend with a woman being able to kill her child if the cord is still attached. That is murder, just as throwing it in a dumpster is.

 

I don't believe it's 'life' when the sperm and egg unite though. At that point it's mearly a single cell, by 96 hours following fertilization it consists of around 30 cells. By day 6 it finally implants into the uterine wall if it's lucky enough not to have spontaneously aborted...When it attaches to the uterine wall then we can talk about it being life up until then I don't agree because the mother is in no way pregnant. You can run all the tests you want, they will all be negative...how can you abort pregnancy if you aren't pregnant?

 

I wish all of you would read an embryology book just for your own education on the process involved in the development of a fetus before you truely pass judgement on abortion...if you want me to give you a time for which I feel abortion is not right I will. But you must always consider it as a medical procedure in the event the mothers life is at risk (ectopic pregnancy, say it implanted onto the intestine or is still in the ?) Or how about genetic abnormalities that will result in birth defects? (google 'birth defects' in google images) Why would you put a family through that, and a child through that (some aren't that horrible, some you would all stare at in the mall as if they had three heads and they would not live a good life, if they were lucky enough to live one at all)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14oz babies are actually fairly common, and do survive. Its not unheard of for a 13oz to survive, in fact I believe the record is actually 12.5 or 12.4.

 

The only reason I know this {censored} is because my girlfriend is a neonatal nurse and deals with premature kids everyday....she works at one of the larger nic-u's in the US.

 

When kids this young are born they have a ton of issues like interstines not being fully developed which causes the intestines to usually be on the outside of the body (GROSS), but some of these kids actually pull through and make it with help from excellent doctors and nurses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't argue with anything you said. There are plenty of abnormalities that can be corrected surgically like gastroschisis like what you just described with the intestines. Then there are abnormalities like anencephaly that has no solution because the baby is born basically without a cerberum/forebrain. I hate to see things like that, it's so sad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I completely understand Abortion when Medical needs require it, as when the mother needs it in order to survive. However, to encourage Abortion simply because you don't want the child is something I don't agree with.

 

As for the Birth Defects, why don't you image google "Abortion". Look at some of the sick images there of Aborted Children, and them tell me why those Children and their Families have to go through with that. Sure, a horrible Birth Defect is something nobody should have to live with, but how can you look at Abortion Pictures and tell me that it's simply okay? There are people murdered in less violent ways than Abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not saying it's ok...but it has its place. there are plenty of people out there that so no...no matter the case. I dont agree with that at all. At the same time I'm not saying abortion is anything I would ever want to perform as a physician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not saying it's ok...but it has its place. there are plenty of people out there that so no...no matter the case. I dont agree with that at all. At the same time I'm not saying abortion is anything I would ever want to perform as a physician.

 

I agree with you. Abortion should be performed if there is a serious medical risk to the mother, or if the woman was impregnated against her will. However, most of the people posting here seem to believe that women should be able to have an Abortion at any time, for any reason at all. That is what I disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true...topics such as this seem to always be very polar. It's either black or it's white and no one is ever will to compromise. It seems you like to be in ther grey area as I and I think you only come to a conclusion of that through a combination of rational thought, experience and understanding of the many circumstances that can be involved. Not just blindly following others. I guess that path can sometimes lead you to black or white but I think more often than not you end up in the grey area understanding the pros/cons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the middle here. I think that in cases of endangerment to the mother's life, and if the baby is the result of rape, that an abortion should be allowed. I don't think that any woman that has been the victim of rape should have to carry the child, to them it will be a constant reminder of what happened to them (i don't think the idea of life really matters to most of them at that moment). they are carrying what they see as a corrupted child, not the little bundle of joy most people hope for when having a baby.

 

for a younger person that is totally not ready, they shouldn't have to carry/deliver the fetus. now i don't think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, either use protection or keep it in your pants.

 

hey, gwprod12, that sounds like somthing from Brave New World. If you haven't read it, the society promotes sex, but not for the purpose of reproduction. the population takes birth control drugs, and engages in casual "relations". New humans are created by cloning, there is no "natural" baby-making going on there.

 

ok, want to see what people think: if a girl gets pregnant and wants to have an abortion, but the male doesn't, what happens to the baby? if there is no danger to the mother, does she alone get to choose? she may have to carry the baby, but half of that dna is the father's, he helped to create that fetus. does he have any power to decide it's fate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, want to see what people think: if a girl gets pregnant and wants to have an abortion, but the male doesn't, what happens to the baby? if there is no danger to the mother, does she alone get to choose? she may have to carry the baby, but half of that dna is the father's, he helped to create that fetus. does he have any power to decide it's fate?

 

Good question. At that point, if we begin to examine it that way, then it would become a custody battle of the fetus. Which would then probably be transferred to the court system, where parents-to-be would fight it out to decide who gets to have the Abortion or not. Obviously, that could create some problems, as the court system is rarely time-sensitive. That, and we'd have a lot of reality TV shows like Judge Judy: It's Abortion Time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good question. At that point, if we begin to examine it that way, then it would become a custody battle of the fetus. Which would then probably be transferred to the court system, where parents-to-be would fight it out to decide who gets to have the Abortion or not. Obviously, that could create some problems, as the court system is rarely time-sensitive. That, and we'd have a lot of reality TV shows like Judge Judy: It's Abortion Time.

 

 

which is precisely why one cant consider it a full blown person...because youd have parents to be fighting over a growth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which is precisely why one cant consider it a full blown person...because youd have parents to be fighting over a growth...

 

Just because it makes it more difficult, doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't consider it that way. Even though the woman has the right to control over her body, we have to consider the possibility that a male wants to keep the child. Is it really fair for the woman to just say no, and then abort it?

 

I'd like parents to fight over it, because I want people to at least take a look before they make the Abortion decision. I'm not trying to imply that people don't think about it already, but I'd like both of the parents to really make a fair decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because it makes it more difficult, doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't consider it that way. Even though the woman has the right to control over her body, we have to consider the possibility that a male wants to keep the child. Is it really fair for the woman to just say no, and then abort it?

 

I'd like parents to fight over it, because I want people to at least take a look before they make the Abortion decision. I'm not trying to imply that people don't think about it already, but I'd like both of the parents to really make a fair decision.

 

 

See, I think when you start to get into issues like that, you start to care too much...its just...annoying. Just because a woman gets an abortion doesnt mean its the end of the world, its very small on issues that affect us all. Honestly, I dont know why people care so much about abortion, when other things like government corruption are much more rampant, just my take on it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, I think when you start to get into issues like that, you start to care too much...its just...annoying. Just because a woman gets an abortion doesnt mean its the end of the world, its very small on issues that affect us all. Honestly, I dont know why people care so much about abortion, when other things like government corruption are much more rampant, just my take on it anyway.

 

Well, for your comparison, Abortion is one heck of a lot easier to fix than Government Corruption. Plus, Abortions are generally a public affair, to an extent. Government Corruption goes on behind the scenes, etc etc.

 

But people should seriously care because I think that we really have to re-examine ourselves as a society. Just because something happens that doesn't necessarily affect us all, we should still want to fix it. To some extent, Abortion may be necessary. However, I think that it's high time we begin to look at Abortion in a new light, and not part of an extensive Women's Rights movement. We should examine if Abortion is necessary, what it actually accomplishes, etc. Only then can we really figure out things like this.

 

In my opinion, I think that if we do this reorgainzation and introspection, we'll find Abortion an unnecessary measure that is morally wrong. But I could be completely wrong... In your words, it's just my take on it. (no sarcasm intended)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think the problem is the definition of a person, I dont consider an embryo/fetus a person, you do, thats where the trouble starts, its all how you define it, thats all.

 

If its not a person, its ok to abort, if it is a person, its not ok, seems reasonable, the only thing we cant agree on is whether its a person or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO:

 

Abortion should be legal for the first few months, but 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should have special requirements for abortion; basically, if they cannot afford to have a child they should get a court hearing and any life-endangering or health-endangering complications caused by the pregnancy should qualify the woman for an automatic abortion if she so chooses.

 

Why? Well, simple. Abortion should be a possibility because accidents happen and adults should be allowed to have sex and not want kids. But, if they don't want kids, make the decision early while the developing fetus is essentially a simple conglomerate of biological matter and before it starts to develop any higher brain function. Any later than a few months is just plain ridiculous. Not to far after the three month mark the nervous system really starts to develop and things like pain are a reality for the fetus. And, IMO, when any animal can feel, think, etc, it should not have its life taken on a whim for the convenience of someone else--there better be a damn good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO:

 

Abortion should be legal for the first few months, but 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should have special requirements for abortion; basically, if they cannot afford to have a child they should get a court hearing and any life-endangering or health-endangering complications caused by the pregnancy should qualify the woman for an automatic abortion if she so chooses.

 

Why? Well, simple. Abortion should be a possibility because accidents happen and adults should be allowed to have sex and not want kids. But, if they don't want kids, make the decision early while the developing fetus is essentially a simple conglomerate of biological matter and before it starts to develop any higher brain function. Any later than a few months is just plain ridiculous. Not to far after the three month mark the nervous system really starts to develop and things like pain are a reality for the fetus. And, IMO, when any animal can feel, think, etc, it should not have its life taken on a whim for the convenience of someone else--there better be a damn good reason.

 

I agree, first three months, fine, after that, it turns into a slippery slope pretty fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abortion should be legal, but I in no way support it.

 

Why it should be legal:

If a woman wants an abortion, she is going to get it. Legally, or illegally. I think we can all agree that legally is by far the SAFEST way to go.

 

Why its wrong:

We declare a human body dead when it ceases to have a heartbeat and it ceases to have brainwaves. Fetuses develop heartbeats at 3 weeks, and brainwaves at 6 weeks. If we can call someone dead when they do not have these characteristics, why can't we call someone living when they DO have these characteristics?

 

Another thing. If people are going to have sex, they should be big enough to be responsible. There is no 100% way to have hetero-sex without risking pregnancy (provided both partners are fertile). But you can still reduce the risks. If you do not want to have a kid, then take the almost-fool-proof options. But keep in mind that you can still get pregnant. Either way, sex is a responsibility that people need to be prepared for. FYI, I am not talking anything about rape, so don't make that argument.

 

I don't think anyone in here is willing to call abortion a "GOOD" thing. So if its not good, then why do it, all medical issues aside? Having a baby right now would be too difficult? Let the baby live its life, even if you give it up for adoption. It's the RIGHT thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why it should be legal:

If a woman wants an abortion, she is going to get it. Legally, or illegally. I think we can all agree that legally is by far the SAFEST way to go.

 

Your logic there is a little skewed. By your standards, if somebody wants Meth, they're going to get it. We might as well make it legal, because then its the "safest" way to go. Just because people will do anything to do it doesn't make it a reason to be widely available to women everywhere.

 

The way I look at it, Abortion was thrown into availability due to a publicly influenced Supreme Court Case. Somehow, they found a women's right to abortion IN the Constituion. So, can anyone tell me where the hell in the Constitution does it give women the Right to Abortion? Where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×