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

Um, I believe self-righteous is thinking that a person is so much better than another as to think making someone else's decision them is best for them . Glass houses.

 

If you believe what I said is selfish and self-righteous, perhaps you should scroll back up and read what you posted. Then you'll understand what those two words actually mean.

 

Like I said in my post, if you feel so strongly about "human life", put all that energy into see if you can carry the baby to term yourself. If it was possible, I bet you still wouldn't do it. And that's what self-righteous and selfish is all about: speaking of things or telling other to do things that you wouldn't do yourself.

 

I'm concerned about more pressing things in our society than this nonissue that people get so worked up about and as a result I volunteer my time to various non-profit organizations and help them to raise money. If I can help someone, I'll do it, but I'm not so selfish to make someone else's decisions for them. I've been around enough people who are down on their luck or afflicted with disease to know that they are responsible for their own choices and they tend to know eventually what is good for them. It's not my place to stick my nose unwanted in other's affairs just as I don't want people doing the same thing to me.

 

Maybe you should think about that the next time you rattle off on someone about being self-righteous and selfish.

 

Terry

 

What? So just because a woman has to carry the baby herself, that means that no one else is allowed to stop her from killing a "human life (why did you put it in quotes?)." So, if an older person is very sick and is an extreme emotional and physical burden on either their family and/or caretaker for much longer than 9 months, and are dependent ont hese people to live (withut their help they would die), we should let the family/caretaker kill the person, right? It's not our job to meddle in their family affairs, they spent so long taking care of that person, they should be able to end the life of an extremely vulnerable person, right?

 

And selfish would be staying out of something because it doesn't involve you. "It's not my problem, so why should I care." I don't see how me not being able to become pregnant disallows me from wanting to protect human life.

 

And this isn't a decision on what is more convenient for the woman. It's not her life that's in the balance, it's the baby's. This is a little more important than you seem to keep writing it off to be, like somehow a life just doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
What? So just because a woman has to carry the baby herself, that means that no one else is allowed to stop her from killing a "human life (why did you put it in quotes?)."

 

That's her decision, not yours. If she chooses to terminate her pregnancy she is the one that has to deal with her decision. Not you.

 

So, if an older person is very sick and is an extreme emotional and physical burden on either their family and/or caretaker for much longer than 9 months, and are dependent ont hese people to live (withut their help they would die), we should let the family/caretaker kill the person, right? It's not our job to meddle in their family affairs, they spent so long taking care of that person, they should be able to end the life of an extremely vulnerable person, right?

 

First, you're right. It's STILL not your job.

 

Second, I guess you forgot that Terri Schiavo right to life fiasco. Everyone was meddling in that case, interfering in a private family matter and in the end, all the outside parties had egg on their face as what happens when people try to legislate inside people's homes.

 

And selfish would be staying out of something because it doesn't involve you. "It's not my problem, so why should I care." I don't see how me not being able to become pregnant disallows me from wanting to protect human life.

 

Not selfish. I'm thinking about about other's right to privacy and respect that. You don't. You are just thinking about yourself and imposing your views on others. That's selfish.

 

And this isn't a decision on what is more convenient for the woman. It's not her life that's in the balance, it's the baby's. This is a little more important than you seem to keep writing it off to be, like somehow a life just doesn't matter.

 

Not your decision, once again. It's hers. People always forget that. You never answered. If you could take her place and carry the baby the term, would you? I think not. So don't ask her to, that makes you worse than what you think of the woman that wants an abortion: Asking someone to do something you know good and well you wouldn't.

 

This is her decision for better or for worse. And this is none of my business. Or yours. Period.

 

You can get upset at this conversation if you wish, but I truly got better things to worry about and affects me directly than what should be a private matter concerning someone who I don't know, their circumstances, or reasons.

 

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. I've wasted enough time on this... I'm going to pull away from the keyboard and do a bit of clubbing. :(

 

Now I'm being selfish. :(

 

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's her decision, not yours. If she chooses to terminate her pregnancy she is the one that has to deal with her decision. Not you.
Why do you keep neglecting the baby here? The fetus is the one that has to deal with the decision. All the woman has to do is go to a clinic and be free of a baby. Who does that decision really affect more? An innocent vulnerable child who has done nothing wrong and is having their life ended, or a mother who gets an easy way out for becoming pregnant, and whose life isn't ending?

 

 

 

First, you're right. It's STILL not your job.

 

Second, I guess you forgot that Terri Schiavo right to life fiasco. Everyone was meddling in that case, interfering in a private family matter and in the end, all the outside parties had egg on their face as what happens when people try to legislate inside people's homes.

That's different, she was on life support, suffering with no hope of recovery. That's a lot different from a baby whose possibilities are just beginning.

 

 

 

Not selfish. I'm thinking about about other's right to privacy and respect that. You don't. You are just thinking about yourself and imposing your views on others. That's selfish.
So, ending life should be private? Murder should be private. I have a right to murder whoever I want in the privacy of home, then? Don't prosecute me, what I do in private is my business, even if it involves ending another life, right?

 

 

 

Not your decision, once again. It's hers. People always forget that. You never answered. If you could take her place and carry the baby the term, would you? I think not. So don't ask her to, that makes you worse than what you think of the woman that wants an abortion: Asking someone to do something you know good and well you wouldn't.
What do hypotheticals have to do with anything?! This is the real world, that can't/doesn't/won't happen! So just because I would or wouldn't do something in a hypothetical world, that makes me unable to want to save human lives?! What? I'm sorry but if you get pregnant, you have to deal with the consequences. I support people being responsible for their own actions, and not just ending human life every time they get knocked up.

 

This is her decision for better or for worse. And this is none of my business. Or yours. Period.
I don't think it should be anyone's legal decision to be able to murder. In any other case it isn't. It is my business because I actually care about other humans living and dying, especially at the point where they are so vulnerable that they cannot defend themselves or speak for themselves.

 

You can get upset at this conversation if you wish, but I truly got better things to worry about and affects me directly than what should be a private matter concerning someone who I don't know, their circumstances, or reasons.
Selfish...? Since when has killing been a private matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) its not a complete human. get over it. It is unicellular (not multicellular), has no limbs, organs, thoughts, emotions, hopes, dreams, does not breathe, relies completely and totally on the biological processes of a human being, forms no relationships, does not see, hear, smell, taste, or feel. NOTHING! it is not a complete human.

 

2)the whole "its her right" argument is false if abortion is murder. For the sake of argument, I will pretend that legal abortion is murder (which it is not). Just because the woman has to bear the burden does not give her the right to murder someone. Just like you can't murder an older family member.

 

Pro-life people: why should rape victims be allowed to have abortions whereas normal people shouldnt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of cells that make up a person does not decide whether or not that person is complete. An adult has like ten times as many cells as an infant, yet that doesn't make the adult more of a complete human, or the infant less of a complete human. The adult has much larger organs than the infant because the adult has had more time to develop. Likewise, the infant has had substantially more time to develop than a zygote. So whether it's a one-cell zygote, one-trillion celled infant or ten-trillion celled adult, all three stages are that of a whole human being. It's NOT 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1001 cells- OH! NOW it's a human. There is no point in time when a developing stage becomes "complete" enough to be considered a whole human being. It was already a human way back when the sperm fertilized the egg. And whether or not people have their senses, or communicative abilities does not determine how complete a human they are either. People who are in a vegetative state are still humans, yet they do not, as far as we know, have thoughts, feelings, ambitions, or form relationships. They also rely completely and totally on the mechanical processes of a machine to stay alive. So like I was saying, you cannot judge a human by how much he or she has developed, or how funtional they are, since they are humans nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... It was already a human way back when the sperm fertilized the egg. And whether or not people have their senses, or communicative abilities does not determine how complete a human they are either. People who are in a vegetative state are still humans, yet they do not, as far as we know, have thoughts, feelings, ambitions, or form relationships. They also rely completely and totally on the mechanical processes of a machine to stay alive. So like I was saying, you cannot judge a human by how much he or she has developed, or how funtional they are, since they are humans nonetheless.

 

you keep saying this, yet you have nothing whatsoever to support what you are saying!

 

It is more than just the difference in the number of cells, or the size of the organs. Its that a zygote has NO organs, whereas the adult has many. Also, its not that it simply has less cells, but that it is unicellular, as opposed to multicellular.

 

Those vegetative people, they still have all (or nearly all) the organs of a normal human, whereas a zygote has none.

 

"So like I was saying, you cannot judge a human by how much he or she has developed, or how funtional they are, since they are humans nonetheless." you are basically saying that we cannot judge what a human is. Instead, we should just summarily accept your definition.

 

The only thing that fertilization does is provide the egg/zygote with a complete genome. It does not make it a human, because humans are complex, multicellular animals, and a zygote is a simple unicellular thing.

 

 

There are many characteristics to being human, and while certain humans lack a small number of these, the zygote has none of them. Since the zygote has no characteristics in common with humans (except for genetics), it cannot possibly be a human.

 

Now, if you are not going show why a zygote should be a human, then please stop saying that it is one. It is an unproven, incorrect statement at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself have a VERY pro life postion. It IS the mother's desision, she does have a choice. That choice is when she has sex. If she does, she gets the baby, if she doesnt she doesnt have to worry about it. Why should rape and incest victims get away with this? Its still murder. The only time abortion is ok is if having the child would kill BOLTH the child AND the parrent. If one of them die in the process, let it procede. If neither of them do, let the child be born.

 

I specifically said that in my post that you couldn't use that metaphor. :) It really isn't a real human. How small is it? Smaller than a fingernail?

 

You do know about midgits, do you? When fully grown, they are small. Are they not humans? Furthermore, you said it isnt a HUMAN. You DID say it was ALIVE. Even if you take the "Its not a human yet" argument, its still murder. Even if it is unicellular, its still alive because it can reproduce/divide. And why kill it? Animals are killed for food. Humans die because of age and so to not cause overpopulation. Why should the baby die? What would that do to benifit society?

 

Can you have a conversation with it? Does it like certain things?

Can you do this with people under one year of age? Do they like certian things, or are they just curious?

Can you touch this person and teach it stuff?

I know that children start to learn the voice of their parrents in the womb, so yes, you CAN teach them stuff. You cant touch them, but YOU CAN see them through equitment.

The last few sentences are wrong. You said that the zygote is complete, and that it isn't missing anything. Let me diverge to wikipedia: "A zygote (Greek: ζυγωτόν) is a cell that is the result of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells—usually an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote (or zygocyte)." That means that at it's earliest stage, the zygote has one cell. That's missing a lot.

Yes, but it DOES start dividing VERY quickly, and by the time of the abortion it is most likely moved on enough to be multicellular. It would most likely have most of its organs, albeit underdeveloped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It IS the mother's desision, she does have a choice. That choice is when she has sex.

Well, she could have the all the sex she wanted and just use condoms, spermicide and emergency contraception ('morning after') as necessary.

Why should rape... victims get away with this?

Er, why should they be forced to have the baby? You said yourself that the mother 'does have a choice'. Where is the mothers choice in a rape situation? Plus, if they abort the fetus early on it's not even conscious or aware yet.

Why should... incest victims get away with this?

Hmm, I don't know: so the gene pool doesn't go to {censored}? If people who engadged in incest were not allowed abortions, the entire population would have more mental disabilities, more physical defects and as a whole be more stupid.

Yes, but it DOES start dividing VERY quickly, and by the time of the abortion it is most likely moved on enough to be multicellular. It would most likely have most of its organs, albeit underdeveloped.

Yes, but if it's not conscious or aware of itself-- and never has been, can you call it human?

And allow me to challenge your argument with your own logic:

The only time abortion is ok is if having the child would kill BOLTH the child AND the parrent.
Its still murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am born in pakistan, but i learned in the college in india. after school i got a job in the united states, so i live in the united states. in the united states you do not understand what is a 'population problem'. in india, there is very bad over population as you may know. families need contraceptives and abortion, if not baby will come and they can not afford to feed and be good mother and father. you need to think of the poor families without many money. they are in relationship and want sex, but do not want baby. so they have to use the condoms and sometimes get abortion. abortion is very sad thing sometimes, but i would like to see you my friends live without sex! i am being serious, it is a part of life and even if you a poor you will have to need it.

 

sorry for bad english, i am trying to do best job of saying what i am thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if it is unicellular, its still alive because it can reproduce/divide. And why kill it? Animals are killed for food. Humans die because of age and so to not cause overpopulation. Why should the baby die? What would that do to benifit society?

You said it yourself. Humans die to not overpopulate. If we didn't abort babies we would be overpopulated. So it does benefit society.

 

 

I'm now throwing in my 2 cents. Don't bother lashing back or quoting me to say I'm wrong or whatever. I don't give a {censored} what you think. I will never meet you nor deal with you and you can't change the way I think. Abortion should be legal. It's not murder. It's not human nor is aware of it's surroundings or is conscious. We don't celebrate our conception day, we celebrate our BIRTHday cause that's when we become human. Abortions before the third trimester should be legal and I'm all for them. Once you hit the third trimester, you've only got 3 months til the thing is born, just have it then give it up for adoption. Everyone knows you're a whore and are pregnant by that time. It's solely up to the woman. It affects her and only her. Not the unborn thing inside of her. Who are you to say what she should do? You're not her, you're you. You don't have to deal with what she does, therefore you can't say {censored}. If you're all for saving lives and {censored}, become a {censored} cop or a firefighter. Just cause it's alive doesn't mean that it's got rights. Insects don't have rights. Viruses and bacteria don't have rights. Animals don't have rights no matter how much PETA trys to petition (I quit after a year of failure, still a vegetarian though). And PSP, you are an idiot. Your arguments barely made sense. Terrence and socal made the most sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said it yourself. Humans die to not overpopulate. If we didn't abort babies we would be overpopulated. So it does benefit society.
Yup, good call. Instead of working more on sex ed and contraception education, let's let the mother get pregnant and kil...err, "surpress?" a human that ahs already begun developing.

 

 

I'm now throwing in my 2 cents. Don't bother lashing back or quoting me to say I'm wrong or whatever.
Too late...

 

 

You're wrong.

I don't give a {censored} what you think. I will never meet you nor deal with you and you can't change the way I think.
It's fairly hard to change the way anybody thinks, but at least different perspectives provide everyone with more viewpoints and cause them to consider more options than just one, narrow viewpoint.
Abortion should be legal. It's not murder. It's not human nor is aware of it's surroundings or is conscious.
Actually, that happens at around 26 weeks gestation, FYI.
We don't celebrate our conception day, we celebrate our BIRTHday cause that's when we become human.
Hahahaha, ok. I always thought it celebrated the day I was born, never knew that was also when I became human. I guess I was just nonexistent in the 9 months before that.
Once you hit the third trimester, you've only got 3 months til the thing is born, just have it then give it up for adoption. Everyone knows you're a whore and are pregnant by that time. It's solely up to the woman. It affects her and only her. Not the unborn thing inside of her.
How does it not affect the "unborn thing" inside of her? That's what the whole process is about! What happens in an abortion? The fetus is disposed of. How does that affect the mother other than not having to be responsible for her actions?
Who are you to say what she should do? You're not her, you're you. You don't have to deal with what she does, therefore you can't say {censored}.
I don't particularly care if her "reputation" is ruined or even that it might be a burden. If you choose to have sex without contraception then you are consciously choosing to have a child (whether or not that actually happens). If you can't be responsible for yourself and instead have to abort that "unborn thing" (human) inside of you because you can't control yourself and be responsible for your actions, well that just seems ludicrous.
If you're all for saving lives and {censored}, become a {censored} cop or a firefighter.
Unborn lives don't count? They're the most vulnerable of all...
Just cause it's alive doesn't mean that it's got rights.
Also, just because it's an alive human fetus, which you seem to be conveniently neglecting, I think that might make it higher on the chain than insects and animals....
Insects don't have rights.
A human fetus isn't an insect.
Viruses and bacteria don't have rights.
It ain't a virus or a bacteria, either. Maybe you'll get it on the third try...
Animals don't have rights no matter how much PETA trys to petition (I quit after a year of failure, still a vegetarian though).
Oh! So close! Sorry but you guessed incorrectly! A human fetus is a human fetus. Not a bacteria, not a virus, not an insect, not an animal. Come again next time to the tricky game we call logic!
And PSP, you are an idiot. Your arguments barely made sense. Terrence and social made the most sense.

 

Because you agree with them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:censored2:

 

i have to put this in, because even my ex argued with me on this one, but she couldn't quite come to a better conclusion than i did.

 

If you're a male, you have the lesser counted of the two votes. Why? Because you wont be the one caring for it, getting sick over, or having another "parasite" living off you for the next 7-9 months, pending premature birth. Two, the male will not have postpartum depression, or even the risk of it. Third, the only reason you'd be needing an abortion is unprotected sex. Now, how often does one think they're manly, good enough, or smart enough to have unprotected sex when they're a man? ALL THE TIME. Therefore, when you have the option to have sex, wear a condom. That way, you do not have these "pro-life vs. pro-choice" arguements.

 

Lets also keep in mind that keeping abortions legalized keeps it safe! The second that abortions become illegal, they will become barbaric, inhumane, and downright dangerous for the woman, not even thinking about the fetus. If this is what you want, you need to keep these things in mind.

 

If you love your partner, and they bring up this issue, you'll honor, respect, and you'll support them throughout their decision, because it is their body, regardless of what is inside them.

 

Women are humans too, able to think for themselves, judge their own actions as per their situation, and they're very capable of understanding the consequences. If you disagree, you're sexist.

 

i have no reason to debate anyone elses arguements, i'd just like to point out that this nation was built off the independence of the people, and here we are debating whether or not a woman can do what her mind is set on according to the situation that she's in. If you believe its wrong, good for you. If you're a man and you believe its wrong, i suggest you open your mind to everything you'll never experience.

 

I'm not normally one to argue this topic because I am a male, and i support my own arguement fully, but i keep seeing people blindly arguing for a cause they have no understanding for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets also keep in mind that keeping abortions legalized keeps it safe! The second that abortions become illegal, they will become barbaric, inhumane, and downright dangerous for the woman, not even thinking about the fetus. If this is what you want, you need to keep these things in mind.

 

If you love your partner, and they bring up this issue, you'll honor, respect, and you'll support them throughout their decision, because it is their body, regardless of what is inside them.

 

Women are humans too, able to think for themselves, judge their own actions as per their situation, and they're very capable of understanding the consequences. If you disagree, you're sexist.

 

All very good points. The first one is why abortion was legalized in Italy in the first place. Since then not only it has become one million times safer for the woman, but the number of abortions has actually decreased!

 

The other 2 points are very good too! If you are a man, it is not your bloody business.

Personally I don't feel 100% comfortable with abortion, but when counselling a woman I keep this always in mind: it is not my business! I must only help her understand what she really wants, without interfering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abortions before the third trimester should be legal and I'm all for them.

People like you are sick. The fetus can FEEL PAIN. Even if you don't consider it a human, it is a living something (what you would call it I don't know...), and it's just inhumane to want to be "all for" third trimester abortions. I don't know any politician and I've never talked to anyone who supports such sick treatment of living things.

You misread what he was saying. He never touched the topic of third trimester abortions, he only said ones prior to that should be legal.

Lets also keep in mind that keeping abortions legalized keeps it safe! The second that abortions become illegal, they will become barbaric, inhumane, and downright dangerous for the woman, not even thinking about the fetus. If this is what you want, you need to keep these things in mind.

Like Alessandro said, what a good point. To be honest, I had never even considered this until now. Guess I'm naive -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although my ex hasn't spoken to me in almost a year, it hasn't ruined my strong support of the feminist movement.

 

one of the key things is that they (women) are people too.

 

but when life begins is not for me to say. one could say at birth, because you finally begin to breath, and what is life without oxygen? one could also say at conception, but that doens't make a fetus human. if you cut off support to a fetus, it doesn't have arms, legs, a head, a heart, a brain, or any other vital organs for life. but unicellular bacteria are also alive.

 

if you're going to take it to when life begins, you have to first define the criteria of life itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure as to when life itself begins, but as for human beings, they begin at a very specific point. Here is a scientific explanation: http://l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

 

Absolutely preposterous. There is nothing worse than using pseudoscience: http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html to further your political agenda.

Basically what they are saying in that article is that a seed is identical to a fully grown tree.

Besides I had never, ever seen at the bottom of a truly scientific article a political statement before.

With other words, that is called "junk science" (see my link above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if my dad asks me to go to the store and get a bag of potatoes, and I come back with a bag of potato seeds, he is going to be pretty angry, because potato seeds are not the same as potatoes. Yes, they can become potatoes some day (if you give them lots of stuff), but at this point, they are not potatoes.

 

A human zygote can eventually become a human (if you add a lot of stuff), but that doesn't make it a human. It is not a human for reasons already mentioned:

 

it is unicellular, lacks organs, not self aware, not self-sufficient.

 

On a side note: an egg can eventually become a human too. You just have to add a tiny bit more than you would add to a zygote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other 2 points are very good too! If you are a man, it is not your bloody business.

Personally I don't feel 100% comfortable with abortion, but when counselling a woman I keep this always in mind: it is not my business! I must only help her understand what she really wants, without interfering.

 

you do counseling work? thats cool, i've been thinking about entering a similar field for college soon.

 

we as people have reached a point where we expect to be respected by others, from childhood we are taught many things, like treat others how you expect to be treated, if someone feels a certain way, its alright for them, but here we are dictating what is right and what is wrong. the church did it, and it landed Separation of Church and state. do we now need a separation of church and civil rights? do we need to separate the church from society itself? every aspect of life as we know it is made by man. God, money, politics, weapons, communication, technology; its all made by man. yet even now, after we've continued on through life for millions of years, we're still trying to be supreme dictators of our world. research the cobalt bomb. there are two; one is in a known place, the other is not. knowledge is the most dangerous thing in this world, and here we are debating the rights of human beings like ourselves. because we do not agree.

 

PSPHax0r9: i'd like to know what you're stance is now. you seem to like picking apart responces here, and i tried to invoke an amount of thought with my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro-choice. You choose to have sex or not, or to protect or not. Whatever happens after that is not for you to decide, because you already got your choice.

 

That being said, I think the government needs to stay out of it. Giving money to poor women for abortions is wrong, it only encourages stupid reproduction and promotes the thought of "well, who cares about being safe, I'll just get a free abortion later if it comes to that." An outright ban on abortions would be even worse, as it would form a black market that's 10x worse than the current state of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pro-choice. You choose to have sex or not, or to protect or not. Whatever happens after that is not for you to decide, because you already got your choice.

 

but rape or incest should be exceptions to the rules? i don't agree with that. rape victims are not given a choice, it is forced.

 

so its for someone else to decide what is and is not right for you? i don't agree with that either. human will wasn't developed for just kicks and giggles, set your mind on something and get there.

 

again, someone only gets their choice if it really is willingly or by consent.

Pro-Choice is not giving up on a fight, its allowing those who wish to battle pick their own enemies.

 

"I see, said the blind man to his deaf wife and mute child."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but rape or incest should be exceptions to the rules? i don't agree with that. rape victims are not given a choice, it is forced.

I hate this argument. It accounts for less than 1% of all abortions. Something like 0.3% was the last statistic I heard. For the dozen or so situations each year where that does happen, it should be permitted, but it must happen very soon (within the first week or two), and be covered by the victim's insurance, not "big brother." Anything more lenient than that opens the door for a girl to simply cry rape (happens often) when her last relationship didn't go as she planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

hate the arguement all you want, but when you disregard any arguement, you're being ignorant towards anothers' view.

 

i just think its a large load of {censored} that MEN feel that it should be their decisions to change the lives of a woman when they clearly aren't aware of all the facts. if you're saying i have an interesting point, or i have a point in anything i say, its because its something you didn't see, therefore you're previous thoughts need to now incorporate these new ideas into a new opinion.

 

don't stand by something that you're hardly aware of. especially like PSPhax0r9

 

Why do you keep neglecting the baby here? The fetus is the one that has to deal with the decision. All the woman has to do is go to a clinic and be free of a baby. Who does that decision really affect more? An innocent vulnerable child who has done nothing wrong and is having their life ended, or a mother who gets an easy way out for becoming pregnant, and whose life isn't ending?

 

forgotten fact? postpartum depression.

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.

×