namelesstavern.net

I am pro abortion up to about 3 or 4 months, if you cant decide by that point, you should have it. Even if it takes you 3 months to find out your pregnant you should still have enough time to make the decision. I have always felt that if the decision is very hard to make, then you should have it. If you later decide it was a bad idea, you shouldn't then go have it aborted; you should give the child up for adoption.

People are going to have sex, no matter how much you stress that it can cause problems it is going to happen. People are going to get pregnant from that, and in some of those cases they will even have been using protection. No protection is 100%. If something happens and the woman gets pregnant, they should have the choice of whether to have that child or not.

It was brought up that it should be a decision between both parties, and to an extent I agree with you. I think its a discussion both people should have together, however I feel that ultimately the decision is hers. She is the one who has to do all the work, all the guy does is sit and wait. If she decides she doesn't want to go through with it then that’s her choice.

Abortion should not however be used as a form of birth control, anyone who has had more then 1 has a problem. IMO the first abortion shouldn't be hard to get, however after the first the process needs to become more and more difficult as well as more and more expensive. Right now, the system is far to convenient for people to use as a form of birth control. If it became so difficult and so expensive to do, it might lower the number of multiple abortions.

All the guy does is sit and wait?

Wow....just wow.

Harrison wrote:All the guy does is sit and wait?

Wow....just wow.

In some cases, they do even less!

Opposed to abortion unless the mothers life is in danger.

I support the morning after pill and I have issues with making abortion completely illegal, though.

It really isn't that hard not to get pregnant.

Insanityfair wrote:In some cases, they do even less!

I hate to burst your bubble, but a guy goes through a lot you don't know about.

Women have all the power when it comes to deciding whether abortion is the answer. Do you know the feeling of not knowing if your life will be turned upside down based on one decision of someone else? It eats you alive, literally in my case.

Some chick decided she was pregnant with my kid and waited 3 weeks to get an abortion. The whole time she was telling me how much child support I would be paying and trying to "blackmail" me so she would get an abortion. I ended up with stomach ulcers galore thanks to that bitch!

I even tried to settle with her. Telling her I would give her child support and wanted visitation rights. In the end I found out it was all a LIE! She was trying to get the money for an abortion that she didn't even need. I almost strangled that whore!

Agrajag wrote:

Insanityfair wrote:In some cases, they do even less!

I hate to burst your bubble, but a guy goes through a lot you don't know about.

Women have all the power when it comes to deciding whether abortion is the answer. Do you know the feeling of not knowing if your life will be turned upside down based on one decision of someone else? It eats you alive, literally in my case.

Some chick decided she was pregnant with my kid and waited 3 weeks to get an abortion. The whole time she was telling me how much child support I would be paying and trying to "blackmail" me so she would get an abortion. I ended up with stomach ulcers galore thanks to that bitch!

I even tried to settle with her. Telling her I would give her child support and wanted visitation rights. In the end I found out it was all a LIE! She was trying to get the money for an abortion that she didn't even need. I almost strangled that whore!

Okay, that was kind of a joke, and I said in some cases, because it's true, in some cases the to-be dad does just go on with his life blah blah, sometimes isn't there for the woman at all. Sounds like your story was bad. For that, I'm sorry, some women are bitches.

You have sex and get (or get a lady) pregnant then you should be forced to live with the consequences.

Because you care about unborn fetuses, or because you just like to see people deal with their irresponsible actions? I'm curious.

Abortion IMO should only be considered in the event that carrying the baby to full term would seriously endanger the well being of the mother or if the mother was raped.

I've never understood this sentiment. How does an unborn fetus' life have any less value if it is the product of rape? If aborting a product of rape is ok, how about aborting when birth control fails, or when you know the child would be raised in miserable circumstances? It's a slippery slope.

No need to punish yourself. There is always adoption. Many folks usually seem to forget that option as they would rather take the easy road out and not face the prospect of pregnancy and the stigma that may be attached (depends on your values and your family and friends) before and after the birth.

The problem with adoption is, there are plenty of kids that need to be adopted already. Why add another potential orphan into the world? Thats something I've noticed almost all pro life people seem to ignore --- quality of life.

I belive that it took 2 people to make that baby and that 2 people should be involved in the decision. By stating that because it is the womans body it is her right to choose is flawed, as that instantly removes the male from the process. It should be a mutual agreement (or disagreement as the case may be).

Urm. The main problem with that is, is that the process of birth is that is wreaks havoc on the woman's body, It messes up her hormones, she gains a ton of weight, she has to deal with a little person kicking her from the inside, and she has to go through a lot of various expenses. Not to mention, the actual act of birth is one of the most painful things a human being can experience. In the aftermath, it can lead to physical problems that can potentially kill the mother, psychological problems such as depression, and body changes such as weight that are very hard to get rid of.

The man on the other hand, doesn't have any of this happen to him. It's pretty illogical to give him a say as he isn't the one who will have to suffer through it.

Rape is a HORRILE situation to go through. If you had, you wouldnt wish it on your worst enemy. A baby from that situation is a daily reminder. I can only give my viewpoint from this though. I would love that child to no end, but I would catch myself thinking about it, because I have the baby there to remind me. Plus, (some) people who are against rapebabies think that since the father did it, the son will too....the apple doesnt fall far from the tree or something.

About the woman's body, the man has EVERY right to have a say. Half of that child is his. The woman has to do more work? That's the burden we bear(bare?) and have to live with, but the man still gets a say.
The man, most of the time, goes through the exact same stuff we do, empathy pains, or what have you. I've watched men gain weight right along with their woman. I've seen men get JUST as depressed as their wives. And it is extremely rare that someone would get a physical problem that could kill her.
Baby weight is not hard to get rid of, if you try.


About needing to be hypocritical, I cant say that...oh lordy, I forgot what you said...but I cant go around and tell her that things that come from premarital sex are mistakes and "problems". My daughter is a product of premarital sex. I wouldnt give her up for anything. I was married 10 days before having her. But I cant tell her that it would be a mistake, because there go hurt feelings of her thinking I called her a mistake. Then having to redeem myself from that situation. But you CAN bet your ass that I will be pushing condoms and birth control. But, as Gid said, they arent 100% effective. My friend got pregnant while she was on the pill and he was using a condom.

Harrison wrote:All the guy does is sit and wait?

Wow....just wow.

I take it your body works differently then the average male. Do you carry the baby for part of the pregnancy?

The woman is the one who has to actually carry the baby. Dont give me shit like the guy has to deal with the woman or anything like that. Sure there are many things the guy can do to help, but the woman does the work. In comparison to what the woman goes through, the guy sits on his ass and waits.

I think he means that "Wow, why isnt the guy helping, why is he sitting on his ass watching Family Guy reruns while the woman is at the Dr. or why is she still having to go grocery shoppig when the doctor told her to stay in bed, but the guy is just sitting on his ass and they need food, so it is all up to her."

I might be off though.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

I'm not a dumbass trying to pin nature's way into an argument point.

Just because she actually carries the thing is not good enough for her to have 100% say over its fate. That's bullshit when you look at it objectively.

She didn't impregnate herself. It takes two to tango.

Apparently, it only takes one to kill.

Abortions for some, tiny american flags for others!!

abortion should only be legal if the father can sign a waver declining any and all responsibility for the child if the woman decides to keep it

also post 1st trimester abortions im against for previous reasons stated by another post

Abortion is a matter of conscience for the woman. It's her body, it's her choice. I do not see how the state has a compelling interest in forcing the woman to carry the egg/blastocyst/embryo/fetus to term, at least until the hazy 'point of viability' is reached.

I disapprove of abortion as 'retroactive birth control', but again, I see that as a personal choice, and it's impractical to pretend you could differentiate that sort of thing from 'we used a condom and I still got pregnant'. RU-486 obviously is less intrusive, but I don't see it as my place to make the decision for someone else here, absent a compelling interest.

I don't consider a clump of cells as being a person. Christianity didn't either for most of the last 2000 years -- abortion pre-'quickening' isn't even murder in the Bible, is it? (Someone correct me if I'm wrong please.)

Aside: I was looking for comments on historical attitudes to abortion and I found a site that seriously claims this:

Question: "What does the Bible say about abortion?"

Answer: There was no practice of abortion in Bible times. Therefore, the Bible never specifically addresses the issue.

That anyone could actually think nobody knew how to induce an miscarriage 2000 years ago is really, really, *really* amazing. Heck, the Romans sure knew about it, and wrote about it.

Christian opinion has varied over the last 2000 years as to whether abortion was murder, something less than murder, or no sin at all. The you get the question of when it changed... and why. And then you have to ask why a particular view of Christian morality has to be imposed on people who aren't, you know, Christians.

It's an interesting history.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

--R.

mappatazee wrote:Yes, abortion should be legal in any circumastances, up to 3 months after birth it should still be considered a legal abortion.

Damn, that's a pretty lenient requirement. Three months after birth... I think in most states they call that murder.

labbats wrote:P.S. I dated a couple girls who had abortions, and immediately they went into the "not marriage material" file.

I wonder how many young, unwed mothers went into your "potential marriage material" file.

I just wanted to share a story that seems to be on topic and greatly affected my opinion on abortions.

Several years ago my best friend was on some serious acne type medicine. I forget the name, but apparently it causes such extreme birth defects in so many cases, that before the doctor would prescribe it, she had to sign an agreement that if she got pregnant, she would abort it. As her and her boyfriend were extremely careful, she signed away.

Well, as you may have guessed where I am going with this, despite using double protection (she was on the pill and they always used rubbers), she somehow got pregnant. She didn't miss a day on the pill either, just really really bad luck. Her boyfriend was against abortion but he had never had problem with her signing it since they were so careful.

Anyway, she had it done. Even though he loved her, he couldn't deal with it and broke up with her, saying every time he looked at her he could only think about the abortion. She really loved him and the aftermath of the emotional break-up was really hard on her (I picked up a lot of the pieces). I don't fault her decision. It was the only decision. It just sucked all around. I can only imagine how severe the birth defects are if they make you sign that agreement. Perhaps such extreme medications shouldn't be prescribed, but really, what are the chances of two forms of birth control both missing at the same time?

Aside from that, I think it's the woman's choice. If the father is in the contactable, I think it's pretty selfish not to give the father the chance to share his opinions and argue his point of view, and downright unforgivable not to at least inform him. But in the end, I believe it's the woman who suffers the actual physical and emotional side-effects of the pregnancy, so it is her choice.

Karynna stole my avatar!

Unless she happens to be circumventingwench from another board that I stole it from....

One of the girls I work with has three kids, two while she was on the shot, and one on the pill, so her husband got snipped.

Vivalicious wrote:The Stem Cell Research Debate

I postulate that:

If abortion is legal, and
If a woman has this legal abortion, then

The aborted fetus will be dead.

Which leads into:

If this aborted fetus is already dead, and
Said aborted fetus has perfectly harvestable stem cells, then

There should be no real moral conundrum about harvesting them.

Also:

If stem cell research is the best way to research and cure many ailments, and
If there are perfectly good stem cells to be gotten by already aborted babies, then

It is a double waste of human life not to take advantage of that.

Using similiar logic, should we harvest the viable organs from death row inmates right before they are to die? No point in wasting perfectly harvestable organs, right? The same for anyone else who dies but didn't put their organ donation sticker on their driver license? And what about Terry Schiavo? Should the doctors have been legally allowed to gut her of anything worth keeping before they starved her to death? She was brain dead afterall.

I see no real moral conundrum in any of these scenarios. Do you?