Abortion?

[Guest Adara]

I must say that I do not agree with Abortion. I find little reason to do it, unless the mother's health or that of the unborn child is in danger.

An Abortion is not something that side-swipes one like Cancer or Heart Disease. True, Birth Control via whichever form of it you choose is not 100% effective. That very fact is something a couple should discuss before they become intimate. I believe it comes down to responsibility. If one has sex, regardless of being protected or not, one has to be ready for the consequence of conceiving.

I think that if we as adults cannot see that sometimes the actions we take may very well change our lives and that sometimes there are no quick fixes, Can we truly say that we're ready for something as life changing as sex? Perhaps it is society's view of, "It's just sex" and the outlook of pregnancy that needs to change. The only reason some of us may very well be able to live with ourselves after having an abortion may be by repeating what the medical field tells us and that is; The fetus doesn't feel, doesn't think. But that is not entirely fact, nor is the opposite. Would anyone of us really be able to have an abortion if you knew that fetus felt, and thought?

Adoption is always available, abortion is not the only conclusion to an unwanted child. My opinions of course are of the religious inclination. I am passionate about this subject because I myself have a child, and went through some scary moments when I realized I was pregnant. I could never have faced myself, forget anyone else, had I ended my child's life over a selfish reason. To say that I was ready to marry and have sex but not to have a child should one be conceived would have been, illogical to me. My thought is firmly this:

If you have sex, you may get pregnant, if so, deal with the pregnancy, if you don't keep the child, put it up for adoption. Abortion isn't the only way to deal with a situation one never wanted.

[bookworm51485]

I must say that I do not agree with Abortion. I find little reason to do it, unless the mother's health or that of the unborn child is in danger.

An Abortion is not something that side-swipes one like Cancer or Heart Disease. True, Birth Control via whichever form of it you choose is not 100% effective. That very fact is something a couple should discuss before they become intimate. I believe it comes down to responsibility. If one has sex, regardless of being protected or not, one has to be ready for the consequence of conceiving.

I think that if we as adults cannot see that sometimes the actions we take may very well change our lives and that sometimes there are no quick fixes, Can we truly say that we're ready for something as life changing as sex? Perhaps it is society's view of, "It's just sex" and the outlook of pregnancy that needs to change. The only reason some of us may very well be able to live with ourselves after having an abortion may be by repeating what the medical field tells us and that is; The fetus doesn't feel, doesn't think. But that is not entirely fact, nor is the opposite. Would anyone of us really be able to have an abortion if you knew that fetus felt, and thought?

Adoption is always available, abortion is not the only conclusion to an unwanted child. My opinions of course are of the religious inclination. I am passionate about this subject because I myself have a child, and went through some scary moments when I realized I was pregnant. I could never have faced myself, forget anyone else, had I ended my child's life over a selfish reason. To say that I was ready to marry and have sex but not to have a child should one be conceived would have been, illogical to me. My thought is firmly this:

If you have sex, you may get pregnant, if so, deal with the pregnancy, if you don't keep the child, put it up for adoption. Abortion isn't the only way to deal with a situation one never wanted.

Yes because adoption is just THE solution for all life's problems

[Guest Melody Fate]

If you have sex, you may get pregnant, if so, deal with the pregnancy, if you don't keep the child, put it up for adoption.  Abortion isn't the only way to deal with a situation one never wanted.

Why does the prolife toss around adoption like it's the end-all-be-all solution to any unwanted pregnancy?

Its NOT. Adoption is another case entirely with its own set of issues and concerns. It is not a partyon solution, tie that baby up with a little pink or blue bow, and now everyone is happy!

Not all babies are healthy and adoptable. If that was true, then I wouldn't see those ads on the TV in our state, begging people (and yes, I do mean begging) to adopt older children and handicapped children. They call them "difficult to place," but it all boils down to the same thing, it isn't a perfect, healthy little baby, preferable of only one race.

Even if you want to be convinced that every single baby born will find a perfect, loving home if the mother can't provide one herself, it's still a very difficult issue for everyone involved. And like it or not, there is still a stigmata attached to adopted children in this country. Don't believe me? Talk to my friend who is adopted and who just the other day, joked with someone how amazing it is that she looks like her parents when she's adopted, only to told, "Don't bring that up! No one needs to know they aren't your real parents!" She's 45 years old and has had the same parents since she was 3 months old, yet people still think they aren't her real parents. WhenI asked her why she laughed at this idiot instead of telling them off, her response was, "You get used to it." Yet, I know her well enough to know there's still pain in hearing that. That no matter what, when you're adopted you're "different."

So no, adoption isn't necessarily the end-all-be-all solution.

My usual reply to someone who likes to use the "adoption" battle cry is, "So, how many handicapped children have you adopted? Or how many older children?"

I have never once had anyone respond with a number. Instead I hear things like, "Oh, I'd love to, but we have X number of kids of our own!" or, "Oh, I'd love to, but we can't afford it." Or, most commonly, I get that "deer in the headlights" look as their brains try to wrap around the concept that someone is expecting them to deal with the reality that not all babies are cute, perfect, healthy little bundles of joy.

Yet, the two families I do know that have taken in those children who are "difficult to place" are both prochoice. (For the record, I don't believe either of them would even consider an abortion for themselves, but they also believe every woman has the right to decide what is best for her body.)

I really would like to be proven wrong on that last one. I would love it if just once I did pull the, "How many difficult to place children have you adopted?" and hear a number. Even if the number is "one" at least that's someone who's putting their money where their mouth is.

[Guest Adara]

Yes, but it still leads to my other points, it is a responsibility to understand that sometimes having sex will occur in a pregnancy. Is abortion not an "end-all-be-all"?

Perhaps we should change the question a little. Let us say, that we are pro-choice. Do we let women go have abortions every time they get pregnant? If so, would that not be another cruel form of birth control? If not, should there be a limit to how many abortions one is allowed to have? I've seen women use abortions as a form of birth control, luckily I don't call any of these women friends.

Melody you bring up good points, but you're mostly talking about people with FAMILIES who understand the severity of what they may be doing. What about teenage girls? Should the ban just apply for under-aged girls? Unfortunately, girls of that age will use it as a quick solution to their problem. What kind of adults would we be raising then?

[Guest Mike256bit]

Another problem with adoption is that it caters very heavily to heterosexual families. It's very difficult for a homosexual couple to adopt, and even illegal in some international adoptions. That said, adoption definitely isn't a perfect alternative. It eliminates a lot of potential families, and, like Melody said, those who get the chance to adopt (see: mostly white folk) will probably adopt a child of their race.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

What up! How many people think abortion is WRONG but think it SHOULD be LEGAL?

I do.

I could never get an abortion, but I would never condem another woman for doing it. Like I said before, women died when abortion was illegal. Far too many women were taking their own lives or aborting thr babies themselves when there was no other out. THAT's why I'm "Pro-Choice" or whatever you want to call it. It is not for me to decide how another lives their life.

Do as you wish as long as you can do it without shame.

Leads the way for a hell of a lot of chaos, but it also leads the way of people finally taking control of their lives.

[Guest Melody Fate]

Yes, but it still leads to my other points, it is a responsibility to understand that sometimes having sex will occur in a pregnancy.  Is abortion not an "end-all-be-all"? 

Perhaps we should change the question a little.  Let us say, that we are pro-choice.  Do we let women go have abortions every time they get pregnant?  If so, would that not be another cruel form of birth control?  If not, should there be a limit to how many abortions one is allowed to have?  I've seen women use abortions as a form of birth control, luckily I don't call any of these women friends. 

Melody you bring up good points, but you're mostly talking about people with FAMILIES who understand the severity of what they may be doing.  What about teenage girls?  Should the ban just apply for under-aged girls?  Unfortunately, girls of that age will use it as a quick solution to their problem.  What kind of adults would we be raising then?

I said nothing about who should be allowed or not allowed to have an abortion, I don't believe anyone should regulate that. My point was that adoption is not the blanket solution, neither is abortion.

Abortion is in truth, an imperfect solution for an imperfect world. If the world was perfect, babies would all be born healthy. No one would get pregnant unless he or she wanted to. And yes, guys would be able to get pregnant too, because in a perfect world, no one should be restricted to having babies if they want to.

Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect. Not all babies are wanted, people will have sex, birth control will fail, or even be neglected to be used at all.

I think most people agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a steady form of birth control and are often pointed out as the reason why abortion should be illegal. However, I would say that the amount of women who use abortion as a steady form of birth control are in the minority. Abortions aren't cheap. Abortions, while relatively safe, still bear some pain. They require some schedualling and all such. Even if it was scientifically proven that a fetus wasn't even alive until it popped out of the womb, just for personal inconvenience, abortion is a lousy form of birth control on all counts.

You can't find a blanket solution. You brought up adoption like it was the end-all-be-all. It isn't. It brings its own problems. Abortion isn't the end all either, it too brings its own set of issues.

Forbidding sex isn't the end all.

Because we are all individuals, and because pregnancy involves individuals, you cannot fix a one size fits all solution.

The "but there's always adoption!" solution is a particular pet peeve of mine, because most people just refuse to see that it has their downside. Instead they just envision beautiful babies going to worthy parents and saint like birth mothers, making the ultimate sacrifice for the benifit of the child.

It isn't. It isn't a black and white world of, "Adoption is pure and light, while abortion is nasty and dark!" Both sides have their good and their bad.

It isn't right for the government to make choices for me. Again, since we don't live in the land of perfect, if a woman gets pregnant, she's responsible for that child until a certain point. When the day comes that the moment a woman gets pregnant, the fetus can be transfered from her to a host, then we might have something more to talk about, but even then, that won't be a blanket solution either. Until then, you make a choice... is the life of the mother or the life of the child she carries more important.

If a woman is in charge of her own body, she has the right to make her own choices and face her own concequences. While her choices might not be your choices, you are not her. You can't tell her what the "right" solution is.

Besides, for those who believe abortion should be illegal? It's not going to stop abortion. All it's going to do is make abortion dangerous and illegal. But, on the other hand, then you don't have to think about it, do you? It's a dirty little secret... and if some woman dies from it? Well, we'll just say she hemoraged and sweep it all under the rug.

I'm probably going to be considered the evil, but I happen to think I serve more purpose in this world than what my ovaries can produce. I also think that it's MY body and therefore, what I put it through is MY choice. Not yours. Not the government, but mine. The only other person who even has a say is my husband. I may consider others opinions, but in the long run it's still my body, my choice.

Yes, my choice might not be your choice, but that doesn't mean you have the right to make my choices "illegal" just because they don't appeal to your moral code.

As for the "But it's destroying a life and that's wrong!" I'm tired of that argument too, especially in this country. We send people to war and they die. We allow the justice system to decide if someone's worthy of staying alive. We give light little slaps to the wrist if someone can prove that whoever they killed, it was an accident. So no, I don't hold this, "But we believe life is soooo sacred." There are too many legal ways to end the lives of beings outside of the womb for me to buy into that one.

[Guest Mike256bit]

Well said, Melody.

I cringe at the thought of people claiming to want to preserve the lives of those not yet born (those who don't have the same connections with brothers, sisters, mothers, friends, etc.) yet are still resolute to send people into battle. Those who fight have every thing that makes them human, yet they're condemned to die. Whereas that which is without memories, without hopes and aspirations is "sacred" and mustn't be allowed to perish.

I'm sorry, I can't live with a double standard like that.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

As for the "But it's destroying a life and that's wrong!" I'm tired of that argument too, especially in this country. We send people to war and they die. We allow the justice system to decide if someone's worthy of staying alive. We give light little slaps to the wrist if someone can prove that whoever they killed, it was an accident. So no, I don't hold this, "But we believe life is soooo sacred." There are too many legal ways to end the lives of beings outside of the womb for me to buy into that one.

I'm getting pretty sick of the word "sacred."

Nothing is sacred in a world where no one can even AGREE on what is and isn't sacred.

Marriage, life, love. All of these are things people say are "sacred." Many of these people have divorces, hate the people they marry, or are only marrying for the money. Many of these people will shoot, torture and kill a person because they "wronged" them in some way. Whether it was that person hit you, was black or looked at your daughter the wrong way, they were WRONG!

These are the same people who lie and cheat their way through relationship.

"Let he among you without sin cast the first stone."

I better no see any stones flying.

[Guest kimbop]

The abortion question is always a sensitive one. From a legal standpoint, abortion has always relied upon the definition of viability. When do you consider the child to be a self sustaining creature? Is it at conception or during the second trimester as the court has ruled it so?

The cross reference of abortion does not really equate to a woman's right to choose necessarily. The main focal point is on the child itself. If the child can live outside the womb without the help of the mother, then is abortion amounting to murder?

it's an interesting legal and ethical debate that has been flung back and forth even before Roe v. Wade. There are, of course, many consequences going one way or the other and to impose the government to provide a strict definition of "what is life" is really unanswerable without imposing upon itself a moral code of ethics. And because religion itself fundamentally mandates some type of ethics, does it mean that government must adopt one sort of religious value versus another sort of religious value?

Just a question to pose to the public.....

[bookworm51485]

I said nothing about who should be allowed or not allowed to have an abortion, I don't believe anyone should regulate that. My point was that adoption is not the blanket solution, neither is abortion.

Abortion is in truth, an imperfect solution for an imperfect world. If the world was perfect, babies would all be born healthy. No one would get pregnant unless he or she wanted to. And yes, guys would be able to get pregnant too, because in a perfect world, no one should be restricted to having babies if they want to.

Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect. Not all babies are wanted, people will have sex, birth control will fail, or even be neglected to be used at all.

I think most people agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a steady form of birth control and are often pointed out as the reason why abortion should be illegal. However, I would say that the amount of women who use abortion as a steady form of birth control are in the minority. Abortions aren't cheap. Abortions, while relatively safe, still bear some pain. They require some schedualling and all such. Even if it was scientifically proven that a fetus wasn't even alive until it popped out of the womb, just for personal inconvenience, abortion is a lousy form of birth control on all counts.

You can't find a blanket solution. You brought up adoption like it was the end-all-be-all. It isn't. It brings its own problems. Abortion isn't the end all either, it too brings its own set of issues.

Forbidding sex isn't the end all.

Because we are all individuals, and because pregnancy involves individuals, you cannot fix a one size fits all solution.

The "but there's always adoption!" solution is a particular pet peeve of mine, because most people just refuse to see that it has their downside. Instead they just envision beautiful babies going to worthy parents and saint like birth mothers, making the ultimate sacrifice for the benifit of the child.

It isn't. It isn't a black and white world of, "Adoption is pure and light, while abortion is nasty and dark!" Both sides have their good and their bad.

It isn't right for the government to make choices for me. Again, since we don't live in the land of perfect, if a woman gets pregnant, she's responsible for that child until a certain point. When the day comes that the moment a woman gets pregnant, the fetus can be transfered from her to a host, then we might have something more to talk about, but even then, that won't be a blanket solution either. Until then, you make a choice... is the life of the mother or the life of the child she carries more important.

If a woman is in charge of her own body, she has the right to make her own choices and face her own concequences. While her choices might not be your choices, you are not her. You can't tell her what the "right" solution is.

Besides, for those who believe abortion should be illegal? It's not going to stop abortion. All it's going to do is make abortion dangerous and illegal. But, on the other hand, then you don't have to think about it, do you? It's a dirty little secret... and if some woman dies from it? Well, we'll just say she hemoraged and sweep it all under the rug.

I'm probably going to be considered the evil, but I happen to think I serve more purpose in this world than what my ovaries can produce. I also think that it's MY body and therefore, what I put it through is MY choice. Not yours. Not the government, but mine. The only other person who even has a say is my husband. I may consider others opinions, but in the long run it's still my body, my choice.

Yes, my choice might not be your choice, but that doesn't mean you have the right to make my choices "illegal" just because they don't appeal to your moral code.

As for the "But it's destroying a life and that's wrong!" I'm tired of that argument too, especially in this country. We send people to war and they die. We allow the justice system to decide if someone's worthy of staying alive. We give light little slaps to the wrist if someone can prove that whoever they killed, it was an accident. So no, I don't hold this, "But we believe life is soooo sacred." There are too many legal ways to end the lives of beings outside of the womb for me to buy into that one.

You state all your points, which happen to be exactly mine, so well that I don't really feel a need to say anything. So I'll just say 'What she said, I agree with it completely'.

[StoryJunkie]

My answer about the village was meant as a rebuttal for those who use the arguement that children don't come with a license. Aside from the fact that infants cannot travel up to speeds of 200mph, for thousands of years, there was no written word at all. Yes there were lots of superstitions and misconceptions (sic) however, my point being that just because you must be licensed to drive a car, doesn't mean you can draw an analogy against a human being, considering that we have had a great and rich Unwritten history. Yes, with a lot of blood and death and horrible misunderstandings. HOWEVER, that being said, there is a vast knowledge out there that is just as easily tapped, if YOU BUT ASK. why the stigma of shame that comes with pregnancy? It must be solved in blood and pain?

AS for not having a "license" for children, don't you think that's what a marriage license is supposed to cover?

WE live in a world full of information. Getting ideas on how to raise your child is as close as a trip to the local library. There's more than just fiction there.

As for why people ad nausem use "adoption" as an arguement, is because a child born into this world has a chance to be in this world. It's as simple as that. No matter what happens from the moment we are born, until the moment we die, we all have different circumstances. If they were all the same sort of circumstances, well then, what would there to be appreciated? What story would there be to tell? A grave in the garbage can. A grave in the earth. You tell me which is better. (and don't sass me by saying cremation)

[Guest SweetMisery1]

AS for not having a "license" for children, don't you think that's what a marriage license is supposed to cover?

You can get pregnant without being married, and you can be married without having children... how does that apply to anything

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

You can get pregnant without being married, and you can be married without having children... how does that apply to anything

Not to mention that they'll give couple a marriage license as long as the couple isn't too closely related, one of them isn't already married, and they're not of the same gender. Also, if one of them is an immigrant, they won't allow a couple to get married if the only reason for the union is for citizenship.

About the liscense to raise a child thing...

Fact is, while it's a nice idea to only allow people capable of properly raising a child to have access to one (whether it be through adoption or birth), the problem then comes to the "who."

Who gets to decide who is or isn't eligable to be a parent?

Who would you deem to fit this criteria?

With so many people with so many differant opinions on how a child should be raised, it's rather difficult to have a purly fair system regulating this. Quite honestly, unless I myself, or someone who's views matched mine made these laws, I couldn't stand by that idea. And I know almost everyone in the US of A likely feels the same.

And really, as I come to think of it, if a liscense for parenting was issued by today's standards back in the 80's, my parents wouldn't be allowed to have or keep me and my sister because the way we were raised is rather unconventional. I think it was gret, but I know quite a few other parents wouldn't.

[StoryJunkie]

You can get pregnant without being married, and you can be married without having children... how does that apply to anything

Of course, I realize that we do Not live in a perfect world. However, you did present the arguement from your father's saying that "there is no lisence" to raise a child. I'm just saying that he's wrong. That's what a marriage liscence is for. I meant it in that context.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

Of course, I realize that we do Not live in a perfect world. However, you did present the arguement from your father's saying that "there is no lisence" to raise a child. I'm just saying that he's wrong. That's what a marriage liscence is for. I meant it in that context.

You do realize that not everyone who considers themselves married has a marriage license, yes?

And, also, that still doesn't mean that everyone who's mrried is fit to have a child.

[Guest Mike256bit]

You do realize that not everyone who considers themselves married has a marriage license, yes?

And, also, that still doesn't mean that everyone who's mrried is fit to have a child.

I don't remember where I read it, but someone made an argument that draws a line around marriage versus child rearing. The point was that countries (see: America) give benefits to married couples as an incentive to produce children for said country. Marriage is just an invitation by the government to continue growth and expansion of said country's people. (Hence, a lot of fucktards thinking that same-sex marriages are an assault since they cannot bear children.)

Of course, while I disagree, it does ring true at the basis of the legality of it all. The government wants families because families produce working members of society.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

The government wants families because families produce working members of society.

And a HELL of a LOT of non-working members of society! And let's not talk of the NON-FUNCTIONING members of society who's life missions are to sit, drink, eat, sleep, repeat.

[Guest Mike256bit]

Well, yeah. Not a perfect system. This is working on the assumption that the nuclear family model is still the dominant group.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

Well, yeah. Not a perfect system. This is working on the assumption that the nuclear family model is still the dominant group.

Hell, most "nuclear" families I've been in contact with are in the utter CRAPHOLE anyway!

[StoryJunkie]

the crucible.

the ciborium

the grail

What are we, but vessels? Some cracked, and good for nothing but the dump. Can we hold that perfect grace? Are we just some kind of meal for the gods who constantly fight over who is the more delectable? Then the arguement is moot. Die now, or die later, but these eyes, I tell you, they want to see. These ears, I say, they want to hear. These hands, Oh, these hands, how they long to touch, and as warped or as sound as our outer selves appear, it is the interior to which we must pay mind. So the things within us that manifest as a black hole, sucking in all good, we must guard against, beware. To all of us come burdens. To all, the cup of bitterness. I would rather never fucked at all than to be fucked without love. I would, moreover, rather never have fucked someone unless in my heart, I appreciated the future it promised.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

I would rather never fucked at all than to be fucked without love. I would, moreover, rather never have fucked someone unless in my heart, I appreciated the future it promised.

I don't know about you, but I don't marry the first person I fall in love with. On top of that, but marriage licenses are faulty to me. Why the fuck do I need a sheet of paper to tall me who I love? I can get married to my boyfriend tomarrow, my boyfried whom I'm fully committed to, and it wont men anything more AFTER I marry him then it does now.

However, none of this has shit to do with the capability to raise a well rounded, loved and sane child.

[Guest Melody Fate]

Of course, while I disagree, it does ring true at the basis of the legality of it all. The government wants families because families produce working members of society.

I'd say it's more like the politicians want future voters.

[Guest Mike256bit]

Well, whatever they want, they want more. More. Less. More!

[StoryJunkie]

I don't know about you, but I don't marry the first person I fall in love with. On top of that, but marriage licenses are faulty to me. Why the fuck do I need a sheet of paper to tall me who I love? I can get married to my boyfriend tomarrow, my boyfried whom I'm fully committed to, and it wont men anything more AFTER I marry him then it does now.

However, none of this has shit to do with the capability to raise a well rounded, loved and sane child.

Perhaps I should have married the first person I fell for. It was difficult to get over. But alas, he did not feel the same way. I never did fuck him though. Perhaps I should have. I wonder where I would be now? And there was that guy at summer camp. He kind of scared me, but he was a portent of things to come, for he seemed to be an archetype of the guy I would end up with. But the guy I ended up with, as flawed as he is actually reminds me of someone more ancient than anyone else I've ever been with.

as for papers. meh. render unto ceasar that which is ceasar's In other words, I will comply, but my soul still belongs to me. I too, wish to be written into the book of love, and filling out and paying for a license is a portent of that. The government doesn't rule my life, but it gets a certain respect in that it tries to keep the theory of the law, somewhere in some archive. and it connects me to others, much like this forum does. After all, I paid microsoft something, didn't I?