Abortion and why it's wrong

a reply to: dawnstar

My stance against abortion is NOT if there were serious potential risks to you life or the baby. If I knew that the chances of me dying and the child dying and I had a few kids already, then yes, I would do that. It would weigh heavily on me but I would do it because the risks were there. My problem is with women who simply think of abortions as a solution to their irresponsibility.

originally posted by: Achilles92x

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Achilles92x

oh so are we gonna now get the whines about how unfair it is to pay child support because the lady tricked you???

Most of the time, in those situations the girl forgets to take her birth control. I suspect the number who lie about it because sex without a condom feels better for both parties is a lot lower. This being said, I have personal experience and friends who've experienced girls just telling guys to pull out--the responsibility being on both parties in this latter case.

maybe I misinterpretted your comment, but it seemed unprecedented. I am not going to whine about such a thing.

I DO find it interesting that:
- people believe the man has responsibility for the birth control too (which I agree with definitely)
- the man has to pay for child support until the child is 18

YET: the man has no say in the abortion.

What I'm saying is, the man seems to get a lot of responsibility before and after the conception, but basically none during the pregnancy.
Of course by this im NOT implying that the man should have a say in aborting the child if he doesn't want to pay the child support.
But as an individual who engages in safe, protected sex, in the case that a pregnancy did accidentally occur regardless, I find it heartbreaking that a woman could abort a healthy child without my say, for selfish reasons (no rape, mental illness, physical disability, or child/mother death included). I would beg, BEG the mother of my wed locked child to go through with the pregnancy and would raise the child entirely on my own if need be. I think homegirl can handle 9 months of pregnancy if I'm more than willing to handle the rest of the child's life.

there are many men out there like you who would be willing to be a father and not simply walk away.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: Achilles92x

We agree - totally. Alas, in some parts of the world, even contraception is seen as an evil.

Yeah...
I definitely think that the pro-life, anti-contraceptive crowd that wants to push anti-contraceptive onto others are really, realllyyyy asking too much.
Personally I am not against contraception, which is obvious based on my posts, but even if it was evil, it is the lesser of evils in this gray world. Kill the greater evil, I say.
I think the "If you don't like _____, don't do _____. Live and let live" rhetoric only applies in situations where one's life and rights are not being infringed upon by another.. So contraception and gay marriage--is anyone directly being killed, harmed, or having their rights infringed by this? No, I wouldn't say so.
Abortion, slavery, incest and pedophilia? Yes. Rights are being infringed, lives are lost, for the sake of the perpetrator's rights. That is true injustice to me.

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: ForteanOrg


You don't have any kids, do you?

If I had children, they would be wanted. I live in a country that allows both contraception and abortion. If I did not have children, that would be because I'm not interested in having them - I live in a country that allows both contraception and abortion. Of course, I also could be too stupid or ugly to find a partner, in which case I also would not have them either

Once again, it all comes down to what your morals are. Some women would give their life up for their child, me included. Some would rather live. Well all gotta die one day.. it's just a matter of how clear your conscious is about certain things when you leave...

a reply to: blackmetalmist

oh but here you seem to imply that if a woman was unwilling well they are just immoral, and well we were talking about fathers having the rights to prevent an abortion if they wished, so I just assumed that you were okay with the idea of forcing a women to carry to term, even if there was a valid risk to her health and life, since you personally, would be willing to give up your life to bring a child into the world and those who wouldn't have a moral problem so well, it shouldn't matter anyways.

originally posted by: dawnstar

Once again, it all comes down to what your morals are. Some women would give their life up for their child, me included. Some would rather live. Well all gotta die one day.. it's just a matter of how clear your conscious is about certain things when you leave...

a reply to: blackmetalmist

oh but here you seem to imply that if a woman was unwilling well they are just immoral, and well we were talking about fathers having the rights to prevent an abortion if they wished, so I just assumed that you were okay with the idea of forcing a women to carry to term, even if there was a valid risk to her health and life, since you personally, would be willing to give up your life to bring a child into the world and those who wouldn't have a moral problem so well, it shouldn't matter anyways.

It really depends on the circumstance. If it were truly a high risk to both, then yes.. If it was something that I just didn't want the child because he was going to be born with difficulties, then no, that doesn't seem fair to me.

a reply to: blackmetalmist
to both, as in both the mother and the baby???
is that is what you mean then I am sorry, I disagree with you..
you cannot ask another person to sacrifice so much to for another.

originally posted by: blackmetalmist

there are many men out there like you who would be willing to be a father and not simply walk away.

You make it sound as if the woman had no say in it. Actually, did you know that under normal circumstances it are the WOMAN whom decide which partner they accept?

I would rather see a child aborted than abused which is more likely to happen in the mother never wanted it in the first place.


Chapter 4 of the book Freakonomics points out the correlation between the availability of abortions in 1973 and the drop in crime rate in the mid 90s. There were less criminals because the unwanted children were not there to have a bad life growing up.

freakonomics.com...

It is my pet theory that a part of the reason that the border is wide open is that the states need criminals to justify the prison industrial complex.

originally posted by: Seamrog



Why are you arguing in absurdities?

Of the sixty-some odd million babies who have been murdered in abortion clinics here in the US.

The slaughter of a million babies a year in abortion mills testifies to this.

Murder??? Slaughter???

This use of highly evocative language is way over the top ...

for what is a minor medical procedure called a 'termination'

Next absurdity please....and keep ignoring the 59,999,999 murdered children so we can keep this game going.

Every Life has a Right

Now there's a conundrum ... You keep referring to *murdered and slaughtered

children* but it is not a child ... it is an embryo/foetus which before

27 weeks is not viable to live or breath or exist as a person on its own in this

world, its lungs are not strong enough to breathe. So its not yet alive

to give it a 'Right to Life'

I don't know why but some of the posts here reminded me of a post from a 20 year old guy a few years ago who was dating a very athletic girl, think a Ronda Rousey type. Well they had agreed that they would use the withdraw method for birth control.
At a very critical moment, she screamed "I want a baby" and locked him up so he couldn't do what they had planned.
He was so angry, I never found out what happened, if a baby happened or not.

I shouldn't have laughed at that, but it was funny in a twisted way. Yup so women can get what they want either way, it seems the men have less say than ever these days, both ways.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

umm a pregant women I knew came home from work, she had cashed her check on the way. upon arriving home her husband demanded most of the money she had just brought home so he could go to the bar. she refused so he well, pushed her down a flight of stairs and walked out with the money leaving her to miscarry at the bottom of the stairs..
he was arrested and spent maybe a half a day in jail before he was released and think he might have gotten a little probation for assault...

A pregnant woman in Iowa fell down a flight of stairs and went to the hospital. The hospital reported her to the police who arrested her for “attempted fetal homicide.”
www.alternet.org...

think maybe there's something just a little screwed with this????

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That's what condoms and spermicide are for! It's not like that scenario couldn't go the other way, with the guy refusing to "pull out"!

At any rate, at least she's not aborting it then right? Or, do you think that women get abortions just to screw with the fathers?

a reply to: dawnstar

You seem to know a lot of sh***y men.

a reply to: Seamrog

no, I know alot of women that were victims of domestic violence.

According to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, prosecutors in South Carolina, one of the first states to introduce a fetal homicide law, have only charged one man under the legislation, and his case was subsequently dismissed. By contrast, as many as 300 South Carolina women have been arrested for their alleged actions against their unborn children during pregnancy.
www.wsws.org...

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: ForteanOrg


You don't have any kids, do you?

If I had children, they would be wanted. I live in a country that allows both contraception and abortion. If I did not have children, that would be because I'm not interested in having them - I live in a country that allows both contraception and abortion. Of course, I also could be too stupid or ugly to find a partner, in which case I also would not have them either

This is how I know you have no understanding whatsoever about this claim - you are just spouting off to spout off:

If that are indeed unwanted chjildren you'd better be glad they were aborted before being born. Have you any idea what it does to a child to feel unwanted? To feel guilty for being alive, to see disgust and hate in the eyes of its parent(s)?

If these children weren't aborted we'd have an additional 125.000 unwanted children born EACH DAY. Any idea what it would mean to the human race if roughly an additional 45 million UNWANTED children were born each year - children that weren't happy, weren't loved, were at best tolerated, at worst beaten and mistreated?

I can sympathise with your sentiments - but leave these very hard decisions to the mothers and show some respect. They have a hard time as it is.

Your post, and all the others like it are such total bulls__t because you have no understanding of what happens to a mother when she feels a baby kick for the first time, or when she sees an ultrasound for the first time, and most especially, when she holds the baby and looks in his eyes for the first time. Your words are the words of a fool.


In a heated moment, when the reality of admitting poor behavior becomes a reality, the easy way out is murdering the baby.


When a mother sees her baby for the first time, and holds him, it changes in an instant, and suddenly that mother would kill you if you threatened her child.


This notion of 'unwanted' babies is based on the convenience factor in difficult times.


The LIFETIME of regret and shame for murdering a baby tells the tale of your lie.

“Last year, we published a peer-reviewed study documenting 413 arrests or equivalent actions depriving pregnant women of their physical liberty during the 32 years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005. In a majority of these cases, women who had no intention of ending a pregnancy went to term and gave birth to a healthy baby. This includes the many cases where the pregnant woman was alleged to have used some amount of alcohol or a criminalized drug.”

“Since 2005, we have identified an additional 380 cases, with more arrests occurring every week. This significant increase coincides with what the Guttmacher Institute describes as a “seismic shift” in the number of states with laws hostile to abortion rights.”

Those who would enshrine fetal rights into law can write that law in such a way that the fetus has a robust set of rights, while the poor pregnant woman has only an indifferent and archaic Constitution to protect her.

letstalkbooksandpolitics.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Seamrog

Your post, and all the others like it are such total bulls__t because you have no understanding of what happens to a mother when she feels a baby kick for the first time, or when she sees an ultrasound for the first time, and most especially, when she holds the baby and looks in his eyes for the first time.

Neither do you, yet you think you have the right to judge women who choose differently than you want them to. The facts are most abortions are performed on women who already have children.

Six in 10 American women having an abortion already have a child, and more than three in 10 already have two or more children.
www.guttmacher.org...

Your words are the words of a fool.

Here's what the BIG Guy himself has to say about your reaction.

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

The LIFETIME of regret and shame for murdering a baby tells the tale of your lie.

You wish. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Most women experience a tremendous feeling of relief after their abortion!