Abortion...Murder or a mothers right?

counting blue cars
Rep: 53



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 7,423

I agree with that. But only so long as the father is showing that he is willing to be responsible towards the mother and child (especially the child). If he refuses responsibility, then he has no right to say what happens.

is causing chaos.
Rep: 30



Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 8,152
OFFLINE

No...that’s the bottom line. You’re making a gamble. You know the consequences if you loose. If you don’t want to deal with the consequences, suck it up and don’t take the gamble in the first place.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 20



Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 4,728
OFFLINE

Abstinence is quite the prevention method, I do agree.

But if a woman is raped, that’s not an option.

is causing chaos.
Rep: 30



Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 8,152
OFFLINE

If a woman is raped, then yes, she should get an abortion. But not if she waits for it to becomes a damn fetus.

Addict (beyond 1337)
Rep: 69



Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 32,780
OFFLINE

I completely agree with Totalitus.

He pretty much summed up my thoughts.

atresacnli

Guest

The views on this topic are so much more than ignorant.

The whole “you knew this could happen because you had sex” thing is a flawed argument. That’s like saying someone who got into a car accident shouldn’t be helped because they knew this could happen the minute they got into the car. The seatbelt could be considered the condom even, it helps, but isn’t fail-safe.

Chew on that.

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 85



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,452
OFFLINE

Problem is... If you absolutely don’t want a kid, you should be fucking around, and if you absolutely must you should take special precautions. I.E... Birth Control pills and condoms with spermicide help a lot. Birth control should be readily accessible to anybody because it should be available at your local pharmacy and if not you can ask your doctor about it. Condoms of all types can be picked up just about anywhere. Including gas stations and sometimes even restaurants.

*edit*

Oh and... also, if you do want a kid... You should make sure that the guy you’re getting it from is going to stick around and help raise it too. Cause your boyfriend leaving you also shouldn’t be a reason for abortion. =/

Last edited 29 Nov 2007 12:14 pm by Cid

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 31



Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,456
OFFLINE

I’m sorry Cid, but I don’t consider your last statement acceptable. Abortion aside, the idea that a you have to “make sure” your (sex) partner is going to stay around is ignorant. I’m don’t mean to be rude but I have a hard time even thinking like that, how can you say something like that? How do you actually think the world works and how people interact? (you don’t have to answer that...it was more rhetorical)


~~~~~~
Here’s another problem I have. It’s crazy how wide spread “abstinence only” education is in the U.S. The same group of people who tend to advocate for this type of teaching are also against abortions. So first you don’t teach your children about protection and then admonish those who have unwanted pregnancies? (and please don’t go on about “just don’t have sex”; because it happens-get off your high horse and deal with reality) I don’t get it. Well, I do, but I don’t agree with it.




And I still can’t tell if those opposed to abortion on this thread would want it made illegal (with/without exceptions) or if they’re just stating their own moral view.
Do you really think banning abortions would have some sort of positive effect? Or is it really all about the higher moral ground and be damned the conequences?

Addict (beyond 1337)
Rep: 69



Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 32,780
OFFLINE

All Cid was saying is that you should not have an abortion to keep your BF, for painfully obvious reasons.

you are smart
Rep: 50



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 16,700
OFFLINE

The same argument could be made for car accidents.

“If you didn’t want to be in an accident, then you shouldn’t have been driving a car!"

All the protection helps, but it still doesn’t work. And besides, if someone got into a car accident and got messed up bad, but they weren’t wearing a seatbelt, should they not get the same treatment as one who was? Same concept. Even if the male wasn’t wearing a condom because the woman used spermicide but it didn’t work, well, no one is to blame. And no one should have to suffer the consequences of something that isn’t their fault, or it was “their fault” but beyond their control in that situation.

Addict (beyond 1337)
Rep: 69



Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 32,780
OFFLINE

People have to drive a car to commute and do their daily lives, for the most part.

People don’t have to have sex until they are ready.



Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re saying that meaning a women should not have to go through the ordeal of pregnancy, child birth, and motherhood seeing as it was not her fault or beyond her control, correct?

If that is what you’re saying, then shouldn’t the same rule be applied to the baby, fetus, lump of flesh?

Last edited 29 Nov 2007 04:27 pm by NEREVAR117

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 20



Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 4,728
OFFLINE

Deciding to switch sides (sorta):

I could counter you with saying that driving is far more necessary than having sex. In fact, having sex is almost unnecessary, unless you want a child. A car gets you places; casual sex is just for pleasure.

There is no real reason for you to have sex, unless you want to have a child.

Granted, just because you don’t have to have sex doesn’t mean its wrong to do so, and accidents will happen. But, since its a personal choice to have sex, and one that won’t hinder your daily life (unless you are a porn star or prostitute), then you should be put under more responsibility than if you were driving to work and got in an accident. And, even with cars, you can avoid accidents by not only driving with the rules in mind, but driving with people breaking them in mind. So, in a sense, all accidents can be avoided.

Last edited 29 Nov 2007 04:29 pm by RageOverdose

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 85



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,452
OFFLINE

So you’re telling me this?

A woman who wants to have a kid shouldn’t make sure that her boyfriend is going to help? Then she can have an abortion because she can’t afford to keep the child?

Your logic is flawed.




Actually, it’s more along the lines of “If you didn’t want to be in an accident, then you should have buckled up and learned the rules of the road”

I’m not telling people to stop having sex, I’m telling people to stop having sex without taking every possible precaution to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Last edited 29 Nov 2007 04:49 pm by Cid

you are smart
Rep: 50



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 16,700
OFFLINE

But even every possible precaution isn’t guaranteed short of neutering.

Guardian of MvC
Rep: 85



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 44,452
OFFLINE

No, it’s not guaranteed, but it sure does cut the chances down enough to where 9 out of 10 times you won’t get pregnant.

*edit*

I’d love to stay and debate this matter more. But I’ve got to go to the doctor now. =/

Last edited 29 Nov 2007 05:10 pm by Cid

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 31



Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,456
OFFLINE

No my logic is not flawed.

I don’t care how much you think that your “man” is going to stick around...it just doesn’t always work out that way.
You CANNOT blame a woman for thinking that she is going to have support and then doesn’t. In my mind that’s just sick. Of course that’s not what you meant...but you didn’t make yourself clear...did you even think about the fact that “making sure” someone is going to be in your life isn’t something you can fully control?(short of locking them up in the basement)

I’m not saying this should be used as an excuse for an abortion if you wanted to have kids in the first place, heck, marriages break up after 20 years and you have to deal with it.



Ugh, I should just stop arguing. You know what? Even 6 years ago I would probably have had a different take on this whole subject. But I have a different world view now then I did back then, the whole idea of whats “right” and “wrong” and my ability to pass judgment on others has changed.

is causing chaos.
Rep: 30



Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 8,152
OFFLINE

That argument is flawed. In today’s society vehicular transportation is a must for many people. Sex for the hell of it isn’t.

So the argument of “If you got yourself pregnant, you shouldn’t have been having sex in the first place” still stands strong.

And collisions don’t happen by chance, unlike pregnancies. They happen when one or more jackasses can’t drive or when you can’t drive. With sex, you just gotta hope you get lucky.



Cid’s getting an abortion!

Last edited 29 Nov 2007 05:41 pm by Totalitus

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 31



Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,456
OFFLINE

I wasn’t going to comment on this aspect but I just thought of something...(not in an argumentative sense just discussion wise)

How is driving a car more important then sex (for the hell of it)? In my opinion sex is far more important then driving a car.

The “need” for a car has everything to do with your style of life, wealth, a job, having the ability to go far distances. The way of thinking is so entrenched in our lives that we rarely seem to think of “life” outside of these terms.

But sex is all about human contact and connection which I personally put above those other things. I might go my entire life without a car but I wouldn’t choose to do the same with sex.


Just a thought. Remember all them different perspectives out there

Pipiru piru piru pipiru pi
Rep: 31



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 6,772
OFFLINE

Here’s my viewpoint.

Sex has a purpose. Reproduction.

Having sex is SUPPOSED to make you pregnant. Why would you do it, then get upset when what happens is what’s SUPPOSED to happen.



That’s the difference btw Atresec.

Getting in an accident isn’t the purpose of driving.

Getting pregnant IS the purpose of sex.

is causing chaos.
Rep: 30



Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 8,152
OFFLINE

Nope, unless for reproduction(which is something we really need less of now), it’s unnecessary.