Lol.

I hear stories of surrogates, the parents of the baby that they are carrying only want one; so when they are pregnant with two or more..they try to force them to abort one.

I would rather have two and get it over with. (I have two boys...born at different times)..although I would love to adopt one day.

Is it bad that I'd keep twins just because they're a novelty?

I am a horrible person D:

My dad is a mirror twin. Meaning that his brother is the mirror opposite of him, literally. Even the insides O_O

You're not a horrid person.

Fabby you are wonderful.

@ Sentinel:

It can be true in some cases where an abortion can harm the woman's uterus. This, however, is the negligence of the doctor in charge. I wouldn't be relying only on pro-life websites for your information because that is one-sided and does not tell the whole stories. TO give a good and convincing defense for how you believe you should ALWAYS look at something at two different angles. Otherwise you will end up looking like a fool at the end. Believe me, I made myself look like a fool many times. lol

There are many cases where abortions are the only choice, you might not like to think this because you view life as precious. I do to, I view every life as precious and I personally would not dare have an abortion. (Unless my life would be in danger, then I would consider it)

Not all "forced parents" are better parents. You have to be smart enough to know that. There are enough statistics to prove that there are more children neglected then twenty years ago. Just because you have a baby, doesn't mean that ya hafta take care of it. I know a few people who are like that. Leaving their children with whom ever will take them while they go out drinking. Pregnancy will NOT change a person unless they are willing to change.

As for men having a say in abortion or not; if it is a married setting. Say it is a woman and her husband, they SHOULD make that decision together. They are in fact spiritually, and legally together. If he is a boyfriend, then hell no. Who is to say he will be here a year from now helping you take care of the lil bugger.

But, I do not agree that your family should have a say in what you do with whatever you feel is growing inside you. Rather a child or a parasite. It doesn't matter if you are living at home or not, it is your body, your child, your choice.

Of course there are. However, you will never be 100% protected, and taking too many at a time and have inverse effects.

Abortion is about 11 times safer than pregnancy and child birth, according to Planned Parenthood. This makes more sense: pregnancy is nine months of pain and extreme, quick changes to every aspect of a person's body. Childbirth is also very traumatic to a person's body, even if that person is safe. Vaginal ripping, cutting into the uterus (if a C-section is preformed), sickness, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, insomnia, depression, diabetes, weight gain... All things which can be brought on by pregnancy and childbirth.

Have you never heard of the "baby blues"? Pregnancy and childbirth also cause this; I'd even say that they might cause it more than abortion. And you know? I bet forcing a woman into a pregnancy against her will is a lot more damaging than her choosing an elective abortion for herself.
Also, you are claiming that you know what is better for these women themselves, and that is just plain disrespectful to their intelligence. They know their lives and their situations better than you do, and I wish you would respect that.

No anecdotal evidence, please. Also, abortion is a responsible action, even if you don't agree with it.

No one seems to think of the fact that a woman has a right to control her body, either, which makes me sad. Ejaculating inside a woman does not give a man domain over his lover's uterus.

And? This is their business, not yours. Going to a bar might create tension in a relationship. Not following the same religion as another person might cause tension. Dropping out of college might. Having sex outside of marriage might. Getting a dog might. Having a child might. Are you going to make these things illegal, too?

Abortion is dealing with the consequences. You have to get out of this idea that "I dislike abortion, therefore it is irresponsible".

Once again, anecdotal evidence. It's not valid.
Also, shame on them? For what? Having sex?

And if that doesn't work?

I would love to see your source for these "statistics".

That's funny, considering that the pill is more effective than the condom. Once again, source?

I think you meant "adverse" effects :)

Abortion. Oh my. *sigh* Well, here's what I think on the topic:

I don't like the idea of an abortion. However, I believe that abortions are necessary. Why? Because...
1. If abortions were banned, many desperate people would still try to get an abortion. When abortions are legal, at least the government can provide guidelines on them. But if abortions were banned completely, and if people continued to get abortions illegally, then there would be no limits on how/when they could get an abortion. Also, illegal abortions could endanger the health of the mother, as people performing illegal abortions would likely not be very well-trained.

2. If people accidentally become pregnant, I don't think that it's right to force them to have a child that they don't really want. "It'll make them more responsible," isn't really an excuse. Sure, having a child could make some people have a reality check. But in others... some people would continue to be irresponsible after having the child. And the child would suffer as a result of having to grow up in that kind of environment. Having the child adopted after he/she was born might work, but even if the child was given to someone else to raise, their birth parents would still be connected to them in a way, whether they like it or not. The parents wouldn't ever be able to erase the fact that they had a kid.

3. If the pregnancy was the result of rape, I 100% believe that the woman should be able to have an abortion. It wasn't her choice to become pregnant, and she shouldn't be forced to have a kid that she didn't choose to have.

4. Sometimes, a pregnancy can endanger the mother's health. In this case, I think that abortions are absolutely necessary. Sure, the fetus would die... But think about it- the woman probably has a life, job, friends... and the fetus can't even think. So I'd value the pregnant woman's life over the fetus'.

That's all I have to say for now. However, I might add more later.

Well, that too. :P But too much birth control can cancel each other out. The depo shot and the pill, two condoms (though they are not birth control, it is a good example of how it can be bad).

And this is the exact reason we have Roe v. Wade. :)

Emphasis mine.

I realize having an abortion for social reasons is more often the reason for them, but 95% and 87% are a far stretch from each other and it seems that her statistic was made up to benefit her cause, not present actually statistical information.

Besides that, I have no reason to believe that many of the social reasoning is somehow invalid and that "95%" of abortions being preformed under such pretenses somehow makes it a negative thing which we should make illegal, so it seems that her statement was a strawman to begin with.

Note about Rules and Terminology: I will abide by the rules for the duration of my posting in this thread, because I think that, as a whole, they foster civil debate. However, I'd like to note my objection to the rule against calling anyone "anti-choice." I think the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" focuses the debate on the relevant legal question - whether or not women should be allowed to have the choice to abort. A person can believe that the fetus is a baby from the moment of conception, and that killing it is completely morally wrong, but still believe that abortion should be legal. I consider a person like that pro-life (because that's what they believe morally), but also pro-choice (because that's what they believe legally). In contrast, a person who believes that abortion should be illegal or substantially restricted is not "pro-choice" in any sense of the word. Therefore, I believe the clearest distinction is between those who are pro-choice and anti-choice - what you personally believe and whether you would choose to abort is less relevant to a highly political debate like this one than is the question of whether you believe the government has that right to interfere with a woman's choice to abort. I think using the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" highlights this distinction, and I think this is a vital rhetorical tool for pro-choice activists. Pro-lifers have been controlling the representation of the abortion debate, and we see the outcome of that in policies like Stupak. In other words, I think the term "anti-choice" is crucial to both clarity and political strategy in most abortion debates. However, I suppose I'm willing to trade my use of the term "anti-choice" for pro-lifers not being allowed to call me a baby killer. So I'll abide by the rules, I just wanted to explain why I usually do use the term "anti-choice."

If nobody is wrong when they state their opinion, shouldn't that mean that everybody should have the right to live according to their own personal opinion on abortion? I mean, banning abortion is a pretty big interference with someone else's right to have an opinion - 9 months of suffering the undesired consequences of pregnancy plus being forced to give birth seems like a pretty big deal. Just because you believe it is murder doesn't mean everyone else should have to agree. Likewise, just because I believe it's not murder doesn't mean everyone else should have to agree. That's why I'm pro-choice - so you can have your right to your opinion (and do whatever you think is right if you accidentally get pregnant) and I can have my right to my opinion (and do whatever I think is right if I accidentally get pregnant).

The problem is, the man doesn't have to carry the child for 9 months. He doesn't get morning sickness, he can still drink alcohol, he doesn't have to feel an unwanted child squirming around inside of him. He doesn't have to give birth, or suffer many painful hours of labor. He doesn't have to risk increased chances of a number of health problems. The woman gets the sole right to choose to abort or carry to term because the fetus is in HER body, and the pregnancy happens in HER body, and the birth happens from HER body. Once the child is born both the mother and the father have equal say because they do both deserve equal rights. But because of unequal biology that puts the burden of creating a child disproportionately on the mother, the law should protect her right to choose to forgo that extra burden caused by biology. Since a man can't carry a child, he doesn't have the right to decide to carry it or to terminate it - and if he could get pregnant, he would have sole right over whether or not to abort. Or, if there was artificial womb technology which allowed the woman to get rid of the pregnancy but the man to keep it, then they could both have equal right to the fetus. But if biology is unequal, the law has to be cognizant of this.

Of course, I understand sympathy for the father - his biology is not his fault either. Most women do share this decision with their partner, and carefully consider his point of view. However, sometimes people can't agree, and there aren't many compromises on abortion. Either the pregnancy is brought to term, or it is not. So one person would be getting their way entirely in either case - if the man wants the pregnancy and the woman doesn't, she's either forced to carry the pregnancy to term or she isn't. Regardless of what happens after birth, if the disagreement is over whether or not that birth even happens, the mother and the father in your hypothetical are completely opposed to each other. So we need a trump card - in this situation where people's opinions are irreconcilably different, who gets to decide? I think it's the one whose body is in question. Ie, the woman. This may be unequal, too, but it's LESS unequal than the other way around.

---

Re: abortions are dangerous

Whether or not to risk a particular medical procedure should be decided by the patient, with informed consent. This applies to abortion as well as to every other medical procedure - the doctors should inform the patient of the risks and benefits, and then the patient can choose whether they are willing to take that risk for the sake of the good the procedure will do. Obviously, there are sometimes complications with abortions, but the risks are relatively low. Even if they were higher, I would think that each woman is competent to decide if the health risks are more important than her desire to not have a fetus lodged into her uterine lining.

---

My opinion:

I'm pro-choice because on a practical level, I can't imagine not having control over my body. I can't imagine being forced to be pregnant - it is literally one of the scariest fucking things I can imagine. The thought of feeling, every waking hour, a kick or a movement or even just the still heaviness of an invader in my uterus - that sounds so creepy and traumatizing! To walk around every day and have people see "the pregnant teenager" - how humiliating! To hand my parents incontrovertible proof that I'm having sex - it would wreck our relationship. To have my vagina painfully stretched to pop out a baby without even having the joy of new parenthood to comfort me - how painful! To know that the combined genetic material of me and some dude I slept with is creating a new human being inside of me - EEEK, I'm so not ready for that! I don't want to live in a world where somebody makes me be pregnant. I would seriously rather kill myself than lose my bodily autonomy. Forced pregnancy is equivalent to rape in my mind, because both involve the unwanted, forcible presence of someone inside you, except that forced pregnancy is a bodily invasion that lasts for 9 months...which makes it even worse. I don't think a clump of cells can overcome this terrible cost to the woman - even if it will someday grow into a baby if she lets it. Even if that clump of cells is living, even if it's the same as an already-born baby, (neither of which I'm willing to concede,) I am okay with killing it if it saves an already-born already-living adult human being from trauma this intense.

I can't imagine doing this to any of my friends either. I just can't imagine turning to my pregnant, scared best friend and saying "Sorry for the bad luck, but my vote this last election means you're shit out of luck. I voted to force you to carry this pregnancy in order to enforce my moral values." I couldn't even look at a stranger and tell them I was forcing them to be pregnant, for any reason. Just couldn't do it.

So I'm pro-choice, and probably will always be. I was pro-life a while ago, when I was in middle school. Somehow, when I realized that MY body could get pregnant, that the abortion debate was about forcing ME to have a baby, it clicked that I could never want to push that on anyone else.

I am pro-choice in the sense that I believe you have the right to use protection or better yet not have sex, i am soooo sick of the its my body argument, no its not your body its your babies body that we are talking about. People can't seem to comprehend that their is a body living inside of theirs and it is not there own.

Oh, ha, you're right. Pregnancy is nothing and happens in the middle of space, not in the middle of a person's body or anything. Jesus Christ. Women have rights, too.

I am pro-choice, wouldn't have one but appriciate the option of knowing if I ever changed my mind I would have that freedom. I do think that the effects of having one should be explained in school besides sex-ed. It has some very serious effects on the body and the mind. It's really the young kids who don't understand what they are doing when they start being sexaly active. They just think of it as a easy out and that is when it's going to have a lasting negative impact.

I'm not saying that all that are young naive and that all situations are uniqe, but stand by my statment that we need more education on the subject.

Oo I thought there already was a debate thread about abortion o.o;;;

@m00fin: oh. okay then. :yes: I wasn't aware of that. I knew that the first thread was getting really argumentative.

I'm sorry, I do not understand. Explain how adoption solves an unwanted pregnancy.

You know what's inhumane? It is not aborting something which will not know the difference, which does not know the day from the night. It's taking away a person's rights and making them suffer to let your own morality thrive. It's telling women you know what is best for them, no matter the situation. It's ignoring the thoughts, feelings, and lives of women who do not want to be pregnant for whatever reason.

That is inhumane, not abortion.