Originally Posted by Syraannabelle

Look, I know I usually end up getting chewed up in the debate forum for lack of sources, or this-and-that. But really. Why can't we all just be pro-choice. You choose to keep it, I'll choose to abort and we'll stay out of eachothers way.

I agree with sentiment wholeheartedly. I think it will be impossible for them to ever get to this point, though. Most pro-lifers do not care about a right to bodily integrity. It never even enters their minds. What they care about, what they see, is the destruction of fetuses, something they believe is equal to the killing of babies. Ignoring the issue of a woman's right to her body for a moment, if you believed that people were being killed unjustly, would you leave it up to the involved parties to decide?

Of course, I probably shouldn't be so sympathetic. Not only do they not seem to care about human rights (it's been completely ignored every time I've brought it up to a pro-lifer), which is pretty despicable in and of itself, but many if not most pro-lifers are pro-death penalty, and I've been chastised for offending them and told to show them respect, so they obviously don't sympathize with me in such a way.

At any rate, though, I think you bring up a very good point. You can be completely against abortions and still be pro-choice. It's a matter of personal choice, and so long as you don't force your personal choices on another, you are *dun dun* pro-choice.

Thanks Philomel ^.^

Yeah, I've noticed that bit of hypocrisy about pro-lifers as well. Why is it not okay to kill something thats never known what it's like to be alive, but it's ok to kill someone who's done bad things...

*sigh* I think humanity really needs to sit down and take turns with the talking stick sometimes.

As an aside, I noticed this story and figured it would add something to the discussion:

Women With Hellish Morning Sickness Elect Abortion - ABC News

It's yet another way in which a "normal" pregnancy can turn into a major ordeal, something that completely disrupts and even endangers the woman's life. It is hardly just "nine months and then you're done" like a lot of pro-lifers seem to suggest.

exactly! There are so many changes, and some women's bodys can't handle it. Plus after those 9 months, you have a baby that you're responsible for.

Just thought I'd add my thought to the discussion;

I've been wondering since I've been seeing a lot of quotes and people saying that if you don't want to be pregnant don't have sex, I'm wondering;
If you are a virgin, and want to try have sex -because regardless if you have had sex or not, the urge for it sooner or later makes itself known -and you're as careful as you could possibly be and still get pregnant, you shouldn't be able to have an abortion?

You might have noticed I'm ok with abortion, to an extent.
There are people that doesn't care to use precautions when having sex, because they know they can get an abortion if they were to get pregnant, in other words they are misusing their right to abort. Abortion is not meant to be used in the same way as birth-control or condoms and after a amount of abortins it WILL start to burden a woman's body, any amount of operations on the body would.

Ow so much to read, but its bascily the same thing over and over.
Pro-choice.
im more worried about what is living right now, not in the 'what ifs'
If abortion was to suddenly become illegal there would still be abortions. Back ally abortions where a mother whos so desperate well take a hanger and do it, or have someone els.
The baby dosent always die. either it services and becomes horrible disfigured or the mother dies of infection.

I read up there that human beings are the only ones that have sex for pleaser...
Erm untrue.. ever went to a zoo and walch a monkey wackin himself off?
i have... 2.. want proof? i think my lil sis took pics.. *sighs*
Also i think dophines also have sex for pleaser.. they even use seaweed for condomes XD (i dont know if thats still a fact or if its been disproven.. i like animl planet..TT TT)
Adoption.. i hope WHOEVER says that well adopt then a child. becouse even with abortion legal. there are thousand THOUSAND of children waiting for a home RIGHT NOW
Children living from home ot home.
I dont know if many relies this BUT
Some children homes are run by mothers who do 3 things
1. raise a child withen a certain age, once they past that age they move
2. If the child does anything bad and the caring 'mother' doesn't want it, it again MOVES
3. keep the kid (this ones rare)
Some adopted kids are luicky and find homes.
Not saying that this is a fate for all kids. just they have a high chance of leading a life like this.
my family (mother i mean) rescued my darling lil cousine from this fate.
She was born addicted to crystal meth. And was/is showing early signs of anger issues. Her first care taker was about to give her back to the stae becouse she was getting tired of her fits and by gosh she was only 7 months at that time.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Anyone can get an education, child or no child.

I have to say I agree here. As for education beyond high school or GED, if you're a single mother in poverty in the United States, you basically get paid to go to college. As long as you're not going to some super-pricey school, Pell grants can pay for ALL of your tuition AND your books, and sometimes you even GET money on top of all that. I don't think a lot of moms are aware of this and I think they should be made more aware.

I have already stated in the case of rape, I think abortion is understandable.

So a rape fetus is different than a non-rape fetus? It is somehow worth less than a non-rape fetus? I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion.

If they are not ready to have a child, what is the justification of having sex?

Because they want to? Because sex offers positive benefits both mentally and physically? Because they want to be intimate with their husband, their boyfriend, or just a friend? Because it feels good? Because they don't need a justification for havig sex?

I'm not condemning anyone to life of poverty. It's their choice to risk getting pregnant in the first place.

Consent to the risk of pregnancy is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy.

If they can't afford the child, Adoption has basically the same emotional toll as abortion and ALL MEDICAL BILLS are paid for by the adopting family. Plus the family now gets a child that will be loved and cared for. So that's 18 years of happiness and life at the cost of 1 year of discomfort.

This might be a good option... for white women who give birth to healthy white babies. And adoption does not fix the problem of someone not wanting to be pregnant. It only fixes the problem of someone who does not want to be a parent.

And you know what, I'm okay with girls who are actually on the poverty level having abortions. But seeing as there are 50% of abortions happening at 3x the poverty level, I still think that something needs to be done.

What is the magical income bracket that one goes from not being able to support a kid and not wanting a kid to being able to support a kid and magically wanting one?

So don't have sex. Best birth control in the world. Sex is also not required to live, so the lack of it until a woman is financially able to have children isn't going to hurt anyone.

Like all forms of birth control, abstinence has a failure rate too.

I am horrified first of all that anyone would use wikipedia for anything. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and if you use it as a source even in highschool, you stand subject to failing the assignment. Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Wikipedia actually IS a pretty reliable source, especially since they have links to their sources at the bottom of the page. If you think your opponent has changed the page to suit their argument, you can just check the history of the page.

Originally Posted by cherry cocaine

...As long as you're not going to some super-pricey school, Pell grants can pay for ALL of your tuition AND your books, and sometimes you even GET money on top of all that.

I'm going to the cheapest state-run school, and Pell doesn't even come close to covering all of my tuition, let alone books or fees.

I'm going to say I don't have a child, but according to Pell's own site, this is not a factor.

Grant amounts are dependent on: the student's expected family contribution (EFC) (see below); the cost of attendance (as determined by the institution); the student's enrollment status (full-time or part-time); and whether the student attends for a full academic year or less.

(P.S., my EFC is a big fat 0, and I'm a full time student at 16-17 credit hours, just in case you were curious)

Also from Pell's site:

Average New Award: $3,611
Range of New Awards: $486–$5,350

This might fly for a two-year school, but you can forget about trying to get a four-year degree on Pell alone. Even if I got the max ($5350), I'd still fall short. I could maybe stretch that over a semester for tuition alone with the lightest full-time course load possible, but that wouldn't cover a whole year, no way.


As for the rest of your post, I don't see any problems. But as a Pell recipient without a child struggling to make ends meet, I'd have to object to anyone saying that school is "basically paid for."


Edit: I double-checked my financial aid, just to see what I have this upcoming semester. My Pell grant was $2,775 (for one semester only, since I'm graduating in December; in other words, I got the max amount), and a semester of tuition (no books or student fees or lab fees, etc.) is $4,730. I still fall short by $2045 with Pell alone. And of the four state schools, mine is the CHEAPEST! And I'm in the Midwest... it's not like I'm in California where everything is absurdly expensive.

Also, you have to account for housing and meals. Room and board is included in calculating aid that you get from the school or government.

So, yeah, you could get a 2-year degree on a Pell, but those are quickly becoming useless (hell, even bachelor's degrees are starting to become worthless now... my fiance found out that he has to have a master's degree to do what he wants now, despite already having TWO bachelors!). An associate's degree hardly even results in a rise in income (compared to a bachelor's). They only see a wage increase of 10-15%. While that's not bad, personally, that wouldn't be satisfactory for me and my growing family.

Really, who is the government to say that a woman MUST have a child?
What if a homeless woman accidentally gets pregnant and she decides she doesn't want to raise a miserable child with nothing in life to look forward to?
What if a thirteen year old girl gets raped and gets pregnant?
What if you're three months pregnant and all of a sudden, "Hey, Mr. Doctor here, I just looked at your tests again and you're uterus could pop if the fetus grows anymore."
These aren't just "what ifs," they DO happen every day, to ordinary people.
I read on a private blog that writes about things the ordinary news would NEVER show the public that an eleven year old girl died trying to give herself an abortion. The father was a rapist that the police seemed to have no interest in finding.
And who else is to say that you're not allowed to decide if you HAVE to keep the fetus or not? The 3000 year old old man sitting on a cloud?
Unless you're seven or eight months pregnant, I see nothing wrong with deciding whether or not to aid in the overpopulating of America.

Originally Posted by Keyori

I'm going to the cheapest state-run school, and Pell doesn't even come close to covering all of my tuition, let alone books or fees.

I'm going to say I don't have a child, but according to Pell's own site, this is not a factor.

(P.S., my EFC is a big fat 0, and I'm a full time student at 16-17 credit hours, just in case you were curious)

Also from Pell's site:

This might fly for a two-year school, but you can forget about trying to get a four-year degree on Pell alone. Even if I got the max ($5350), I'd still fall short. I could maybe stretch that over a semester for tuition alone with the lightest full-time course load possible, but that wouldn't cover a whole year, no way.


As for the rest of your post, I don't see any problems. But as a Pell recipient without a child struggling to make ends meet, I'd have to object to anyone saying that school is "basically paid for."


Edit: I double-checked my financial aid, just to see what I have this upcoming semester. My Pell grant was $2,775 (for one semester only, since I'm graduating in December; in other words, I got the max amount), and a semester of tuition (no books or student fees or lab fees, etc.) is $4,730. I still fall short by $2045 with Pell alone. And of the four state schools, mine is the CHEAPEST! And I'm in the Midwest... it's not like I'm in California where everything is absurdly expensive.

Also, you have to account for housing and meals. Room and board is included in calculating aid that you get from the school or government.

So, yeah, you could get a 2-year degree on a Pell, but those are quickly becoming useless (hell, even bachelor's degrees are starting to become worthless now... my fiance found out that he has to have a master's degree to do what he wants now, despite already having TWO bachelors!). An associate's degree hardly even results in a rise in income (compared to a bachelor's). They only see a wage increase of 10-15%. While that's not bad, personally, that wouldn't be satisfactory for me and my growing family.

That it is not your experience does not mean I am wrong. It has been my experience every single semester I have received a Pell grant and been in school full-time- at BOTH community colleges AND at a four-year university, having tuition/books paid for AND receiving money back in the middle of the semester (like I said... I didn't just make that up). And many schools will give you further assistance if you have extra need- one school I looked at (Texas A&M, I think) said this would include making a purchase like a computer.

Your school isn't expensive, but it's by far the cheapest. Examples:

Yearly (yes, yearly) tuition and fees:
University of Nevada: $5324
Augusta State University: $3910
University of Florida: $4373
San Diego State: $5206
Texas A&M: $4946 (15 credit hours/semester)
Tennessee State: $5704

Also according to the Pell grant website (this page)-

You may receive up to two consecutive Pell Grant awards during a single award year to accelerate your program toward your degree. You must be enrolled at least half-time and in a program that leads to an associate or bachelor’s degree or certificate.

I'd be willing to bet that those are all in-state tuition... which means that I still wouldn't benefit.

Also, now you're just cherry-picking data.

If you include all costs (which are all eligible for financial assistance, even housing), you easily double or triple the figures you listed.

Case in point:
University of Nevada: $14,200 (living with parent)
Augusta State University: $3910; with laughable degrees and no living costs included (seriously, not even ONE engineering degree?!)
University of Florida: $11,470 without housing
San Diego State: $14,870
Texas A&M: $15,422 (take off $5,380 if you don't need housing)
Tennessee State: $5704 (does not include other fees, housing, meals, supplies, books, or transportation; keep in mind that Pell alone is $5550, so it already falls short).

Additionally, none of these costs take into account the cost of also raising a child. One of the universities said to add something like $2500 per year, but that seems laughably low (this site says ~$3000/yr, and when you're a single mother, $500 is the difference between make it or break it).

Furthermore, you misunderstand Pell disbursement. Federal law says that Pell must be disbursed at least twice a year; you can't get the whole amount at once, and you don't get more than one full grant.

(all following emphasis mine)

How much money can I get?

The maximum Pell Grant award for the 2010-2011 award year is $5,550. The maximum can change yearly and depends on program funding. How much you get will depend not only on your EFC but also on your Cost of Attendance (COA), whether you’re a full-time or part-time student, and whether you attend school for a full academic year or less. You may receive only one Pell Grant in an award year, and you may not receive Pell Grant funds from more than one school at a time.

Source.

Those receiving a Pell Grant will be paid at least once during the semester (or quarter) and at least twice per year for schools which do not have regulated intervals.

Source.

However; you may receive a Summer Pell Grant if you take summer classes. This sortof counts as a "second" Pell Grant, but is NOT the same amount as a regular Pell Grant, and if you already received the maximum amount for the year ($5550) and did not take the maximum number of hours (18/18/8), you will not get additional Pell funds for the summer term.

Somehow I'm skeptical that a single mother could pull off two 18-hour semesters, plus an 8-hour summer.

And that's not even with trying to have a part-time job to cover the the rest of her enormous costs (see above) that Pell doesn't.

You're right. Conceded. :)

Just to be clear though--yes, there's other programs that will help cover the rest of the costs that Pell doesn't. My point was simply that Pell often cannot and does not cover all costs by itself, especially for 4-year degrees.

I have state aid, a corporate sponsorship, two scholarships, work-study, and subsidized loans to cover the things that Pell doesn't. So, yes, all of my costs are covered because I'm broke as hell, but my aid does include loans that I have to pay back (and I don't have a job secured after graduation yet, so I deliberately took more aid--the loans--than I needed, just to keep me afloat for a while in case I can't find gainful employment). However, this summer has really sucked for me since I don't get my next aid package until near the end of August. Summer financial aid here is a real pain in the arse, so I'm not taking summer classes (I was also expecting to have a job.... which got cancelled on me a week after I was supposed to start, go figure :roll:).

I really just can't imagine how much more of a pain this would be if I had a child. Normally during the school year I work two jobs on top of my classes and extracurriculars... I'd probably have to drop a lot to make time for a baby. Our school doesn't have a daycare or anything like that either (and, being in a small town, and having talked to professors with young children, the options here are very... limited... and Christian-centric, which isn't such a good thing for someone like me who would want to raise a child secularly so that they can make their own decisions about religion later in life).

to me abortion is "murder" a lot of people say oh no it hasn't taken a breath so it is not a living thing. As far as I'm concerned if it moves its alive. And an-"unborn" child kicks when it is in the wombs so technacally it is a living thing.
I class abortion under the term "murder" if you dont what the kid, have the child and give it up for adoption

Originally Posted by BrokenEnglish

to me abortion is "murder"

I class abortion under the term "murder"

Unfortunately, you don't get to decide what is and isn't murder. Murder is a legal term. It does not mean any killing you don't like.

a lot of people say oh no it hasn't taken a breath so it is not a living thing.

Um, who has said that, exactly? One person said that it didn't fit her definition of living, but it wasn't for that reason.

As far as I'm concerned if it moves its alive.

So, killing plants is murder? Some of them move. Some molds move, sort of. Germs move, but every time you wash your hands, you're "murdering" millions of them. There's those rocks in the desert, too. And, provided you're not completely against killing like you seem to suggest, killing animals is murder, as well. And then there's humans -- execution is murder, self defense (which, if you really think about it, is what abortion could be considered) is murder, accidental killings are murder.

And of course, on the flip side, if your definition of whether or not a being is alive rests entirely on movement, those who are paralyzed are not people and have no right to live. So now, your not-caring includes women, children, and the disabled. You're just a bundle of joy, aren't you?

And an-"unborn" child kicks when it is in the wombs so technacally it is a living thing.

First off, why is 'unborn' in quotations? Also, yeah, babies kick in the womb -- long, LONG after abortions can legally be obtained unless the woman's life is in danger.

if you dont what the kid, have the child and give it up for adoption

Typical pro-lifer. Alright, quick lesson: you know the "child" you keep ranting about? It's not living in some separate dimension, it's inside a woman. Not a mother, not a vessel, a woman. For those nine months you seemingly forgot happen between conception and childbirth, that woman has to deal with health risks, discomfort, inability to do the things she needs to, medical costs, and very likely a complete change in lifestyle and wardrobe. There was an article I linked to on another page of this thread about a condition many pregnant women experience that causes them extremely severe, life-threatening morning sickness. After a day, most people would go to the emergency room if they experienced any of that. They'd break down. But pregnant women have to do it for nine bloody months, 3/4 of a year. And after all that "fun", they have to go through more pain and risk and expense to get the baby out of them.

And then, yeah, she can put it up for adoption -- provided she doesn't give a shit about the kid's future. The adoption system is completely screwed, at the moment. There are far, far more children up for adoption than potential adopters, and if they're not white, pretty, perfect, and of the right sex, they have very little chance of finding parents. And if they're put in foster care, good luck. Foster homes have a notoriously high rate of abuse and neglect. But then, unless you live under a rock, you already know all this. You've already made it quite clear that you don't care about the women, but apparently you don't care about the potential child half as much as you claim, either, since you're willing to put them through so much suffering (with no help, of course; I've never met a pro-life adoptive parent and they certainly aren't setting up funds for children who otherwise would've been aborted) for the sake of an idea.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

If they can't afford the child, Adoption has basically the same emotional toll as abortion and ALL MEDICAL BILLS are paid for by the adopting family. Plus the family now gets a child that will be loved and cared for. So that's 18 years of happiness and life at the cost of 1 year of discomfort.

There are too many kids in Children's Services as it is. There needs to be more focus on getting the kids who are already in Children's Services adopted, not puttin gmore children in where there is a huge chance that they won't get adopted. there are over half a million kids in Children's Services and the majority of them won't be adopted because so many American families adopt children from foreign countries instead of from here in the states. So you'd be condemning this child to a life of going from foster home to foster home and not having a real family.

To me, there is no difference between a fetus and a person, so any abortion is wrong, unless the mother would be at serious risk or something like that. As soon as it begins to develop, its no longer your body, its a body you share. I would consider it the same as conjoined twins, and one decides to kill the other because he or she considers it their own body. (I wonder if that would be legal if the first twin could live without the second, but the second could not live without the first). Perhaps you were raped, but it wasn't by the child. He or she is totally innocent and blameless, yet its the child that is killed.
Even if you do not believe that its a person at that point, there is the possibility that it is. So, there's the possibility that millions are dying this way (I don't know the numbers).
Also, if you have to give up nine months of your life to save the complete life of someone else, well you shouldn't even have to think about it. If you wouldn't do it, you're just a bad person, and society should force you to do it. Yes, sometimes society must force the right decisions on its citizens. Those are called laws. You would be denying the child's right to life (liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) otherwise, while you just have to go through the emotional and physical pains for a few months. Perhaps that is denying your right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but unfortunately for you, that's only two of the three, so you lose.
Try looking at it from the other side. If someone had to go through the pains of pregnancy to save your life but refused, would you think that was right? Would you think them an OK person? Would you say, "Oh well, its their right to choose, unlucky me"? Especially if, as in 99% of the cases, its that person's fault anyway. The baby didn't choose to be conceived inside of you, you chose to have sex. Its your fault, take some responsibility. I don't blame people for their mistakes, but I do ask that they pay for them.
I also find it no different than saying women aren't really people. Sure there are differences, but ones that don't matter in the end.
If you don't think a fetus is a person, you are probably being too near sighted. You believe we should stop global warming, but you think abortion is fine? You think we should stop people from building bombs, before they have even tried to use them? You think people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons on aircraft? In all of these its just time that makes the difference.
For the people who think the child will have a terrible life, so just kill it anyway, you're also a horrible person. Should we execute the handicapped? How about the elderly? Pretty much if you can't prove you'll have a happy life, be ready to get shot in the head.

Wait! Vortic are you saying that women that were raped should keep the child? For nine months to see this being growing inside you to remind you of the horrible experience you had? To know that the baby inside you isn't from a mutual and loving encounter? Thats really selfish of you. If I'm raped why should I carry to term a baby from a trumatic experience that will remind me everyday of the invasion I felt. I don't want to be pregnant in the first place. So why should I suffer the pains of pregnancy because some male decided that he had a right to use my body?
I'm 19! I'm a kid still, why should I be tied down when I didn't want it in the first place? Why should my life stop? Ok that statement was selfish on my part, but still.

YES! It is their right to choose! One accident can ruin not only the mothers life, but the fathers and the babies as well. One night of happiness and "uh-oh condom broke, my pill was ineffective... theres a baby!" If this happened to me, I would have to drop out of college, my bf would need to drop out of university, to get a job to suddenly support him, me and a baby. And I'm one of the lucky ones. I know my bf would take responsibility. What about the girls whos boyfriends skip out on them, and their on their own.

No I'm sorry, Pro-choice! If you want the baby keep it, if not abort. I'm not putting my life on hold before I've even lived it. Thats not fair to me or a kid.

Also there are enough kids in orphanages and foster care that need a parent. I'll help those ones thank you very much!

Any argument you use for this would have to:

1. Prove or at least show that the child is not alive, a person, etc.
2. Prove that in some cases its fine to end the life of a person for this reason.

Otherwise, your argument is invalid due to normal human standards. I consider the fetus a person. If you don't that's your opinion, but it means that your arguments become invalidated to me instantly unless they fall into one of the two above. This is not unfair or illogical. It is a result of my belief that a fetus is a person, nothing more, nothing less.

----------

Originally Posted by Syraannabelle

Wait! Vortic are you saying that women that were raped should keep the child? For nine months to see this being growing inside you to remind you of the horrible experience you had? To know that the baby inside you isn't from a mutual and loving encounter? Thats really selfish of you. If I'm raped why should I carry to term a baby from a trumatic experience that will remind me everyday of the invasion I felt. I don't want to be pregnant in the first place. So why should I suffer the pains of pregnancy because some male decided that he had a right to use my body?

For one simple an undeniable truth: You aren't the only victim. The child was created. It is not your body any longer. It is one that you share. Your suffering is insignificant when compared to the denial of life of a human being, which I consider the child to be. This is not selfish. You will both suffer. Life is pain. I wish it wasn't, but your short term happiness is not more important than someone else's life. You want, you don't want? THAT's being selfish.

I'll reply to the rest later, its lunch time :)

Originally Posted by vortic

1. Prove or at least show that the child is not alive, a person, etc.

An embryo =/= a person, in the same way that your fingernail =/= a person. In many states, that fetus is not considered a "child" until its point of viability, after which it is not legal to abort it anyway unless the mother's life is threatened.

No one is denying that the fetus is alive. The bacterium in your body are alive too, yet you take antibiotics when you get sick. Ending "life" isn't argument enough, since you end life every time you eat lunch (even if you're vegan; vegetables are alive too).

Originally Posted by vortic

2. Prove that in some cases its fine to end the life of a person for this reason.

Abortion is legal.

Originally Posted by vortic

Otherwise, your argument is invalid due to normal human standards.

Please define, and cite references, for what a "normal human standard" is, without using a U.S.-centric definition tailored to a specific case. This definition needs to apply to all cultures for all social issues. I won't hold my breath.

As a footnote, I find your denial of my bodily rights absolutely vomit-inducing. So once I get knocked up, to you, I am no more than an incubator. It's nice to know that there's people like you who try to take away my own personhood and bodily integrity based on your flippantly arbitrary "moral" reasoning.

I don't care if you knock up your girlfriend/wife/sister and she doesn't abort. It's none of my business. But for you to sit there and impose your views onto my uterus and try to legislate what I am allowed to do with it is a blatant disregard of "MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS." What I do with MY vagina and MY uterus in MY free time is something YOU do not have the right to legislate, and is a decision to be kept between me, my partner (if applicable), and my OB/GYN, who has had years more medical experience than you and is a better judge of where "personhood" begins and ends in my womb. And I'll damn well tell you that any credible doctor will say that a single-cell zygote sure as hell is not a person, and I'll terminate it if I have reason to.

WHOO! Go Keyori! You rule girl!

You people are so selfish. "I am no more than an incubator." MY MY MY!!
You seem to think that you are the only one involved in this. When you got pregnant, two people became involved (in fact, lots more, but lets leave society, parents, etc out of it for now). Yet you throw away any notion that someone else could be as important as you are. When you became pregnant, it became one body shared by two people. Just because you were there first does not give you any more right to it. Perhaps if the child had forced itself upon you, but it didn't. Other than rape, its probably your fault anyway. So grow a pair, suck it up, and realize that life isn't all flowers and sunshine. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices.

Oh, and just because something is illegal or legal doesn't make it right or wrong. Slavery for example.

I do think your point about the doctor saying when it's a person is valid. However, its just not my belief that you need a complete consciousness or body to be a person. Otherwise, most people aren't people until around 25, and even then some don't make it.

Ok what about the married couple that isn't ready to raise a child, takes normal precautions (b.c., condoms), yes the wife still ends up pregnant. What if they don't have the money to support the child. Is the kid supposed to grow up in poverty because of your one-sided view? The sacrifices you're talking about are rediculas and extreme.

It all boils down to choice! I choose no! You choose yes! So lets say pro-choice! I'm in no way hindering anyone else's views with my plan not to be pregnant, so why is it such a problem? I don't want to be pregnant, but I like sex. Sex is fun. So you know what, if I get pregnant I will abort since I'm not ready to be a mother. If some girl wants to take the kid all through, thats her choice! Kudo's to her, whatever, just don't tell me what I can and can't do! When it comes to MY body!

dude its like if your girlfriend got raped what would you do? keep the kid knowing that you are not the father and try and explain why he/she does not look like you or abort? or even worse incestuous rape your girlfriend was raped by her dad what would you do? me I say abort. there are 15 year old girls who are getting prego and some due to a drunken one night stand then what? she now has to drop out of school to get a job to support the kid. who is being selfish? she has her whole life ahead of her and now she has a kid with no education. there goes her life for a kid she probably didn't want in the first place.

Originally Posted by Syraannabelle

Ok what about the married couple that isn't ready to raise a child, takes normal precautions (b.c., condoms), yes the wife still ends up pregnant. What if they don't have the money to support the child. Is the kid supposed to grow up in poverty because of your one-sided view? The sacrifices you're talking about are rediculas and extreme.

You do not consider the alternative. THAT is ridiculous. So the answer is yes, its supposed to grow up in poverty. You're basically saying, "Well the child would grow up poor anyway, so lets kill it." So, why not kill the children whenever dad loses his job? After all, we wouldn't want kids to grow up in poverty, even though that's been happening since the first human child was born.

Originally Posted by Syraannabelle

It all boils down to choice! I choose no! You choose yes! So lets say pro-choice! I'm in no way hindering anyone else's views with my plan not to be pregnant, so why is it such a problem? I don't want to be pregnant, but I like sex. Sex is fun. So you know what, if I get pregnant I will abort since I'm not ready to be a mother. If some girl wants to take the kid all through, thats her choice! Kudo's to her, whatever, just don't tell me what I can and can't do! When it comes to MY body!

But again, its not YOUR body. It now belongs to you and the child. That's how I see it. Therefore, your choice is to kill the child. The child's choice, well it cannot tell us nor defend itself, therefore it requires a third party or society to help arbitrate. To me, the most fair solution between denying one life forever and denying one her "rights" for a few months is, deny the rights for a few months. It does not matter how the child's life might be, or how great the suffering of the mother might be. Both could be wonderful as well, it doesn't matter. One is simply the better option. And you would absolutely be "hindering" someone. The child! You would totally destroy its life forever.
So please, stop telling me how terrible a life the child might have. Its better than no life at all. Stop telling me its your body. Its the child's body too, until it can survive without it. Stop telling me it doesn't involve me. If that were the case, then even murder would not be punishable because it only involves the murderer and the victim.
The only valid argument you can make is that the child is NOT a person. If your argument isn't this, then from now on when you make the argument, consider if you could say the same thing about your mother, father, sister, or any fully functional human being. Otherwise, it falls under the category of irrelevant.

----------

Originally Posted by Demon_of_the_Sand

dude its like if your girlfriend got raped what would you do? keep the kid knowing that you are not the father and try and explain why he/she does not look like you or abort? or even worse incestuous rape your girlfriend was raped by her dad what would you do? me I say abort. there are 15 year old girls who are getting prego and some due to a drunken one night stand then what? she now has to drop out of school to get a job to support the kid. who is being selfish? she has her whole life ahead of her and now she has a kid with no education. there goes her life for a kid she probably didn't want in the first place.

Again this argument has no effect on me, except perhaps to make me think you might be a bad person. You're basically saying, "Well the childs life could be this, so lets kill it, and its ok". Or, "Well the mother made a mistake or is a victim of a crime, but she shouldn't have to suffer for a few months, so lets kill the kid and/or other victims that would remind her of the crime." By that logic, I should be able to kill anyone that might make my life worse.