Originally Posted by Keyori

Oh lawd I couldn't even imagine having more than two children at once @_@

I'd be upset if I wanted to have a child and was pregnant with two. I really want one natural, one adopted, and I don't want them at the same time D:

I'd probably wind up having both though.

Except if they were girls, then I'd consider reducing xD

But still probably not ._.

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:

@ Fabby:
~Physical damage is more common than what's reported. You'll find that a lot of doctors, in defense of their own reputation, don't pin point the abortion because it would harm themselves. The death of the mother is not usually during the abortion, but a few days after ((bleeding, infection ect. ect.)). It is recorded as something else as to, again, protect the reputation of the docter and hospital. The earlier in the pregnancy the abortion is, the safer it tends to be. Researchers for the Center for Disease Control stated that the death rate increases 40-60%/week for each week of delay after the eighth week. Women who are considering getting an abortion will wait either because of morality within the family, or because of denial, or even deciding whether or not she wants to keep the baby. A Woman who has an abortion is more likely to have premature births, also, thus causing problems in mental/physical development. This harms her future children, as well as her unborn baby. Another problem is a tubal pregnancy. When an abortion is performed, especially after many, the uterus is scarred and cut, which leads to a tubal pregnancy. This is when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the tube instead of the uterus, which can lead to death of the woman, whether she wants to keep the baby or not. There are many, many more possibilities and harm that abortion causes.
~A between a Russian woman and a U.S. citizen woman showed that 64% of women felt pressured into getting an abortion. Compared to teenage women who went through the pregnancy, a teenage woman who aborts is 3 times more likely to have sleeping disorders and drug use. Over the past 6 years, studies have proved higher rates of mental illness and behavioral problems because of abortion compared to childbirth. Again, abortion advocates dismiss this study because "...while women who abort may fare worse than women who give birth to planned children, they may fare better than the important subgroup of women who carry unintended pregnancies to term..." But the facts just doesn't support that statement.
~On the contrary, when a woman gives birth to a child she is pressured to make better decisions and to become an adult. If a girl gets pregnant, and has to have that baby, she wakes up to reality that this is what it leads to. And obviously, unless there is a mental issue already there, she will take care to either have sex more responsibly next time, or she just won't do it at all. Parents will also encourage her more to take responsibility for that child who's waking her up at 7am in the morning on a Saturday. The option of abortion has caused those teenage girls to be sloppy in their contraceptive methods, knowing that their parents will most likely make/allow them to get an abortion.
~More studies show that men also bear psychological consequence to abortion. Sometimes it's immediate, and other times it doesn't come up until news of their first, intended/unintended child. They may become sleepless, nightmares, struggles with relationship, fear of rejection ect. ect.. It can also block the confidence that makes them transition from boyish selfishness to manhood. When he participates in an abortion, his ability to accept responsibility is challenged and he lives in his carefree world.
~No, it is not the family's problem. If a teenage girl is living at home and her family is openly against abortion, it is not their problem. It is the deciding factor of whether or not her family will accept her decision or not. If you're living at home, or you're married, though i am greatly against abortion, then it should be absolutely necessary that that members of your family, how they feel and what solutions they can offer you count. If it is your husband, it may very well be the end of your marriage, or an issue that is buried deep in the sand until it surfaces again only to severely harm your marriage. If you are living at home, or even if you're not and your family is against it, is can harm your family bonds. Whether you like it or not, it's not completely YOUR choice, as it will always effect who's around you and it can change how they see you.

~Sources:~
http://www.pathlights.com/abortion/abort05.htm
http://www.endowmentmed.org/content/view/617/35/
http://www.gateway.org/content/pdf/T...e%20family.PDF
http://www.mehangcuugiup.org/html/Qu...ffectsGuys.htm

Originally Posted by Keyori

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.

1) First off, I wouldn't be too convinced of any facts that come off a website that has a banner of "CHOOSE LIFE."
Physical damage may very well be more common, but if it's not reported I can't very well pull up statistics on it, now can I?
Abortions are considered very safe within the first trimester. The rate of complications DOES spike, but it'd be around more like 12 weeks. And most abortions happen within the first nine weeks; no, women usually do not wait.
I can't find any conclusive information that abortion leads to any of the complications you claim; even if it were true, it can all be avoided by having a medical abortion rather than a surgical one.
But even if the woman DOES sustain damage, she knew about it beforehand. ANY surgery has a risk of complication. If she wants it done and doesn't care about future complications it's her choice.
(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)

2) Correlation does not equal causation. Let's just go out on a limb here and say that everything you've said is correct; mentally ill women or those with behavioural issues may simply be more inclined to abort as compared to a perfectly healthy person. Was that taken account for in your studies?
Most studies show no correlation between mental health issues and abortion at all. There are a range of reactions that one can have post-abortion, and depression is one of them, but that doesn't mean it's the only reaction.

3) No, not really. When a woman gives birth to a child she's required to... give birth to a child. That is all. A baby can serve as a wake-up call, but then so can an abortion. If a girl has an abortion, perhaps it will be a reminder that she needs to be more careful in her birth control. Surprisingly, not every woman wants to have repeat abortions!
Having a baby does not magically make you more responsible. You can have the kid and still run off being an irresponsible idiot; how else do you think we have twenty year olds with four kids? I know a girl who had a baby a little while back; I've never seen her with a kid (I didn't even know she had one until a friend told me) and she runs around smoking weed and acting like an idiot all day. :\

4) If the man wanted the baby and the woman aborted it anyway... of course he'd have psychological consequences. That's just logical. But really, the man's feelings are not a good reason to not get an abortion if you want one; it's not his body, and I really doubt his emotional issues would be greater than hers. He doesn't have a fetus in him, after all.

5) It is completely your choice, and you shouldn't be letting anyone else decide for you. If you actually managed to marry someone without coming to a conclusion about what you should do in the event of unexpected pregnancy first, then there is a problem deeply wrong with your marriage.
Hopefully, the family can come to accept that it is the girl's decision and not theirs, and she was only doing what was best. If not... well, it's not their lives, now is it? I don't know about anyone else, but I am not having a child just for mommy's approval. :\

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.

Originally Posted by Sentinel

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]there are many anti-pregnancy contraceptives that are available to any woman, whether it is with a prescription or available in the store. We actually just went over these in my class, so i know that there are dozens out there.

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

abortion is wrong for a couple reasons, and not just your standard "killing fetuses", but because it can;
~damage the woman's uterus (and i have personally seen this happen to a woman)

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.

~cause psychological trauma such as guilt, depression

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.

~it promotes irresponsible behavior (i know girls in my school who have had 4 or 5 abortions, and they still refuse to stop their irresponsible activity)

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

~no one ever seems to think of this, or it is overruled by people saying, "It's a woman's right!" but the father does go through psychological trauma when his child is aborted.

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.

~it can morally tear a family, or a couple apart. One might believe in abortions, the other might not, and it is a huge burden to bear one everyone.

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?

I already know that contraceptives are never 100% effective, but we still know that sex can lead to a pregnancy, correct? These are consequences that people have to face, and the only way to prevent that consequence is to use contraceptives or just not have sex.

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

I also know girls who won't use a condom because it "doesn't feel right", well if you're going to do that then you shouldn't even be allowed to get an abortion! Shame on you!

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

Even if that were the case, take extra precautions like knowing your own body. Meaning, pay attention to when your period comes and goes, know how long it is and know when you ovulate. Keep a calendar, and take the pill.

And if that doesn't work?

statistics show that 95% of abortions are performed for birth control, while the remaining 5% are for rape, incest, abnormalities and health.

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

about 1 in 50 couples get pregnant a year if they use condoms correctly.
2 in 25 couples get pregnant with the use of the pill, correctly.
in 2002, there have been 5000+ abortions in that year.

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

Originally Posted by Kris

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

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.

Originally Posted by Keyori

I think you meant "adverse" effects :)

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).

Originally Posted by Noxara Sylvan

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.

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

Originally Posted by 410 U.S. 113, 147 (1973)

Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the 19th century and to justify their continued existence.

Page 410 U. S. 148

It has been argued occasionally that these laws were the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct. Texas, however, does not advance this justification in the present case, and it appears that no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously. [Footnote 42] The appellants and amici contend, moreover, that this is not a proper state purpose, at all and suggest that, if it were, the Texas statutes are overbroad in protecting it, since the law fails to distinguish between married and unwed mothers.

A second reason is concerned with abortion as a medical procedure. When most criminal abortion laws were first enacted, the procedure was a hazardous one for the woman. [Footnote 43] This was particularly true prior to the

Page 410 U. S. 149

development of antisepsis. Antiseptic techniques, of course, were based on discoveries by Lister, Pasteur, and others first announced in 1867, but were not generally accepted and employed until about the turn of the century. Abortion mortality was high. Even after 1900, and perhaps until as late as the development of antibiotics in the 1940's, standard modern techniques such as dilation and curettage were not nearly so safe as they are today. Thus, it has been argued that a State's real concern in enacting a criminal abortion law was to protect the pregnant woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy.

Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. [Footnote 44] Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared. Of course, important state interests in the areas of health and medical standards do remain.

Page 410 U. S. 150

The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed. Moreover, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman's own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy.

Emphasis mine.

@Kris- Her facts aren't THAT far off.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
Only 12-13% of women report having an abortion for health related issues. Only 1% of abortions are performed because of rape. The number of incest-related abortions is pretty negligible.

@Keyori- Thank you :D
Regarding your earlier post (which I missed) it was a badly worded statement, but I think everyone understands what I meant.

Originally Posted by Fabby

@Kris- Her facts aren't THAT far off.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
Only 12-13% of women report having an abortion for health related issues. Only 1% of abortions are performed because of rape. The number of incest-related abortions is pretty negligible.

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."

Originally Posted by ichigo8504

I am pro-life. Alot of it has to do with religious reasons and just my own. I only see an abortion to be accepted is if it endangers the mother's life or the woman was raped by a family member.
I do see it as murder. In the other debates on this subject, people kept on saying "so, if you kill bacteria or an animal, do you consider that murder?" well, something along those lines. I do not consider those as murder. I only consider murder if it is a human life and if it has a heart beat. We don't go to jail if we kill a bug or bacteria, now do we? Yes, we do go to jail if we kill an animal inhumanely. Well, at least if it is animal that is considered as a pet, which that is just wrong.
This is my opinion. Everyone has their own opinion. I am going to clear this up to the people who keep on saying "well, you say that you can have your opinion, but we can not have ours? Double standers!!" One: I did not say that. I said "I have mine and you have yours, and I don't think anybody has the right to say I am wrong." Nowhere in there says "....but your opinion is wrong and you can't say anything". Even a child could see that. All I am saying, they can state their opinion and they have a right. I am not going to say they are wrong, because I don't want them saying I am wrong. We all have are own opinions on everything. NOBODY IS WRONG WHEN THEY STATE THEIR OPINION!!!!

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).

Originally Posted by turnip

Well I was reading this thread and not to insult or atack Keyori in any way (i am really open to different views) however I believed I had to say an argument against this sugestion. I believe (and probably a few others might agree with me) that if you start testing fetuses which arre unwanted and it ends with their ending "death" this might bring out several ethical conceerns. First of all it is ilegal in most (maybe all) countries for human testing to be carried out which ends up in a human death. Some might argue that the "fetus" is not a human yet until something like 28 weeks. However in my personal belief I think that once the egg is fertilised I consider it as human which in my opinion would make the above action stated ilegal and in some ways imoral (meaning no offense to your beliefs i respect them fully)

To the issue of abortion I have to say that im highly anti abortion unless its a rape case and even then im not in favour of it. Some people would say that it is a pro choice perogrative of a women in choosing what is done to her body. Where I agree with this fully and Im not against the right for a women to choose to have an abortion, I believe that a man should have some say in its process due to the fact that the child is half his both biologically and spiritually. People would say that this is an imoral act a man getting a say over a womens body, however I believe that where the women should get the majority of the say the man should not be taken out of the equation. (Just to restate i am simply stating my views which i am not atempting to impose on other people and I am not saying that my views are the only right ones. )

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.

@GamersforGirlfriends: That argument leads to women losing their rights over their bodies, which also isn't right. It's something discussed in this thread... I don't feel like typing it all again.

Originally Posted by GamersforGirlfriends

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;;;

Originally Posted by TheYaoiButterfly

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

There was; it's since been locked.

[EDIT] Here's the link: http://www.menewsha.com/forum/commun...our-views.html

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

There are so many other options than abortion. There are numerous resources and organizations than can help with pregnancy and adoption. Personally, I know at least three families that have adopted multiple times and would adopt again. Most adoptive families adopt more than once.

Abortion is a tragic last resort that should only be used in case of emergency to save the mother's life. Besides that, adoption is a selfless and loving act.

I see the use of abortion out of convenience as selfish. If you willingly had sex and conceived a child then you should take responsibility and give birth to that child. As far as rape is concerned, it's a tragic event but that life inside that womb did nothing wrong. That "fetus" is a beating heart that deserves the same chance at life that our parents gave us. It's only humane.

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

There are so many other options than abortion. There are numerous resources and organizations than can help with pregnancy and adoption. Personally, I know at least three families that have adopted multiple times and would adopt again. Most adoptive families adopt more than once.

Abortion is a tragic last resort that should only be used in case of emergency to save the mother's life. Besides that, adoption is a selfless and loving act.

I see the use of abortion out of convenience as selfish. If you willingly had sex and conceived a child then you should take responsibility and give birth to that child. As far as rape is concerned, it's a tragic event but that life inside that womb did nothing wrong. That "fetus" is a beating heart that deserves the same chance at life that our parents gave us. It's only humane.

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.

Originally Posted by Kris

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.

Tell me, what's a good reason to stop a beating heart? hmm?

To have an abortion just because you don't want to be pregnant is throwing accountability out the window and being selfish. If you willingly have sex, you are responsible for any consequences. You can't abort a STI just because you can't handle it right now, so why should you be able to abort a fetus? If a woman is raped, well that's a moral dilemma she will have to face. And if a woman is 99% likely to die, she has to decide who's life is more meaningful to her, hers or her unborn child's.

I don't abortion as a "right", it's a privilege that too many women abuse. It should be a last resort, not the first option.