Juana!

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

does life begins at conception? at birth? is abortion moral or right in your point of view? when should abortion would be justified in your point of view?

Krasch

To answer your questions:

Yes, conception.
It depends.
Only in the case of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is at stake. Not at all in the case of those who use it as some perverse kind of birth control.

CD

What if the couple used birth control and still got pregnant? I'm not putting my opinion on the original topic here... just wondering about certain cases that don't exactly fit the black and white mentality.

___________________________________________

Krasch

Well if said couple REALLY didn't want to get pregnant, there is always the option to abstain from sex, period. That obviates the issue that most contraceptive methods are not 100% effective. They chose to roll the dice and came up snake eyes, I don't think that's a good enough reason to murder their unborn child.

CD

Abstain? So a couple abstains from the bedroom for possibly years? Sorry to burst your bubble, but that ain't gonna happen.

___________________________________________

rjsincs

abortion is ok as long as its not birth control. we have the technology to fix a mistake and not ruin 2/3 lives. as long as its not a " i can screw what i want because if i get preggo ill get it taken care of" thats not the point of abortion. it should be reserved for the legit accidents or illegal cases. not cuz some whore thinks its ok.

___________________________________________

Krasch

I'm not going to say I expect it to happen, but that IS a conscious choice to roll them bones nonetheless. Should the kid have to be murdered because the parents refuse to exercise self control?

cm8

Agreed

Krasch

/bow;

Greven359

I completely agree that Abortion shouldn't be used simply a form of birth control, however it should be allowed in certain circumstances.

I've always been pro-choice, a few years ago my wife and I found ourselves pregnant after our birth control failed. After alot of thought (and more than one heated argument) we decided to have our son.

Now if during the course of the pregnancy we'd learned of some of some horrible, life changing birth defects, I think we would have reconsidered.

Krasch

An understandable perspective, but I imagine if you asked a lot of children born in that kind of situation with birth defects if they'd rather have died instead of being born I expect the answer would be no. I'd expect the same answer from their parents who know those kids love them unconditionally, "warts" and all.

As the saying goes, you gotta take the good with the bad. Sure it's great if the kids are born perfect with no defects and all, but even if they aren't, are they not worthy of the opportunity to be loved by their parents and achieve as much as they can?

joerockhead

And yet, to throw more fire....

A Drug addict whore gets pregnant. Do we let her have a child, that she will either sell or dump, or becomes an Orphan.
We have extremely poor undereducated people, that only know Sex is fun. Yes, they know it creates babies, but do not have the means to support that child.
We have a married couple, that have been practicing safe sex, only to have that 1 in a million happen.They are already older and have teenagers and careers.

I am just tossing out situations. I cannot really comment, because I never had to be in the situation.
I agree, that if a woman is whoring around, and gets Abortions to keep whoring, she should have to have some consequences, but to force her to keep the child is not a good answer, for the child.

I am just glad I am a man, and do not have to deal with that personally.

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine

93crawler

I am pro-choice, and as a man I don't really think that we necessarily have the right to tell a woman what she can, and can't do with her body. I think it goes without saying though, that the overwhelming majority of people, on both sides of the isle, are anti-abortion--but it should be an option in extreme cases and other acceptable instances, and some extreme form of birth control isn't on of them. Some of you anti-abortion people may not know this but a child can't even survive on it's own unless he/she is at least 22 weeks old, and then is probably in for an extensive amount of time in the NICU. Here is an interesting article I found that is related to the anti-abortion movement and it's stance on contraception.


Like lawn ornaments in summer, protesters outside the local abortion clinic are fixtures in many places in the United States today.

Their presence and message have long been so predictable that, without looking or listening, people believe they understand the point. And so you might not notice that the protest taking place outside your local clinic today has fundamentally changed.

It is no longer about abortion. June 7 is the anniversary of Griswold v Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that granted married people the right to use contraception. To mark the day, anti-abortion groups are taking to their normal posts outside clinic entrances not to convince Americans to oppose abortion but rather to stop using contraception.

The national campaign is called "Protest the Pill Day 08'" and it is organized by several leading anti-choice groups including the American Life League and Pharmacists for Life. The groups' website is chock full of unscientific, medically inaccurate information.

Anti-contraception activism has been working its way up the priority list of the anti-choice movement in the United States in recent years and today's campaign is one of the most organized and visible displays of this broadening agenda.

Currently, there is not one pro-life organization in the U.S. that supports contraception. In fact, the multi-pronged attack against the right to use contraception is led entirely by anti-abortion groups. Their initiatives (to name just a few) include opposing health insurance of contraception, urging pharmacists to deny women's birth control prescriptions, and attempting (with no scientific rationale) to reclassify the birth control pill, and all other hormonal forms of contraception, as abortion methods with the goal of banning them. This represents an important and frightening shift in focus by the anti-abortion movement.

Despite the fact that contraception is the only proven way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and reduce abortion rates, anti-choice groups would forgo these benefits, and even risk dramatically increasing abortion rates, in favor of a larger, more insidious goal: changing Americans' sex lives.

As the American Life League, the nation's largest pro-life educational organization, explains in its materials, "The American Life League denies the moral acceptability of artificial birth control and encourages each individual to trust in God, to surrender to His will, and to be predisposed to welcoming children." The American Life League prefers to put the choices in the hands of God, a choice they want to impose on everyone. "It must be clear that couples understand that when they ask God to not send them another child just now they are also saying, 'If it is Your will to send us another child at this time, we praise You for Your divine providence,' the group says.

Buoyed by their success in rolling back abortion rights, these groups seek nothing less than a complete American lifestyle makeover: sex can't ever exclude the possibility of procreation. But instead of convincing Americans to see things their way, groups like the American Life League have decided the more expeditious path is to attack the right to use contraception.

The right to use contraception is relatively new: the Griswold decision was rendered in 1965 and Supreme Court granted single people the right to use contraception as recent as 1972. But the changes these decisions set in motion now form a list of what Americans won't live without. Today, 95 percent of people have sex before marrying.

Indeed, studies show that most Americans in a relationship are having sex, on average, once a week. The typical American female is fertile for approximately 30 years of her life. For about 23 of those years she is trying not to get pregnant. Much of our lifestyle, and the architecture of our most intimate relationships, is rooted in family planning. And we should be grateful for this.

In the 1950s, when there was no sex education, no birth control, no legal abortion (the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement!) teen birth rates soared and have not been equaled since. Today, the rate of teen motherhood, not coincidentally, has been reduced by more than half.

The right to plan your family to the size you want and can support is a cherished, and frequently exercised, American family value. So, the next time you pass by the protest outside your local clinic listen carefully: their real target is your way of life.

Juan.©amaney

For you pro-choicers out there, what is the difference between killing a fetus off at 3 or 4 months versus an almost full term baby? If it's trully the woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body, why can't she abort at the 3rd trimester? It's still her body and the fetus really isn't a baby yet. For that matter, those that argue that a baby can't survive outside of the womb at too early a term, how does that differ from the near 24 hour 7 day a week care the infant needs after its born?

When does a child really matter?

Anyway, my answer to the topic has already been stated on one of the many abortion threads.

Life at conception, abortion is wrong as birth control and as just getting rid of the fetus because a child would be inconveniant, abortion should not be justified ever...you can't justify murder, but it is an necessary evil.

___________________________________________