|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 4:41 pm
...
Well, what are you waiting for, a starting gun? GO, DAMMIT.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 6:11 pm
Umm... pro-choice in special situations....you kinda scare me o_o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 6:14 pm
I think it is a bad thing, really, but some women have experienced trauma (rape), and some aren't prepared for parenthood. But I believe abortions should only be allowed earlier on. (first-trimester rule)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 6:39 pm
I agree with the first trimester rule (come one people, 3 months is plenty of time to make up your damn mind).
Special situations however, seems to suggest alternating value based on how it was conceived rather then the rights of the mother. Thus I have to disagree with that. Maybe no charge for special situations and a standard price for all others to discourage getting pregnant and having to pay for an abortion without removing the right of the mother to chose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 7:01 pm
I'm somewhat torn on the issue. Sure, pregnancies from rape or ones that are threatening to the mother's health should have the abortion option.
But we come to the problem of pregnancy through irresponsibility. I don't want to encourage people to have irresponsible, unprotected sex with the idea that they can just abort any accidents, but I don't want these same people having kids because they probably won't be able to raise them properly.
To be perfectly honest, I think the best solution would be to lace all the water and food with contraceptives and have the contraceptive-inhibitor be prescription only. This would ensure that pregnancies only arise through deliberate action and that there would be someone checking that the parents are physically, mentally, emotionally and financially well-off enough to raise a child. Sure, this would lead to a lot of irresponsible sex, but at least it won't lead to accidental pregnancies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 12:08 am
Layra-chan I'm somewhat torn on the issue. Sure, pregnancies from rape or ones that are threatening to the mother's health should have the abortion option. But we come to the problem of pregnancy through irresponsibility. I don't want to encourage people to have irresponsible, unprotected sex with the idea that they can just abort any accidents, but I don't want these same people having kids because they probably won't be able to raise them properly. To be perfectly honest, I think the best solution would be to lace all the water and food with contraceptives and have the contraceptive-inhibitor be prescription only. This would ensure that pregnancies only arise through deliberate action and that there would be someone checking that the parents are physically, mentally, emotionally and financially well-off enough to raise a child. Sure, this would lead to a lot of irresponsible sex, but at least it won't lead to accidental pregnancies. I do not believe there is anything conclusive tying birth control options (including abortions) to an increase in irresponsible sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 12:29 am
Jerba2 Umm... pro-choice in special situations.... you kinda scare me o_oLike what? dragonmatt5 I agree with the first trimester rule (come one people, 3 months is plenty of time to make up your damn mind). What if they don't find out they're pregnant until two or three months in? Furthermore, why not second-trimester? Elective becomes illegal at 24 weeks, second trimester is what, up to 26 weeks? Why not just base it on medical viability? dragonmatt5 Special situations however, seems to suggest alternating value based on how it was conceived rather then the rights of the mother. Thus I have to disagree with that. Maybe no charge for special situations and a standard price for all others to discourage getting pregnant and having to pay for an abortion without removing the right of the mother to chose. Perhaps, but I'm wondering how the cases would be judged. The last time Canada had Therapeutic Abortion Committees, the decisions were pretty much arbitrary =/ Layra-chan But we come to the problem of pregnancy through irresponsibility. I don't want to encourage people to have irresponsible, unprotected sex with the idea that they can just abort any accidents, but I don't want these same people having kids because they probably won't be able to raise them properly. Except that these people may not be using contraceptives due to, say, being misinformed or improperly educated. The solution to that is to raise the education standard, of course, America's still half-rooted in Puritanism and people start screaming immorality... Layra-chan To be perfectly honest, I think the best solution would be to lace all the water and food with contraceptives and have the contraceptive-inhibitor be prescription only. This would ensure that pregnancies only arise through deliberate action and that there would be someone checking that the parents are physically, mentally, emotionally and financially well-off enough to raise a child. Sure, this would lead to a lot of irresponsible sex, but at least it won't lead to accidental pregnancies. The contraceptives are hormones, and you risk ******** up child development by inhibiting or encouraging certain hormones. Then there's still contraceptive failure and the issue of how one gets the contraceptive inhibitor prescribed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 1:09 am
zz1000zz Layra-chan I'm somewhat torn on the issue. Sure, pregnancies from rape or ones that are threatening to the mother's health should have the abortion option. But we come to the problem of pregnancy through irresponsibility. I don't want to encourage people to have irresponsible, unprotected sex with the idea that they can just abort any accidents, but I don't want these same people having kids because they probably won't be able to raise them properly. To be perfectly honest, I think the best solution would be to lace all the water and food with contraceptives and have the contraceptive-inhibitor be prescription only. This would ensure that pregnancies only arise through deliberate action and that there would be someone checking that the parents are physically, mentally, emotionally and financially well-off enough to raise a child. Sure, this would lead to a lot of irresponsible sex, but at least it won't lead to accidental pregnancies. I do not believe there is anything conclusive tying birth control options (including abortions) to an increase in irresponsible sex. I'd say alcohol and general stupidity are the more likely culprits, but it would be naive to just dismiss it as a possible cause. Where I live, teen pregnancy is seemingly getting worse. I saw 12 baby carriages t'day, and 7 had girls under 20 behind them. As much as this makes me seem old, I blame the "popular music" scene. It incessantly prmotes stuff like promiscuity and substance abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 3:45 pm
Pro choice.
But sooo against stupid little teenagers who just have totaly unprotected sex every time, and get an abortion every time, like..not even BOTHERING with a condoom, the pill, or any of that stuff, you know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 4:59 pm
Golden Dysprosium zz1000zz Layra-chan I'm somewhat torn on the issue. Sure, pregnancies from rape or ones that are threatening to the mother's health should have the abortion option. But we come to the problem of pregnancy through irresponsibility. I don't want to encourage people to have irresponsible, unprotected sex with the idea that they can just abort any accidents, but I don't want these same people having kids because they probably won't be able to raise them properly. To be perfectly honest, I think the best solution would be to lace all the water and food with contraceptives and have the contraceptive-inhibitor be prescription only. This would ensure that pregnancies only arise through deliberate action and that there would be someone checking that the parents are physically, mentally, emotionally and financially well-off enough to raise a child. Sure, this would lead to a lot of irresponsible sex, but at least it won't lead to accidental pregnancies. I do not believe there is anything conclusive tying birth control options (including abortions) to an increase in irresponsible sex. I'd say alcohol and general stupidity are the more likely culprits, but it would be naive to just dismiss it as a possible cause. Where I live, teen pregnancy is seemingly getting worse. I saw 12 baby carriages t'day, and 7 had girls under 20 behind them. As much as this makes me seem old, I blame the "popular music" scene. It incessantly prmotes stuff like promiscuity and substance abuse. Lemme guess, Columbine was because the perpetrators had been playing Doom, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 5:42 pm
I'm pro life. I don't think abortions are right whatsoever. I believe that once the child is concieved it has the right to live. The baby may be of the mother but it is not part of the mother.
I don't condemn women who have had abortions though
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 9:06 pm
Shadows-shine I'm pro life. I don't think abortions are right whatsoever. I believe that once the child is concieved it has the right to live. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to security of the person is also granted. In R. v. Morgentaler (198 cool , the Supreme Court of Canada held that the woman's right to security of the person outweighs the fetus' right to life, if indeed it is granted this right under the Charter. So, who wins, then? If the fetus has the right to live, what of the woman's right to not have her body used for a purpose that she does not want it used for? Shadows-shine The baby may be of the mother but it is not part of the mother. No one's going to argue that the fetus is a part of the woman, because it's quite obvious that it is not. The relationship, however, is so close to being parasitic that it might as well be - the only real problem is that the fetus and the woman are of the same species =/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 1:25 am
zz1000zz I do not believe there is anything conclusive tying birth control options (including abortions) to an increase in irresponsible sex. Perhaps I should have phrased it as "I want there to be something discouraging irresponsible sex in the form of a permanent, unavoidable, unwelcome lifestyle change". Usually a child would take up this role (if not actually discouraging, at least providing an unwelcome lifestyle change), and the possibility of abortion would then remove this disincentive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 10:54 am
Marisarin Histale Shadows-shine I'm pro life. I don't think abortions are right whatsoever. I believe that once the child is concieved it has the right to live. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to security of the person is also granted. In R. v. Morgentaler (198 cool , the Supreme Court of Canada held that the woman's right to security of the person outweighs the fetus' right to life, if indeed it is granted this right under the Charter. So, who wins, then? If the fetus has the right to live, what of the woman's right to not have her body used for a purpose that she does not want it used for? Shadows-shine The baby may be of the mother but it is not part of the mother. No one's going to argue that the fetus is a part of the woman, because it's quite obvious that it is not. The relationship, however, is so close to being parasitic that it might as well be - the only real problem is that the fetus and the woman are of the same species =/ I'm well aware of all the court cases and stuff like that, but in my eyes that still doesn't justify abortion. I believe it's murder through and through
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 3:24 pm
*votes pro-choice*
I mean, let's face it. It would suck horribly to have to choose to give up something that hasn't had the chance to even live on its own for a day.
But I'd rather give up my future child than have to raise it when I'm not ready, because that wouldn't be fair to the kid.
Orphanages are a great concept, I think, but they also seem to not do that great as a whole. Some kids are adopted, but what with the whole thing about adopting foreign now, it just doesn't work out great.
It would take a lot of guts to just leave a kid with a stranger, too.
You don't know who you're giving it to, really. Can you trust them not to hurt your child?
My mom works in gynecology. They've had a couple of abortion cases come through. A sixteen year old came in a while back. For some reason, she and her mom seemed so proud for her to have an abortion, and my mom's pro-choice too, but the fact they were all happy and 100% for this girl to get rid of it ticked her off.
I don't think anyone's going to be completely happy with giving up their kid, but pros can outweigh cons sometimes.
): My grandmother had a miscarriage of twins, and she was really upset. So while it's going to hurt, it might be the best thing for the mother and the child. (and the father, if he's in the picture). Sometimes, people just aren't ready. Or, as mentioned earlier, things like rape happen. Or stupid sex, but I think that's the reason for condoms and pills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
