Log in

View Full Version : Abortion


Dolores
April 14th, 2009, 09:47 PM
Planned Parenthood is planning on moving into a not-yet-constructed building a few blocks from my house, and as a result, there are always a bunch of older men protesting with anti-abortion signs on the street corner.

Of course, I am (and I presume they are) aware that Planned Parenthood does not actually perform abortions in this state, but primarily offers birth control, family planning, prenatal care, and STD testing, but the fact that they also give referrals to abortion clinics (as will any doctor) and that in some states they do perform abortions, is presumably what drives these men to protest.

I find it interesting that they will devote so much of their lives to this cause... they must believe in it very passionately. It makes me wonder what sort of anti-abortion activists they are, and whether they believe in any exceptions, or if they believe it's murder always, under any circumstances.

I'm interested in the "some exceptions" hypocrisy, because to me the whole question boils down to whether a fetus is a human being with human rights... if it is, abortion is murder, period, no exceptions. If it isn't, abortion is not murder and the point is moot.

Although I can understand making exceptions if a pregnancy puts the mother's life in danger (making the choice not about saving one or the other, but saving one or neither) I really don't understand people who think abortion is murder except in cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. If that fetus is a human being, and killing it is murder, then it is murder regardless of how it was conceived.

rzm61
April 14th, 2009, 09:52 PM
and?

justshootme
April 14th, 2009, 09:53 PM
The Planned Parenthood (both of them actually) near where I live does perform abortions. However, beyond that it's essentially the same as ANY OTHER GYNECOLOGIST'S OFFICE. I really don't see the uproar, especially if there is one that doesn't even perform abortions like the one you refer to. Sure it's not as fancy as most gyno offices, but the same services are offered, so imo if you picket one you have to picket them all. That would just be silly wouldn't it? Since who in their right mind would picket an obstetrician's office?

Daruko
April 14th, 2009, 10:44 PM
I applaud your effort at posting something intelligible.

I also agree with you on this subject.

woody23
April 14th, 2009, 10:48 PM
I would have to agree with Dolores. For me it boils down to, scientifically, if the fetus is considered a human being. If it is, it has human rights.

Unfortunately, the question has not been answered in full, and to my understanding, to a certain point in the pregnancy the fetus is not considered by the scientific community to be a human being. I think it's eight weeks. I may be incorrect. I'll do some more research.

I was astonished by the Catholic church's move to excommunicate a doctor in Brazil that aborted a fetus growing inside the womb of a nine year old victim of rape. The pregnancy would have killed the mother without doubt, and the fetus as well most likely. It seems like an odd thing to be 'cut off from God' for.

I suppose the guys out there with signs at least have this going for them; They aren't killing doctors in the name of preventing murder. :D

Dolores
April 14th, 2009, 10:53 PM
and?


... it is a topic for discussion, which is why I posted it in "Serious Discussion". I was hoping to invite discussion on this topic... you know, the usual reason for posting a topic in a discussion forum called "Serious Discussion".

Do you have an opinion on this topic?

woody23
April 14th, 2009, 10:55 PM
I must update my information. According to the information on the following link it is the 28th week that the fetus has not formed the Thalamus thus the pain receptors (formed at 8 weeks) are still useless. The 8 week old poked with a needle would pull away in the same way that if an adult touched a hot stove would pull away before the brain registers the pain. There is no communication between the pain receptors and the brain until the 28th week.

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain (http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain)

winwun
April 14th, 2009, 11:04 PM
Let's see -- "killing doctors to prevent murder" is wrong, I take it, but would anyone say that killing Hitler in 1939 would have been wrong ? ?

Here we go again . . .

I have posted here before, and will continue to, my belief that aborting the life of a fetus is something so wrought with emotion and pain for the woman considering such a move, that NO MAN has any idea of what she is going through, and is therefore, not justified in making a decision for her in such a time of great mental distress.

Significant aspects of the subject are already well-entrenched in the legal community, not the least of which is when life begins -- want to know when your life began, legally, well, just look at your driver's license, the time your life began is called "Date of birth".

All the men who scream and protest about abortions would surely sing a different tune if women exercised similar powers concerning men's prostate glands and the necessity of keeping/removing them . . .

A complex situation, and what is right in one situation is totally wrong in another -- having said that, I will unequivocally stand against PBA's.

Can we not see that there are basic, immutable and fundamental differences in the sexes, and managing and planning for pregnancy is one that can only be sensibly made by a woman ? ?

Loki
April 14th, 2009, 11:08 PM
I don't believe you can extend human rights to a foetus. How can a conglomerate of cells have awareness of the rights that certain people extend to it?

Is a foetus sentient? Well, I can't remember being in the womb, can you? I can't remember anything before the year of 5 (ish - using the age as a guide).

No - the decision is that of the woman alone. It's her body that the parasite is growing in so it's her choice and hers alone.


OK, so parasite might be a bit strong but consider this - would you like to feed a creature with your own nutrients if you didn't want to?

I'm a bit unsure as to the validity of rights, full stop. I don't believe we have any rights other than those given by people with more power than us.

I have no problem with abortion apart from its use as a form of contraception.
Not so much for the sake of the foetus but for the health of the woman.

Just my opinion.

Daruko
April 14th, 2009, 11:17 PM
That makes sense, Loki, but I'm not sure the lack of memory is a strong argument. If you took that far enough, you could justify killing infants because the mother doesn't want the responsibility, and the kid won't remember anyway. Obviously, that's pretty extreme though.

Loki
April 14th, 2009, 11:29 PM
That makes sense, Loki, but I'm not sure the lack of memory is a strong argument.

Yeah ok - I wasn't being too clear then - what I was alluding to was sentience. When does a being become sentient? Able to understand that it is a discrete entity?
I think that's at the heart of the abortion issue.




If you took that far enough, you could justify killing infants because the mother doesn't want the responsibility, and the kid won't remember anyway. Obviously, that's pretty extreme though.

Well, I've always thought that the age limit for abortion should be raised to 12 years but I'm in the minority :D

Alas no - as I said I don't agree with abortion as a form of contraception - there are many other methods available that cause no discomfort (well, some discomfort) to the woman.

Psychologically winwn, I have no idea. I've never been in that situation due to the lack of a womb.

Sister Faith
April 14th, 2009, 11:29 PM
I find it interesting that they will devote so much of their lives to this cause... they must believe in it very passionately. It makes me wonder what sort of anti-abortion activists they are, and whether they believe in any exceptions, or if they believe it's murder always, under any circumstances.

Why don't you ask them what kind of activists they are and what they believe?

I also find it interesting that they will devote so much of their lives to this cause. The burning question for me is, how much of their lives would they be willing to devote to the care and feeding of all the unwanted children they will be forcing ill-prepared women and girls to have?

Whether and when to call a fetus human or not is a silly consideration. Obviously, a human fetus is human from the very second of conception. The question of when abortion becomes murder, rests on when the fetus can live on it's own outside the womb. ie an abortion in the 5th month of gestation would be murder, imo.

Daruko
April 14th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Well, I've always thought that the age limit for abortion should be raised to 12 years but I'm in the minority :D

You're horrible.

Dolores
April 14th, 2009, 11:34 PM
Why don't you ask them what kind of activists they are and what they believe?

I've considered it, but I'm kind of afraid of them.

Sister Faith
April 14th, 2009, 11:40 PM
I've considered it, but I'm kind of afraid of them.

Lol! Why?

Don't tell me that a bunch of pathetic dirty old men scare Big Bad Man-Eating Doh?! :icon_eek: Oh, Jesus F N Christ, there's no hope for us then. :icon_evil:

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 14th, 2009, 11:40 PM
Remember that they are more afraid of you then you are of them...

Ok maybe not really but ehhh oh well couldn't hurt to see or maybe it could.

Dolores
April 14th, 2009, 11:42 PM
You just KNOW they're going to try to convert me, and they probably smell funny.

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 14th, 2009, 11:46 PM
Just by like, Ok so I raped your daughter right? You going to make her keep it? If so where is she? ;) [/joke]

Daruko
April 14th, 2009, 11:47 PM
Just by like, Ok so I raped your daughter right? You going to make her keep it? If so where is she? ;) [/joke]
:icon_lol:

justshootme
April 14th, 2009, 11:50 PM
I applaud your effort at posting something intelligible.

I also agree with you on this subject.

I applaud your effort to be as big of a fuckwad as possible. <3

Daruko
April 14th, 2009, 11:53 PM
This isn't the IFU.

CupcakeCupcake
April 15th, 2009, 01:54 AM
well then stay on topic and don't try to derail it, douche.

Dolores- you might try asking what it is they're protesting exactly. is it the birth control, the gynecology or the "get an abortion here" recommendation. and when they inevitably tell you the obvious, point out that any doctor who's patient asks about that will be pointed in the direction of a place that will do such a procedure. ?ey?

rzm61
April 15th, 2009, 07:31 AM
... it is a topic for discussion, which is why I posted it in "Serious Discussion". I was hoping to invite discussion on this topic... you know, the usual reason for posting a topic in a discussion forum called "Serious Discussion".

That's not what I meant. It's in the right section, no worries there.

Do you have an opinion on this topic?[/QUOTE]

Yes.
However it seems like you summed up everything pretty well. So I was just curious as to where you're going with this.

DrM
April 15th, 2009, 07:42 AM
While i agree you definitely got to the core of the issue Dolores, i dont think that all the factors are taken into account. (namely on the prochoice side)

In some situations, i dont think it matters whether its murder or not. Sometimes a family cannot support a new baby, because they cannot get an abortion, then the baby starves to death. So in those situations, the choice is not to kill or not to kill, it is the form of death. Would you like to have the baby die in the womb while it has a limited nervous system (less pain) and has limited brain function (is hardly self aware)? Or would you like the baby to die after the birth, a long painful death of starvation, where the baby is fully self aware and realizes the pain to its full extent? I would say the best choice is the former.

Therefore, people in those situations should be free to choose to get an abortion. Personally, i would blame the catholic church for a HUGE number of starving dead infant deaths. The blood is on the popes hands because he proclaimed abortion wrong, and forced all the good catholics to follow his word and have way more babies then they could support.

woody23
April 15th, 2009, 02:22 PM
I may have misrepresented my opinion.

I completely agree that, as a man, I could never even come close to understanding the emotional state of a woman considering an abortion. I am in complete support of the decision lying solely in the woman considering it.

That out of the way, I was only trying to point out the pro-life arguments and, where law is concerned, I think the decision will be made (whether I think it's fair or not). In the writing of laws you can't pencil in the 'what ifs' and the 'maybes'. Whenever laws include such things they end up in court being fought by those that are excluded from them. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, taking into consideration when it is considered 'murder' is really the only option, since you can't consider 'religion'.

Again, I'm completely pro-choice. Pro-choice of the woman involved and no one else. Not even the FOB unless the would-be mother wants to involve him.

Dolores, as far as approaching them and asking, I would be careful. There are very few people that can have an open and calm discussion on the subject. Those toting signs are generally not in that group, though I have been surprised by a few. Perhaps ask one of them to talk to you, away from the group, a day at a time. If you do decide to talk to them, my only real suggestion is don't try to convert them away, simply ask and listen to their thoughts unless they invite your opinion in a respectful manner.

Good luck.

Aaryk
April 15th, 2009, 04:15 PM
I agree that this is a woman's choice, but that begs the question: Why is it that it's so hard for me to find women who are passionate about this issue? Okay, so obviously not in this forum, but in general. Everyone I know that is passionate about the choice issue is a man, but all the women I know are either neutral or anti-choice.

Just curious to know.

Dolores
April 15th, 2009, 06:45 PM
That's not what I meant. It's in the right section, no worries there.

Yes.
However it seems like you summed up everything pretty well. So I was just curious as to where you're going with this.

I don't have a plan, I just wondered what people think of it. I summed up my own reasoning, but it's not the only reasoning out there.

Dolores
April 15th, 2009, 06:46 PM
I agree that this is a woman's choice, but that begs the question: Why is it that it's so hard for me to find women who are passionate about this issue? Okay, so obviously not in this forum, but in general. Everyone I know that is passionate about the choice issue is a man, but all the women I know are either neutral or anti-choice.

Just curious to know.


Possibly because women have an intimate view into the issue and are more likely to feel sympathy for both perspectives.

If you want to find women who are passionately anti-abortion, look for barren ones.

Dolores
April 15th, 2009, 06:49 PM
While i agree you definitely got to the core of the issue Dolores, i dont think that all the factors are taken into account. (namely on the prochoice side)

In some situations, i dont think it matters whether its murder or not. Sometimes a family cannot support a new baby, because they cannot get an abortion, then the baby starves to death. So in those situations, the choice is not to kill or not to kill, it is the form of death. Would you like to have the baby die in the womb while it has a limited nervous system (less pain) and has limited brain function (is hardly self aware)? Or would you like the baby to die after the birth, a long painful death of starvation, where the baby is fully self aware and realizes the pain to its full extent? I would say the best choice is the former.

Therefore, people in those situations should be free to choose to get an abortion. Personally, i would blame the catholic church for a HUGE number of starving dead infant deaths. The blood is on the popes hands because he proclaimed abortion wrong, and forced all the good catholics to follow his word and have way more babies then they could support.

That may be true in some countries, but in the USA the adoption market is starving for healthy babies, and adoptive parents will pay all prenatal and hospital expenses, as well as generally a stipend. So it's not a case of the baby starving. Therefore, if the fetus is a person with full human rights, to abort would be murder, and unconscienable.

rzm61
April 15th, 2009, 06:53 PM
I don't have a plan, I just wondered what people think of it. I summed up my own reasoning, but it's not the only reasoning out there.

Right on.

Tsar Phalanxia
April 15th, 2009, 11:18 PM
Certainly at early stages of pregnancy, having an abortion is no different from abstaining from sex for one night.

rzm61
April 15th, 2009, 11:22 PM
having an abortion is no different from abstaining from sex for one night.

Woah...wait.....what?


Have you even been laid yet little man?

Tsar Phalanxia
April 15th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Woah...wait.....what?


Have you even been laid yet little man?

Obviously, emotionally, and physically, nope. But with the end result, it's the same.

rzm61
April 15th, 2009, 11:32 PM
Killing a fetus and busting a nut from intercourse that isn't with your hand is no where near the same.

Tsar Phalanxia
April 15th, 2009, 11:34 PM
But either way, no child was born. And certainly, embryoes are not conscious.

rzm61
April 15th, 2009, 11:56 PM
......holy shit. Worst logic ever.

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/culture/Comic%20Book%20Guy.png

Dr Goofy Mofo
April 15th, 2009, 11:59 PM
......holy shit. Worst logic ever.


And How!

Dolores
April 16th, 2009, 12:32 AM
Certainly at early stages of pregnancy, having an abortion is no different from abstaining from sex for one night.

Obviously, emotionally, and physically, nope. But with the end result, it's the same.


It's obviously emotionally and physically not the same, yet still basically there is no difference. :lol:

If you are judging it to be "the same" based on the end result, without regards for the emotional and physical effects on the parents, then there is also no difference between abstinence and infanticide. The end result is the same.

Please be trolling.

fomenter
April 16th, 2009, 12:38 AM
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg

Loki
April 16th, 2009, 05:17 PM
I've just read my post about sentience - man, I must have had a few that night :D

What I was trying (badly) to say was "What is an actual person and what is a potential person?"
Obviously the foetus has the potential to become an actual person but does that/should that lead to the extension of the rights we, as actual persons, enjoy (or not)?

It does amaze me that in an age and society where the rights of actual human beings are eroded by the day, the rights of the potential human (the foetus) are considered to be greater.
Not by all, but by a significant minority (or majority in some countries!).

Al Farabi
April 20th, 2009, 01:48 AM
I've just read my post about sentience - man, I must have had a few that night :D

What I was trying (badly) to say was "What is an actual person and what is a potential person?"
Obviously the foetus has the potential to become an actual person but does that/should that lead to the extension of the rights we, as actual persons, enjoy (or not)?

It does amaze me that in an age and society where the rights of actual human beings are eroded by the day, the rights of the potential human (the foetus) are considered to be greater.
Not by all, but by a significant minority (or majority in some countries!).

I would say that once it is out and has taken its first breaths it is a person.

Loki
April 21st, 2009, 07:35 PM
I would say that once it is out and has taken its first breaths it is a person.

Yeah, this is when it starts to worry me a bit. If you know that a foetus/baby at, say 22 weeks, is 90% viable outside the woman ...(I'm guessing at the figures btw - no idea what they are)... when do we draw the line?

When you say 'out and drawing its breath' do you mean out on its own accord?

What if it has to be induced prematurely and needs intubating?

woody23
April 21st, 2009, 07:54 PM
I think he meant, and correct me if I'm wrong, that once the baby has been cut from the cord and is free from dependancy on the mother.

Incubating is different, that's man-made device used to prolong life or correct birth related complications.

Now, one could argue that technically the baby needs mother nurturing for years to come after birth, but that seems like a slippery slope to take.

I think I've already voiced my thoughts on the nerve endings required to transmit pain to the fetus' brain, and I think that's the closest we can currently come to providing any kind of proof of life. Until we can monitor thought patters and determine when the fetus starts to think and become aware of itself (I think therefore I am) the physical signs of existance are the best we can do.

It's a difficult one for me because I had a child born at 30 weeks and it cried when hungry, got cold, etc.

While in the ICU I had the opportunity to witness something incredibly amazing and awful at the same time. Another baby was born at 19 weeks (when the skin was just a clear-gel) and was no bigger than a dollar bill. The tragedy was that the child did not survive, nor did the mother, but it was an incredible sight. There was a clear difference in the babies functionality and sensors. It didn't cry at all, and the only real movement were the breathing machines keeping it's lungs full of air.

I got into an argument with my wife at the time two nights later on the abortion issue and she asked me to think back to our child and if I could imagine aborting a fetus at 30 weeks. I said no. Seeing the baby out of the womb at 30 weeks was enough for me to believe in life at that point. Then she asked about the 19 week old baby and I said yes. There was not a clear 'life' in that instance.

Now, I don't say this to mean that I WOULD abort at 19 weeks, but that I can see it being completely acceptable. Now, how do I argue that legally? I can't.

Loki
April 21st, 2009, 08:25 PM
The biggest problem for me - a similar one - when the technology is available to keep a 'whatever' month old foetus alive so that it can reach the best conditions for the best birth at the best gestation period for it...

That's when abortion takes a back-stage I suppose :D

woody23
April 21st, 2009, 09:34 PM
I can agree with that at a certain age, but I still could not imagine myself telling a woman/girl she MUST do something or CANNOT do something when I'm not in her shoes. Even if I were previously in her vagina. For me, it's simple enough to put it, the mother gets to choose. She chooses everything else for those growing cells/baby for 9 months, and a long time after.

Loki
April 21st, 2009, 10:46 PM
I can agree with that at a certain age...

That's the problem - what age? How do you set that age?

... but I still could not imagine myself telling a woman/girl she MUST do something or CANNOT do something when I'm not in her shoes. Even if I were previously in her vagina. For me, it's simple enough to put it, the mother gets to choose. She chooses everything else for those growing cells/baby for 9 months, and a long time after.

How long after? Fancy telling that to Social Services in the UK? So that's just not the case.

woody23
April 21st, 2009, 10:52 PM
Well, to the first part, I can't even begin to determine the age. From what I know of science to be, at 28 weeks the baby can finally register pain in it's brain. That's good enough for me. If something comes along later, medically and scientifically, that proves the baby has actual thoughts and brain reactions (not reflexes) then I'd have to change my position.

As far as the making decisions goes...you are right. I mean, the mother could starve her child to death at 3 months old, easily, but there would be legal consequences.

IMO, if it's in her womb, and not proven to exist (again, the, I think therefor I am), then it's her decision.

sudikics
April 23rd, 2009, 02:48 AM
I'd say the child is alive if it could be removed from the mother at that instant and, with proper medical care, could survive outside the womb. Before that it is still entirely dependent on the mother: therefore, I suggest finding the earliest premature birth and rolling back the last abortion dat eto, say, two weeks before that.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, the earliest surviving preterm birth was James Gill at 21 weeks, 5 days gestation. I say make 20 weeks the abortion limit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Notable_preterm_births

pclamb
April 23rd, 2009, 04:07 AM
I applaud your effort at posting something intelligible.

I also agree with you on this subject.
what is ...intelligent? do i need to walk on pillows?

pclamb
April 23rd, 2009, 04:09 AM
I think he meant, and correct me if I'm wrong, that once the baby has been cut from the cord and is free from dependancy on the mother.

Incubating is different, that's man-made device used to prolong life or correct birth related complications.

Now, one could argue that technically the baby needs mother nurturing for years to come after birth, but that seems like a slippery slope to take.

I think I've already voiced my thoughts on the nerve endings required to transmit pain to the fetus' brain, and I think that's the closest we can currently come to providing any kind of proof of life. Until we can monitor thought patters and determine when the fetus starts to think and become aware of itself (I think therefore I am) the physical signs of existance are the best we can do.

It's a difficult one for me because I had a child born at 30 weeks and it cried when hungry, got cold, etc.

While in the ICU I had the opportunity to witness something incredibly amazing and awful at the same time. Another baby was born at 19 weeks (when the skin was just a clear-gel) and was no bigger than a dollar bill. The tragedy was that the child did not survive, nor did the mother, but it was an incredible sight. There was a clear difference in the babies functionality and sensors. It didn't cry at all, and the only real movement were the breathing machines keeping it's lungs full of air.

I got into an argument with my wife at the time two nights later on the abortion issue and she asked me to think back to our child and if I could imagine aborting a fetus at 30 weeks. I said no. Seeing the baby out of the womb at 30 weeks was enough for me to believe in life at that point. Then she asked about the 19 week old baby and I said yes. There was not a clear 'life' in that instance.

Now, I don't say this to mean that I WOULD abort at 19 weeks, but that I can see it being completely acceptable. Now, how do I argue that legally? I can't.

wait till they are born and put them in the woods so wolves can eat them...

Tsar Phalanxia
April 23rd, 2009, 09:08 AM
I'd say the child is alive if it could be removed from the mother at that instant and, with proper medical care, could survive outside the womb. Before that it is still entirely dependent on the mother: therefore, I suggest finding the earliest premature birth and rolling back the last abortion dat eto, say, two weeks before that.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, the earliest surviving preterm birth was James Gill at 21 weeks, 5 days gestation. I say make 20 weeks the abortion limit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Notable_preterm_births

But the people who abort past 20 weeks are often
A. A very small percentage
B The people who are scared and are most pressured by their family not to do it.

Loki
April 23rd, 2009, 06:24 PM
This is all fine for now but how do people decide when technology has advanced enough to grow your own. As in, when a fertilized ova can be grown in the lab instead of a living womb (in vitro as opposed to in vivo for those about to tell me the correct phrase :D)

sudikics
April 23rd, 2009, 09:55 PM
But the people who abort past 20 weeks are often
A. A very small percentage
B The people who are scared and are most pressured by their family not to do it.
Except if you do have an abortion after 20 weeks, you are doing somethign extremely close to infanticide: the fetus has a brain, nerves, and a heart by that point.

Dolores
April 29th, 2009, 07:54 PM
Except if you do have an abortion after 20 weeks, you are doing somethign extremely close to infanticide: the fetus has a brain, nerves, and a heart by that point.


It's very rare, and typically only done under extreme circumstances; for instance if the fetus has a severe birth defect and would die at birth. I know a couple who had this done; it's less an abortion at that point than an induced labor, which is where the term "partial-birth abortion" came from. They chose to abort because the baby would have died in terrible agony during birth had they gone to full-term.

Under Roe vs. Wade, abortions are only allowed prior to fetal viability. The law is a good one as it stands, and banning late-term abortions is only going to hurt the people who really, truly ought to be able to make that choice. A late-term abortion isn't even something you can get at an abortion clinic, it has to be done at a hospital. It's usually chosen by parents who have just learned, at the 20-week ultrasound, that their child has little or no chance of survival after birth... sometimes little or no chance of surviving to term. Should we force women to wait until their severely deformed fetus dies in the womb and becomes toxic?

Dolores
April 29th, 2009, 07:55 PM
Oh, and legally I believe that viability is around 24 weeks.

Yiuel
May 4th, 2009, 08:03 PM
In Canada, you can abort legally up until birth.

Dayve
May 4th, 2009, 08:08 PM
I'm an Atheist,and anti-abortionism is usually exclusive to religious folk, but i don't like it, possibly because even at the young age of 21 i can already feel my biological clock ticking, which is unusual in males, but i really want kids. So yeah, although abortion is necessary in a lot of cases, and i agree with it in those cases, i still despise it and see it as something that is entirely wrong.

But... it's your life, get on with it, have your abortion and don't bother me... That's how i look at it. I certainly wouldn't waste time protesting abortion.

Yiuel
May 4th, 2009, 08:22 PM
Dayve : You certainly do not have to like the idea of abortion to be okay with a right to it. I know that I would try to avoid it as much as possible in my daily life and, to me, sexual education is way more important to avoid much of the cases we're seeing in our societies. Yet, even with all this, I wouldn't be against abortion.

I myself would like to have kids (though not in the countries that exist now, so...), and quite a few, if the girl with me also wishes it as well (for I am a guy, and I like the most important tools, like the womb!). But that would just make me someone that would try to avoid abortion as much as possible by educating and offering more proactive tools.