Abortion: Yay or Nay?

[newb]

Originally posted by Vodstok
LOL... Sorry. Its the Archvile. Its a creature from Doom 2 that has made it into Doom3, where my gif is from.

Whoops. i dont even knwo my damn Doom.... Its a revenant:

AHHHH DOOM 3 .Its being released just in time for my 2 week vacation.

[Stingy Jack]

Is your avatar supposed to be black and white? Because it still looks like a guy in a ski mask to me.

[bwind22]

I think that if you are mature enough to take on the responsibility of having sex, you should be able to deal with the consequences. If you really don't want to get pregnant, then close your fucking legs, skank! Don't go around fucking and sucking every dude you meet and then go get abortions when you get knocked up. People like that make me sick!

Whether Vod likes it or not, abstinence IS the only way to be 100% sure, so if you aren't ready for the risk, don't have sex. (Not to mention the diseases that are out there nowadays that can kill you or worse, make your naughty bits turn black and shriveled until they fall right off.)

I'm sure you're all glad that your mother chose to give you life instead of aborting your little infant ass and leaving to be tossed in the trashcan.

In Stingy's scenario, where a family that is financially unable to provide for a baby becomes pregnant unexpectedly, there's always the option of adoption. There's thousands of nice, caring folks that would love to take care of your child and provide for it like it was their own. Why kill the baby when there's a family one town over that could give it a wonderful life?

I think abortion should be outlawed with the exception of cases nonconsentual sex/rape/incest or if the mother's life is danger. (And even then it should only be AN option, not THE option.)

[Stingy Jack]

bwind22 ... I respect you opinion, but I think it is unrealistic at best.

First of all, saying that someone should "deal with the consequences" of unprotected sex doesn't sound like something someone would say who is actually concerned for the welfare of the kid. If you force a woman to give birth to a child that she does not want, she will view the child exactly as you termed it: a "consequence", a "punishment" for doing something she shouldn't have been doing to begin with. If a person is too irresponsible to have protected sex, then what makes you think they are responsible enough to raise a child? Remember, these are the very same types of people that make you sick, as you say. No, a child raised by such a person would live a very horrible life, I think. Not to mention the fact that the rest of us taxpayers will have to support these unwanted kids.

Second, abstinence is all great in theory, but people are going to have sex regardless. You can't stop it, no matter how much you educate. So, you might as well come up with a better, more realistic solution.

And third, it is not as easy to find a family that will take your child as you may think. Orphanges are full of children who have lived there all their lives, waiting for somone to adopt them. Many of these children will end up going into the world never having known anyone they could call a mom or dad. If people gave up all of their unwanted babies to adoption agencies, we would have a HUGE problem on our hands. There would be far too many kids to find homes for. Far too many. Not to mention the horrible burden the mother has to go through, both physically and emotionally, during the nine months she carries that child to term. AND the financial burden on the family. You could say that they should not have had sex to begin with. But, I refer you to my second point.

Besides, what if it gets to the point where overpopulation is actually going to become a serious concern? Would you change your views then?

[bwind22]

Originally posted by Stingy Jack
bwind22 ... I respect you opinion, but I think it is unrealistic at best.

First of all, saying that someone should "deal with the consequences" of unprotected sex doesn't sound like something someone would say who is actually concerned for the welfare of the kid. If you force a woman to give birth to a child that she does not want, she will view the child exactly as you termed it: a "consequence", a "punishment" for doing something she shouldn't have been doing to begin with. If a person is too irresponsible to have protected sex, then what makes you think they are responsible enough to raise a child? Remember, these are the very same types of people that make you sick, as you say. No, a child raised by such a person would live a very horrible life, I think. Not to mention the fact that the rest of us taxpayers will have to support these unwanted kids.

Second, abstinence is all great in theory, but people are going to have sex regardless. You can't stop it, no matter how much you educate. So, you might as well come up with a better, more realistic solution.

And third, it is not as easy to find a family that will take your child as you may think. Orphanges are full of children who have lived there all their lives, waiting for somone to adopt them. Many of these children will end up going into the world never having known anyone they could call a mom or dad. If people gave up all of their unwanted babies to adoption agencies, we would have a HUGE problem on our hands. There would be far too many kids to find homes for. Far too many. Not to mention the horrible burden the mother has to go through, both physically and emotionally, during the nine months she carries that child to term. AND the financial burden on the family. You could say that they should not have had sex to begin with. But, I refer you to my second point.

Besides, what if it gets to the point where overpopulation is actually going to become a serious concern? Would you change your views then?

No. My views wouldn't/won't change on this one because I believe that life begins at conception. To me abortion is murder. My responses are numbered in accordance with yours...

1- It is a consequence. It isn't a punishment. There's a big difference between what those two words mean, and maybe I was unclear how I worded it before...

IF you have sex (protected or non)... a possible outcome (consequence) is that you will have an unwanted pregnancy. If you can not accept that possibility, then you should not be having sex. Plain and simple.

I would contend that having, even a poor poverty stricken homeless welfare life would be better than being cut up and tossed into a garbage can before you even got out the birth canal, but maybe that's just my opinion.

2- I never said abstinence was the 'solution', but it is the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy.

3- The orphange thing, I would need to look into a bit more. If there are so many kids waiting to be adopted, then it doesn't make any sense to me why two ( 2 married couples) of my parents friends have been on adoption waiting lists for over 3 years. Like I said, I'll have to investigate that one a little bit. Something doesn't make sense there.

[Stingy Jack]

Yes, I may need to look into the number of unadopted kids myself. I don't understand why there are people on waiting lists while, at the same time, there are about two dozen faces on the adoption wall at Wendy's ... kids of all ages.

But, if you view abortion as murder (which, technically, it isn't. Murder is a crime. Abortion is not), then why would you say it is okay to perform an abortion in cases of nonconsentual sex/rape/incest? It certainly isn't the fault of the child! Is it not murder, in these cases? After all, the woman could still up the child for adoption.

As far as incest goes ... what if it is consentual sex between brother and sister? Would you say it is okay to abort because the child could be born with some mental or physical impairments? And if so, can a family abort a child they know will be born with mental and physical impairments even if it is not the result of incest?

[bwind22]

It's a moral question, not legal. I disagree with a lot of what goes on in this country even though it's legal and I fully support other stuff that is not legal.

I personally dont think it's ever okay. But if a 13 year old girl got raped and became pregnant, it's a better arguement for abortion than some skank that cant keep her legs closed and uses it as birth control because unprotected sex 'feels better'. (I know this girl. She's had 4 abortions and she's 23 years old. She makes me sick. Fat, rude, obnoxious, disgusting pig!)

As I said before, in extreme cases, it could be considered as AN option (Not one that I agree with, but I am open minded enough to know that the world does revolve around the way I think things should be.) but not THE option.

Anyways, I gotta run. We can continue this later if you want...

cya

[Freddy Krueger.]

Personally, I think abortion should only be used if the woman was rape, incest, or where needed as a life saving procedure. But other wises, heres what I have to say:

A few ways to prevent pregnancy:

1. Condom
2. Pill
3. Anal
4. Don't fucking fuck dumbass
5. Don't dress in that tight little skirt and walk all sezy and "you know you want this but you can't have this" way. If you do, you should already tell the doctor you've been raped.

Y'know, I've never herd of a dude being raped before... I know why. A woman could get fucked ANY time. All they have to do is bend over and BAM. But us men have to go though dating, buying presents, laughing at their stupid jokes, and talk to them. Not that I really mind doing this (Well, part of me doesn't mind... damn split personality) but it seems kinda unfair.

[nine9]

Well I voted, but am keeping silent. :)

[bloodrayne]

Nay