God bless ya Patches. Im happy that everything has worked out for you and your son.

The only time I am for abortion would be (and I think I have heard this happen for animals, but I"m not sure for humans) is if the baby has something wrong with it and because of it the mother is going to die along with the baby.
I think its funny how people say "Its a woman's choice" Well, if you believe in the right to choose so much, dont you think that you are taking the choice away from the baby? Abortion is becoming so easy today, that may be why so many teenagers are having sex, because they know they can just easily abort it. I just dont see how people can end a life so easily just because they are too lazy and too stupid to think of the consequences of their actions. And if a girl was to get raped, I think the best thing to do would to be put it up for adoption, even though it is an unwanted pregnancy.

I didn't know fetuses had a choice. And the next time a child chooses to play in the middle of the highway - don't take the choice away from him!

GOD BLESS YOU PATCHES
for having the strength and the courage to have that precious baby at 15 years old.

I didn't know fetuses had a choice. And the next time a child wants to play in the middle of the highway - don't take the choice away from him! [/quote]Lets just say it could choose, what do you think it would say?

Actually, their is a right and wrong in this topic. Aborting a child is wrong, and I really don't understand how any human being could support the murder of an innocent person. I really feel no sympathy for girls that get pregnant and then feel free to murder a baby to make themselves feel better. Just because you made a bad decision does not mean you can kill the child to avoid the consequences. Either give birth and raise the child yourself, or put it up for adoption. Why is that so hard?

I am for abortion. Banning abortion for everyone just because some think its wrong, is wrong itself. If you think its wrong, then dont have the abortion, thats your choice. But if youre preganant with a kid you dont want, why should you be forced to give birth.Sure, theres adoption, but the mother ultimatly has to go through carring it to term.Now I'm not saying three days before its born, abort it, but until it comes out, it is not a human being yet!

This is a very complicated issue for many reasons. First of all, the issue of rape has been brought up. If abortion is made illegal, then women who were impregnated threw rape shouldn't be treated as special; yet at the same time they shouldn't have to carry a baby for 9 months and take care of it for 18 years if it wasn't their fault. So that would be a hole in the system that would take a long time to deal with.

I think abortion is a horrible thing to do to an unborn child, yet I am pro-choice. In my mind, technically an unborn child isn't murdered as it was never legally alive. Yet, as it was mentioned, if a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with killing them both. This is another important issue.

Morally, it is definitely wrong, but legally I think women should have a choice.

Thug

We are debating whether murder is right or wrong?!? :rolleyes:

---

Typical rationalization. You can rationalize it all you want. As human beings, and as knowledged individuals, we ALL know that that cell divides and grows constantly to become a full grown human being. You rationalize significance with size. Pure ignorance.

---

As I said before, it's easy for a person to win an argument (or choose, in this case) with a sentient being that is unable to communicate.

And by comparing it to something like that is, again, ignorance. A child playing with in the highway is caused by a lack of responsibility by the parents and, quite frankly, the innocence of a child...how does a child know any better?

That being said, I certainly understand biology enough to know that any animal has a distinct instinct to stay alive. Aren't you glad you weren't aborted? But hell, if you were, hmm...let's think...wouldn't you be pretty pissed???


---

46 chromosomes. Yep, it's a human. Again, regardless of it's size and current cellular complexity, it is genetically a human being.

"Forced" to give birth? A.) Try thinking about the consequences before fucking (this doesn't count for the blameless rape victims, obviously). B.) There are other options besides abortion for rape victims and unintentional parents; adoption being the greatest of those for a parent who does not wish to be a parent at this point. It saves a life.

---

Thug, the law should be changed. We have rationalized murder by saying "it isn't a child" but then what about pre-mature babies? Are they "inhuman" or "unhuman" because they are not carried the full 9-months to term? What about miscarriages? Do the parents not greive over the loss of the child?

Or are they happy because, well, it never was a child to begin with? :rolleyes:

---

On another note, I try not to leave this as a unilateral decision by the mother, because quite frankly it is not her decision alone. It takes two to tango, two to get through, and two to make a baby. The father is just as responsible and quite frankly as equal in the decision making with regards to his child.

What if a woman claimed she was raped, but it couldn't be proven? [/b][/quote]With all of the science today, I don't think it'd be a problem. -Pat

Speaking from experience on that one, it's not the loss of the child that causes the grief. In my case it was so early on that it couldn't properly be called a child.

The grief and sadness was over the disappointment. I know this is a bad example, but it's like the sadness you felt as a child when you expected to get something that you didn't get.

The grief and sadness was over having to go through the difficulty and uncertainty of trying to get pregnant again.

And no, the parents suffering through the pain of a miscarriage are not "happy because it never was a child to begin with" Nothing to be happy about, which of course an intelligent guy like you understands. Never anything wrong with being facetious to make a point. Hell, I do it quite often myself.

But, I can absolutely guarantee that the parents are less unhappy than if a baby had been caried to term and then died at age three months froms SIDS or something.

Listen, I'm not in favor of abortion. If I were young, and got a girl pregnant, I would encourage her to have the baby and raise it, and I would make every effort I could to be a father, even if I had no interest whatsoever in continuing a relationship with the mother. But that's me. And it's easy to say 35-40 years after the possibility of being confronted with that decision.

I hope it never happens to any of you young guys, but I wonder what you would do if your girlfriend got pregnant and decided not only to have the baby, but to raise it, and wanted 20% or so fo your gross income in child support for the next 21 years.

It's always easy to take the moral high ground and preach what others should do, but you may find yourself singing a different tune once confronted with the situation yourself.

Anyway, I'm not Pro-Abortion. I'm Pro-Choice. There's a big difference.

My point was simply that a loss of a child, regardless of how far along it was, is still a significant thing. There are obviously people like yourself who are both mentally and financially able to understand the concept that children are a blessing. The problem is that when we trivialize life; or we rationalize it by saying that "it is the equivalent of a cheek cell," we demean life itself.

---

Plawrence, I understand your point completely. It is clearly obvious that I stand on my little soapbox here and I will preach my opinion till the cows come home.

I know in my mind and my heart that I cannot afford (financially or mentally) a child at this point. Consequently, while I might not be the most oversexed person you meet on the street (or more appropriately, the college campus), I certainly won't be carrying along all the extra responsibility that being a parent demands.

That being said, I would do whatever it takes to support my child. Look at Patches for a perfect example. It is obvious she loves her child very much and sacrifices to raise him the best way she can.

---

The concept of abortion is a morally abhorrent one, and hopefully, will become illegal. There are people out there who would give their right arm to be able to have kids, but are unable to (for whatever biological reasons). Why would anyone choose death if it is painfully obvious that there are people out there who are willing to make the committment to become loving and supportive parents to a child that isn't even biologically theirs?!?

There is less "closeness" between the life that was lost and the parents in this case. A life lost just the same. I can certainly understand the humanness behind feeling "less" emotional (if possible, as you've stated) but regardless, it still hurts.

What if a woman claimed she was raped, but it couldn't be proven? [/b][/quote]With all of the science today, I don't think it'd be a problem. -Pat [/b][/quote]How would "science today" decide this example:

Suppose that in the Kobe Bryant trial, the woman has gotten pregnant. Could she get an abortion now under the law as you want it? What if she turned out to have made a false accusation? What if it turns out Kobe is guilty and the trial takes a year? What about a hung jury?

All they'd have to do was get a DNA sample from Kobe and the girl. You still living in th 60's? Welcome to 2004, where shit can be done about this. :rolleyes: -Pat

Are you following that story?

DNA does not answer the question of whether the sex was consensual or not. Kobe already admits to having sex with her. But he says it was consensual, she says it was rape. Hence did he rape her or not? That's what the trial is about. So if she were pregnant, could she get an abortion before the trial ended?

The idea of having a child thru rape, or one of incest, or one that is not 100 per cent perfect with some horrible health defect, fortunately has not been in my life, yet I am not without understanding in these cases. And I'll admit it's true, no one knows for sure what they would do in certain situations.

However, all that being said, I am still pro life and also against the death penalty. I just could not justify in my heart and soul being responsible for anyone's death, even in the cases I mentioned above. And yes a fetus is life.

Also, is it supposedly only Catholics that are pro life??? Not a sarcastic question, but it seems because the Catholic Church is, that it's easy to think only those of Catholic faith are pro life. I am Catholic I would hold the same position no matter what religion I was. As a matter of fact, I really don't take religion into account when forming an opinion on this subject.

The reasons I metioned above are the more serious reasons I know of why women get abortions. However, you don't even need a reason now. You simply have to not want the baby. With contraception so readily available, there should be absolutely no reason for it.

PLaw, good question on the contraceptions as well. Being raised Catholic, I am well aware of the Church's stand on them. I see nothing wrong with it since you are NOT killing fetus/baby, rather preventing life from beginning. Don't know if that makes me a bad Catholic, however, that difference of opinion is not enough to make me change my faith. Well, I don't want to turn this into responses that bash the Catholic faith. That's the last thing I want to do.

Bottom line, if I "had" to vote, I'd have to go with the pro-life.

TIS

Are you following that story?

DNA does not answer the question of whether the sex was consensual or not. Kobe already admits to having sex with her. But he says it was consensual, she says it was rape. Hence did he rape her or not? That's what the trial is about. So if she were pregnant, could she get an abortion before the trial ended? [/b][/quote]Then I'd only let consider an abortion if it was without a doubt, rape. -Pat


BTW--I'm really hoping Kobe fries.

Are you following that story?

DNA does not answer the question of whether the sex was consensual or not. Kobe already admits to having sex with her. But he says it was consensual, she says it was rape. Hence did he rape her or not? That's what the trial is about. So if she were pregnant, could she get an abortion before the trial ended? [/b][/quote]Then I'd only let consider an abortion if it was without a doubt, rape. -Pat

[/b][/quote]The baby would be born by now, as the incident occured a year ago and the trial hasn't even started yet!

What if the baby is 6 months old when Kobe is to be found guilty? Obviously, your position could be very impractical.

How about you take the child after it is born then? If you feel so strongly about it, take the child, and be responsible for it, and then raise it until it is 18 and old enough to be on its own.

I don't think people should pay so dearly for one mistake in their lives. Lord knows everyone here has made mistakes...

How about you take the child after it is born then? If you feel so strongly about it, take the child, and be responsible for it, and then raise it until it is 18 and old enough to be on its own.

I don't think people should pay so dearly for one mistake in their lives. Lord knows everyone here has made mistakes... [/quote]Yes, you are suggesting someone else take the child...isn't that adoption?!?

---

You don't think someone should pay so dearly for a mistake? I agree. I don't think a baby should be MURDERED because the "parents" made a bad choice. :rolleyes:

Yeah - and I am all for adoption. If the mother wants to carry for 9 months and go through the pain and risk of delivering that child and still wants to give it up, I am for it. And a wise decision.

Any person who is thinking of aborting a fetus should definitely be told the benefits of carrying the child and giving it up for adoption - even though many times that is more of a painful process than abortion.

While the child does have a chance to live, the mother must go through the pain and regret of giving the child away. And that child will no doubt want to learn more about their biological parents when they learn they were adopted.

That's much more traumatic, IMO.

Sorry, but I miss your last point up there.

I'm an adoptee, so I'm interested.

What exactly are you saying is more traumatic than what other thing.

I think it may be more traumatic to a woman to actually carry and give birth to a child and give it up for adoption than to abort early on in the pregancy stage. It's a double edged sword, but one side is sharper than the other.

Look, I am for abortion. I'm not saying that everyone should be using it as a form of birth control. But it is there for a reason it exists. IMO, society doesn't need any more children who won't be properly cared for and will contribute to the crime that happens in most urban areas. And that is where my pro-abortion stance comes from, urban areas overwrought with teenagers having children while mired in poverty, eventually growing into a life of crime. I think if schools were more supportive of giving out condoms, this would help. Abortion is at the end of a preventative process that all urban areas should use.

Being adopted, I am sure that you are thankful that your mother didn't opt for an abortion, Lord knows I would be too. Anyone would.

But no one is going to convince me of a reason to totally get rid of abortion. If someone opts to do it, it's their choice.

Much, much more.

I know a couple of women who've had abortions in the early stage of pregnancy, and while they didn't take it lightly, they were far from traumatized by it.

On the other hand, I know a woman who got pregnant accidently and agreed to carry the baby until term, when some people she knew :rolleyes: were planning to adopt.

It's been ugly all the way around.

You're right in what you say about urban areas, and that abortion is (very unfortunately) the final step in the contraception process, but for me the bottom line is that in the early stages of pregnancy we are not dealing with a "person" yet, and, as such, it still should be a matter of choice for the mother.

And, again, I must pose the question: What are the odds that the unborn child -- even if he/she was conceived only 2 minutes ago -- will, if left unchecked and unaborted, be born? Naturally, there are miscarriages, complications, etc. But, as a rule, the odds are pretty good that the child will exit the womb alive and well. And yet, until he/she is visibly out of the womb, he/she is not a real person??? Come on! That's like saying a summer storm isn't a "real" summer storm until a tornado pops out of the cloud! Listen folks, if there's a heartbeat, there's a person. Location or time of conception has nothing to do with whether or not the unborn child is a real "person" or not.

Using a negative example (but the same medium of this kind of argument), if one is diagnosed with say, brain cancer, is the doctor going to say, "Well, it's not really cancer until it grows to the size of a golfball and it's been 5 months past the diagnosis, so we can't operate until it's a real cancer" ?? What are the odds that this malignant brain tumor -- if left unchecked --will ravage this patient's body and kill him? Or
is it not a real cancer until it visibly deforms the patient's head? It's still cancer even if it just popped up 2 minutes ago! Likewise, an unborn child is still a real person even if he/she were conceived 2 minutes ago.

And, no disrespect to those who claim to be "pro-choice," but I fail to see how one can claim that and yet turn around and say they're against abortion. It would seem to me that logic dictates if one is for a "woman's choice," and the woman decides to kill her baby, then he is -- by simple logic and conclusion -- pro-abortion. It's absolutely impossible for anyone to claim neutrality on this matter. You're either for life, or (either directly or indirectly) against it. Seems pretty black & white to me.

I'm not "pro-alchoholism", but I'm pro-choice on the subject. I believe if people want to drink themselves silly, that's up to them. Their choice. That doesn't make me pro-alchoholism, does it?

Alright, just the thought of abortion is simply absurd and just wrong. It is so horrible. What if your mother had an abortion? Would you be here right now arguing about it. I understand that since the baby/fetus has not exactly taken a breath that he is not exactly "alive" but it is still almost the exact same thing as murder. It is just so wrong.

I'm Pro-Life. The other side is not Pro-Choice, but Anti-Life.

What about a person who is Anti-Abortion, but favors the death penalty, a position that many conservatives have on the two questions.

Does that make them "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Death"?

I believe that married couples should have children and raise families.
I believe everyone is entitled to the best available health care so that they may live as long as possible.
I do not favor the dealth penalty.

I am not "Anti-Life"