|
Post by Alex on Mar 19, 2011 16:11:47 GMT -5
Some women aren't willing to lose their body for a baby that would just be adopted.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 19, 2011 16:31:45 GMT -5
Lose their body?
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Mar 19, 2011 17:05:20 GMT -5
An aborted fetus is better than a baby being thrown into a dumpster... If the mother is not able to support this baby... abortion should be a serious option. Adoption Adoption is a long process... chances are that it is still going on after the baby is born. How is it going to work out if the family of this baby has no way of supporting him/her?
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 19, 2011 17:26:32 GMT -5
Orphanage
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 19, 2011 18:30:38 GMT -5
Pregnancy really takes a toll on a woman's body...
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 19, 2011 18:57:41 GMT -5
Alright, since Asher's not here imma just say it
THEN SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD SEX
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 19, 2011 20:54:51 GMT -5
She shouldn't have had sex because there was a chance she would get pregnant? Tell that to the billions of people that have engaged in sex.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 19, 2011 20:58:29 GMT -5
WE'RE TRYING. IF YOU'RE GONNA BE STUPID ANYWAYS TRY BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, OR A DAMN CONDOM
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Mar 19, 2011 21:40:00 GMT -5
The pill can cause serious and adverse effects on women
The most effective method of birth control, besides not having sex, and MAYBE the rhythm method is the use of condoms.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT Latex allergies.
No matter what you do, or how you argue, Morrigan Dissaproves there'll be a problem with it.
All I'm going to argue is that it should be an option. Say, for example, what if a woman who will, without doubt, die if she gives birth is raped and becomes pregnant as a result? Are you going to argue that she should be forced to carry the baby to term? Because that is essentially sentancing her to death.
|
|
|
Post by petnlunatic on Mar 19, 2011 21:48:02 GMT -5
thats been addressed
|
|
|
Post by petnlunatic on Mar 19, 2011 21:49:08 GMT -5
oh, and vinyl condoms
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 19, 2011 22:01:47 GMT -5
Holy fuck Aust lrn2rd
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 20, 2011 1:10:55 GMT -5
Birth control + condom is not 100% effective. If a woman get's pregnant under these circumstances, she obviously knew the risk of having sex, and took every precaution to avoid getting pregnant, but still got pregnant. This issue I do not believe has been addressed. What should the verdict be?
All of my next objections are for the cases in which a mother is planning on in the future having multipe children, but certain events occur.
Some pregnancies can cause uteral problems, which while they may not affect the current pregnancy may affect future ones. So, if a woman who is on birth control using a condom gets pregnant with a boyfriend who dumps her within the week, discovers that if she caries this baby to term that future children would cause her possible death, or she may be incapable of having future children. If she were to abort the current baby then a treatment could be perform to correct the uteral problem so that she could have future children (which she might want with a future spouse).
So is the zygote inside her (a potential life) worth more than the several possible future ones? What's the verdict here?
How about a woman who's on certain medications that would cause severe physical trauma to the child, such as deformations and possibly infantile death? Should she not abort the fetus and go off the medications so that she does not suffer the trauma of having a child die? You can not shirk the traumatic effects of the death of a child, especially an infant child. I strongly doubt that future children might be born from that mother, even if she intended too originally, after suffering the death of her child.
What about mothers who are going through a stage of alcoholism in which heavy drinking is prevalent when they conceive? Should they not abort the baby until they sober up and then try again? (this one is kinda a no brainer that the mother should sober up immediately, but in some cases that is not quite a feasible situation).
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 20, 2011 1:24:30 GMT -5
I lol'd. If you notice I DID make exceptions for rape and danger to the mother. Abortion because of faulty contraception I do NOT make exception for because it is so improbable that it is not worth making a loophole through which one can lie their way through to get an abortion. In theory though, according to the argument I posted above, you would be right. It's just not practical though, and its such a minority that it's not ever worth considering. Rape and danger to the mother is way more prevalent.
Danger to the mother, and future potential children is not to be expected and therefore cannot be accounted for prior to sex. Therefore suction away.
Too bad. That WAS accounted for. The same applies to the next case mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Mar 20, 2011 1:44:35 GMT -5
That requires a number of things It requires me to turn my brain's attention to read something that isn't about bioterrorism - can't afford the time. It requires me to actually want to debate here - can't be bothered It requires me to respect your opinion - see last sentance It also requires me to turn off my BS blocker. Leaving thread now.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Mar 20, 2011 1:47:02 GMT -5
Wait! One last thing
I KNOW it was addressed already - in fact, it was in the OP - you were approaching the point where you went hypocrit and reneged on what you made an exception to.
Kay - gone for reals this time.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 20, 2011 6:17:12 GMT -5
One last thing, adoption isn't a magical fix. There are hundreds of thousands orphans, and sometimes no one could be available to take the baby.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 20, 2011 10:42:04 GMT -5
But they don't die in an orphanage because no one takes them.
Johann Bach Nelson Mandela Steve Jobs Marylin Monroe John Mother Fucking Lennon
What do these people have in common? They were all adopted. Adoption does not stop the potential for life. Abortion does
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 20, 2011 10:48:35 GMT -5
I'm not saying that there should be no one getting adopted. Would you make a child that would be miserable when it is born or just stop it before it was even alive?
Steve Jobs, Mrs. Monroe, John Lennon, Mr. Mandela, and Bach were and are great people, but they were never planned to be aborted. SOme of their parents died, which is completely different.
|
|
|
Post by nicolii on Mar 20, 2011 10:57:05 GMT -5
While there are many women who are pro-life, there are also MANY MANY women who are pro-choice.
I am going to make a bold assumption here: Are more men than women pro-life? (Actually, that isn't really an assumption, but a question...)
All that which is necessary to be said has been said (at least... I think it has... it is early and I am a bit lazy this morning)
I agree with Aust, Ryan, and anyone else who seems to be pro-choice.
|
|