Making information available if requested: Freedom.
FORCING people to veiw information, especially to produce a predictable negative response: Psychological torture.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- florida and abortion....
florida and abortion....Follow
To be perfectly honest, the whole "pro-choice" spin is bullocks to me because 99.9% of the time, the woman chose not to keep her legs closed. Hell, abortionists used to simply be called pro-abortion.
That said, any "statistics" about depression and whatnot are moot. If abortion is wrong, it's wrong because it's murdering humans, period. At what point does a fetus become a human? Until people can come to any kind of consensus on that, no amount of spin or politics amounts to ****.
You might as well argue about whether it's wrong to kill dogs or cockroaches for convenience's sake. Why would some people condone one but not the other?
That said, any "statistics" about depression and whatnot are moot. If abortion is wrong, it's wrong because it's murdering humans, period. At what point does a fetus become a human? Until people can come to any kind of consensus on that, no amount of spin or politics amounts to ****.
You might as well argue about whether it's wrong to kill dogs or cockroaches for convenience's sake. Why would some people condone one but not the other?
Quote:
I believe that every time you post, god sends down a unicorn to kill a fetus.
I almost expected to see "I'm George Bush, and I approve this message" after that.
gbaji wrote:
If knowing something would change your mind about a choice you have to make, wouldn't you want to know it? Or would you rather not know, make the choice and then regret it later?
And that, too, is my choice to make.
Kachi wrote:
To be perfectly honest, the whole "pro-choice" spin is bullocks to me because 99.9% of the time, the woman chose not to keep her legs closed. Hell, abortionists used to simply be called pro-abortion.
Perhaps the woman would have made a better choice if she had been forced to be "informed" of the consqences of having sex BEFORE she had it. I'm pro-choice, but my particular culture used to consider a person one year old at birth - indicating that life began at insemination. That means that if I myself ever had to choose, believe me when I say that abortion would be an absolute LAST choice if there were *any* other option available to me still, yet that is my choice, and the fact that I'm even given a choice is the most important thing here.
Personally, I feel that if you want to argue that the woman should have kept her legs shut and take a moral highground on this issue, then you have to offer some sort of viable alternative. Unless you're one of the people pushing for intensive/mandatory sexual education in schools, protected sex, and (especially as a man) practicing abstinence, you have no right to point a finger at a woman and call her a ***** - especially when many men today encourage that behaviour. It takes two to make a baby, and unfortunately in this case the only one who you're targetting is the woman. Maybe the man is the one who should have kept it in his pants, hmm?
That aside, did you even read the link someone posted on the first page? (Apologies, I don't remember who posted it now, but it's still open on my desktop) Here, I'll relink it for you: A heart breaking choice. Not everyone who needs an abortion is a welfare-supported teenage *****. Maybe you should become a little more educated on the reasons why women may NEED to have an abortion, before trying to take that right away from them.
In that case, I believe that whenever any woman goes in for an abortion, the father should be castrated.
That would definitely solve a lot of problems.
That would definitely solve a lot of problems.
MDenham wrote:
In that case, I believe that whenever any woman goes in for an abortion, the father should be castrated.
That would definitely solve a lot of problems.
That would definitely solve a lot of problems.
LOL
It'd be better if it were ammended to say:
The fixed version wrote:
In that case, I believe that whenever any woman goes in for an abortion, she should have the option of having the father castrated.
After all, this *IS* about choice, is it not? :P
Edited, May 7th 2007 2:34am by Artemismu
Quote:
Unless you're one of the people pushing for intensive/mandatory sexual education in schools
I am.
Quote:
It takes two to make a baby, and unfortunately in this case the only one who you're targetting is the woman.
Yes, but pro-choice is about the -woman's- choice. If you're going to bring the man into it, then I assume you intend to give the man the choice over whether or not the woman gets an abortion. When a man and a woman have sex, there are no surprises... the woman might get pregnant, the man will not. You're talking about the right to choose what to do with someone's body. Well, sorry if life is unfair but the man has nothing to risk in regards to that, except maybe child support.
Of course, child support doesn't kill babies, so no one cares.
An ultrasound isn't required for the procedure. This shouldn't pass. It's that simple.
There is absolutely no scientific reason to perform an ultrasound before an abortion unless there is a question about the age of the fetus. The only reason to do this is to provide an image for the mother to see. This makes it malicious, it's intended to hurt her feelings and basically give her a guilt trip. It's something a childish parent would do to their teenage daughter.
Governments do not have the right to directly influence your personal feelings at your expense. They are getting around this by saying you don't have to look at the ultrasound, which is a sickening cop out.
If a woman has decided to have an abortion there is generally a fairly logical reason for it. By unnecessarily forcing her to have an ultrasound you are bringing emotions into the situation that may effect her decision. You've now taken a logical decision and removed all of the logic. Congratulations, you just ruined some woman's life.
There is absolutely no scientific reason to perform an ultrasound before an abortion unless there is a question about the age of the fetus. The only reason to do this is to provide an image for the mother to see. This makes it malicious, it's intended to hurt her feelings and basically give her a guilt trip. It's something a childish parent would do to their teenage daughter.
Governments do not have the right to directly influence your personal feelings at your expense. They are getting around this by saying you don't have to look at the ultrasound, which is a sickening cop out.
If a woman has decided to have an abortion there is generally a fairly logical reason for it. By unnecessarily forcing her to have an ultrasound you are bringing emotions into the situation that may effect her decision. You've now taken a logical decision and removed all of the logic. Congratulations, you just ruined some woman's life.
Whatever happened to strong states and weak central government?
Seriously, there isn't enough sway one way or another to make abortion legal or illegal federally. I believe it should be left up to the states. Granted this won't make everyone happy, but I don't think the federal government should get involved with it at all, save for the Supreme Court on a case by case basis.
Seriously, there isn't enough sway one way or another to make abortion legal or illegal federally. I believe it should be left up to the states. Granted this won't make everyone happy, but I don't think the federal government should get involved with it at all, save for the Supreme Court on a case by case basis.
Recent Visitors: 296
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (296)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- florida and abortion....
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC