Sorry BlackLettuce, but the words * ?having the option of making her give birth* do not sound especially cool. They rhyme regrettable closely to * having the option of making her have sex*, both are invasive.
I am not saying that you are not a good parent to your children! Nor am I saying that a woman should not involve her partner in the decision. At the moment technology does not allow you to carry a child for yourself or raise it in a test tube as in Brave New World. Maybe it will one day, meanwhile being pregnant is not as insignificant a life event as some people seem to think. If a woman cannot face that for any reason, I think that forcing her to do so is as nauseating as gang raping her.
And how are people doing that little box outline thing? I must be having a luddite day I cant figure it out.
You misread me ygdrasil, my children are healthy sane alternative folk that will soon be rocking the world. The point being, if I had my own womb, I would have kept the other three, despite years of pain and mangling. I respect the choices other people make, but when it comes to my progeny, I want some consideration. I use protection but when the love is there and the outcome ordained, slipping off to the clinic before asking if I would raise it myself is adolescent.
vampireblueyes write: the reason why any guy would be pro choice is that they dont wont to be a responsibe person and take care of a life that they helped to create.some guys just go around havind sex not even caring about what could happen, thats very selfish.all you care about is that one night of pleasure you got from the hot chick you picked up in a bar or night club.think about someone else besids you.
I think that's a very unfair slur on male pro-choicers. Firstly, I am only concerned with not letting the state violate the liberty of the people beyond what is necessary to support other liberties, and as far as I am concerned anti-abortion laws aren't there to protect liberty, but to enforce hegemonic notions of morality on people.
As to whether I have anything to gain from being pro-choice, quite simply I don't. I am not inclined to have lots of casual sex, and never without protection anyway. What's more, if I did have unprotected sex with someone and they got pregant this would leave me in two possible positions.
It is as you described, someone I picked up at a bar et cetera, and they might never see me again to demand alimony anyway.
They do have my contact details, and now I'm supposed to just hope that they abort and don't share these moral notions about abortion that many people do have, which sounds way to risky for me to even think about doing.
Thus, to avoid parenthood, the best choice for males is protection, and any male relying on abortion to get around is silly (if nothing else, we're suggesting they have unprotected sex which is unwise for health reasons).
All I'm saying is that it should be the woman's choice, not mine, not your's, not the state's.
vampireblueyes write: partial birth abortion should never be allowed its a horrible selfish thing to do. if you dont want the child give it up for adoption or get an abortion before your three months pregnant.it make me mad that anyone would hav an abbortion just because they dont want a kid to take care of. if you dont want kids use birth control, and use condoms.
Anti-abortion propaganda aside, that kind of thing is very rare and only legal for times when the mother's health is at risk.
And, quite honestly, in regards to early-term abortion there are enough kids going up for adoption to satisfy all adoptees need, creating more seems silly, thus aborting embyros before they become children seems a good decision.
Nice to see you back Wight, I missed your comments. Good concise reminder on basic political theory too. BlackLettuce you could bear reminding that your *right to impregnate*, is in conflict with the woman?s right not to spend nine months as your incubator.
the reason why any guy would be pro choice is that they dont wont to be a responsibe person and take care of a life that they helped to create.some guys just go around havind sex not even caring about what could happen, thats very selfish.all you care about is that one night of pleasure you got from the hot chick you picked up in a bar or night club.think about someone else besids you.
partial birth abortion should never be allowed its a horrible selfish thing to do. if you dont want the child give it up for adoption or get an abortion before your three months pregnant.it make me mad that anyone would hav an abbortion just because they dont want a kid to take care of. if you dont want kids use birth control, and use condoms.
I as a man have had three abortions. and Three children. I would have prefered to have six but some law maker some judge detrmined that my r8ight to impregnate and carry out my biological imperative was not my choice. I support choice, however, I also support the choice of a man in love impregnating a woman and having the option of making her give birth then I can figure how to raise my son or daughter.
On the slightest of tangents I notice that Britain (or is it England?!?), is considering bringing legal abortions down to 20 weeks in keeping with the rest of Europe instead of the 24 that has been the previous limit.
According to the news item, some groups will support this only if the woman only has to have consent from one doctor instead of two. I was a bit surprised at the two doctors: surely one doctor and one mental health professional would have been more appropriate.
Dawn, "Usually if a soul is not meant to come into this world, then there is usually a natural response of a miscariage"
For those of us that are not religious, and do not believe in souls, this is not really going to reach us. I would also note that I don't believe religious views should be allowed to influence state law.
"abortion not only kills a human being. It also does damage to the woman. "
Possibly true, but irrelevent. It's not your's or my place to decide what is best for a person having abortion, it is between that woman and whoever she chooses to involve, whether friends, family, partners, God or some moral authority, it's down to her ultimatly, not me, not you, not the state.
JAde, "ok for those of us tht believe in recarnation, explain to me why would u even think about abortion if u believe in recarnation? "
If you have beiefs that make it unacceptable to abort, don't do it, you'll only regret it. For those of us that don't, leave us to do as our beliefs dictate, it's none of your buisness and affects you not.
As to people regretting actions, some people probably do. Some homosexuals are so sick and disgusted at themselves they never tell anyone and hate themselves all thier lives. So what? That's only because others have inflicted thier own irrational moralities on them, I've also seen people tell homosexuals that they will regret what they do, but that's because they somehow beief thier own irrational moralities are shared by all, and they're quite blatently not.
You have moral problesm with abortion, fine, but don't inflict them on the rest of us via law.
Forgiven, "For to me, a child is created as soon as it attaches itself to its wall and a womb is created. "
But notably your belief and not mine. I'm not worried about semantics and definitions here in any case.
I only feel morally obliged to worry about at thing in and of itself if it is capable of emotion, that is happiness, pleasure, distress and misery. If not, it's not something I consider worth considering morally.
I only feel the state should be obliged to protect the liberties of sentient thinking beings with wills, and perhaps not even all of those (I'm very much a Hobbesian)
"As for my definition of miracles, I think it would depend on each person to what a miracle is."
It's a word, conventionally used to describe breakages of natural law by diety, I'm not too worried about argueing semantics here. If you wish to call anything a miricle that creates profound sense of awe or some such in a person, then, yes, they exist, though I don't consider them very relevent to this discussion.
"As for liberty, taking away the freedom to kill someone, is still taking away a liberty to do the action of killing."
Of course, but the removal of the liberty to kill people, except under certain circumstances and through state authority, creates other liberties that are of greater value.
Whereas, say, the liberty to kill plants being removed would not create extra liberties.
Law is a privation of liberty, but without it we would have even less as others rob us of our liberty.
as for if thy would be another chance for tht soul tht soul may take 50 years to come back and there goes a chance for those tht are here now tht wish to know all tht is in life. but thts not my point at all this soul could change things the way we all know now and if some fool decides to abort tht soul we all myay be waiting till its too late!