Poll: Abortion and Birth Control
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
I am for the birth control pill, but pro-life
44.74%
I am against the birth control pill, but pro-choice
0%
I am for the birth control pill and pro-choice
50.00%
I am against the birth control pill and pro-life
2.63%
I have no idea
2.63%
* You voted for this item.

  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8(current)
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Birth Control and Abortion - what are you for?
thecavemaster Wrote:Again, Sherman 14, your assumption is that the fertilized egg is of equal value to the "All men" (human beings) phrase in the Declaration. This point has been up for debate in this thread. Your absolutism on the issue makes your opinion non-negotiable. We disagree.

We can agree to disagree on this. I know your opinion and you know mine. I feel completely different than you do on this topic. But thats why I love America because you and I can agrue our opinions and not be killed for it.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
Ok. I am a Pro-Choice, College educated female. I love how many of you men on here have such strong opinions on a matter that really have no effect on you whatsoever. Imagine this, Say that men could get pregnant as well as women. Say you are the star quarterback on your high school football team and you just signed to play at the reigning NCAA national champion college football team. You are walking home from practice one night and you are jumped by a group of girls and they rape you. Now you are pregnant and your future in officially down the toilet because someone decided that you had to be a father for you. Now make your decision.

I do not believe that abortion should be allowed after a certain time period. A baby cannot survive outside of the womb before 5 months. It is medically impossible as far as I know. People will always abuse rights that they are given. That is how we are. If somoene is having an abortion every 6 months then they have to live with that and one day they will pay for their decision. My arguement is that people make the decisions that are best for them under the circumstances. Why is it your responsibility to protect a fetus, or a mass of cells, that has nothing to do with you? I feel like the only responsibility we have is to give those women in our lives the best advice that we can in this situation. So if your mother, sister, cousin, best-friend, girlfriend, etc. comes to you personally for advice, that is your time to step in and voice your opinions. Enough with all the religious reasons. Not all of us are Christians or any other religion and we do not want to hear about it.

On the subject of the morning after pill, as ComfortEagle pointed out earlier, 4 days is the point when the fertilized egg is a 16-cell organism. The morning after pill is only effective during the first 72 hours, or 3 days. So up to this point the mass of cells is only between 2-8 cells. Also, the morning after pill is large dose of birth control. They both contain the same chemicals. My other point of why the morning after pill should be allowed is that people who are practicing safe sex (condom for example) and it fails (condom breaks) I feel like the morning after pill is a viable back up. It is not fair to punish those that are trying to be responsible.

Basically here it is. Most religious groups do not believe in any kind of birth control, but they all know that everyone is having sex and they would rather not talk about it or teach it. If people practiced safe and controlled sex, abortions would not even have to be an option. So instead of denying that kids are going to have sex even if you teach them not to, take some responsibility and keep your children protected.

If you feel like abortion is wrong, then do not get one. But taking away someones options and choices is just as wrong.
Long story here, going to condense it big time...

I had a friend, who was pregnant, went to the Dr, all is going fine...at 8 months, the Dr informed them that there were a lot of things wrong with her baby. Gloom and doom picture was painted for the mother and baby. The Dr strongly advised an abortion for the safety of the mother. Mother and Father refused the abortion. Baby was born healthy...nothing wrong at all and mom did great. The Dr was totally baffled by this event. This is in the medical journals.

What would have happened if they had the abortion? But looked what happened because they didn't.
cheerdad Wrote:Long story here, going to condense it big time...

I had a friend, who was pregnant, went to the Dr, all is going fine...at 8 months, the Dr informed them that there were a lot of things wrong with her baby. Gloom and doom picture was painted for the mother and baby. The Dr strongly advised an abortion for the safety of the mother. Mother and Father refused the abortion. Baby was born healthy...nothing wrong at all and mom did great. The Dr was totally baffled by this event. This is in the medical journals.

What would have happened if they had the abortion? But looked what happened because they didn't.

In the course of history, wouldn't you agree that mother died or baby died or both died at least as many times in parallel stories to the one you offer?
But where is my freedom of choice? I have to wear my seatbelt. That affects no one but me. Why do I not have a choice? If I want my body to get mangled in a wreck, it should be my choice.
Shady Grady Wrote:But where is my freedom of choice? I have to wear my seatbelt. That affects no one but me. Why do I not have a choice? If I want my body to get mangled in a wreck, it should be my choice.

No one is forced to have an abortion or not have an abortion. There is a seatbelt law. I see no relevant comparison in the two issues if one is being used to refute the other. The seatbelt issue might be worth debating, but it is not worth debating in relation to the abortion issue, in my opinion.
As Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what it wants.”
thecavemaster Wrote:No one is forced to have an abortion or not have an abortion. There is a seatbelt law. I see no relevant comparison in the two issues if one is being used to refute the other. The seatbelt issue might be worth debating, but it is not worth debating in relation to the abortion issue, in my opinion.

They are relevant in the matter of choice. A woman has a choice but I don't. If we are a country of choice, why shouldn't I have the choice not to wear my seatbelt? It's all about freedom. I can understand laws governing us when it affects others, but absolutely no one else is affected by me not wearing a seat belt. When it comes to freedom and choice, they are absolutely relevant.
Shady Grady Wrote:They are relevant in the matter of choice. A woman has a choice but I don't. If we are a country of choice, why shouldn't I have the choice not to wear my seatbelt? It's all about freedom. I can understand laws governing us when it affects others, but absolutely no one else is affected by me not wearing a seat belt. When it comes to freedom and choice, they are absolutely relevant.

You are ejected from the vehicle. You survive. You would not have been thrown out if you had worn your seatbelt. You live...but you require constant care for thirty years. The cost to society in terms of medical expense is enormous. I cannot see and do not see that seatbelt laws have any relevance whatsoever to the abortion debate.
thecavemaster Wrote:You are ejected from the vehicle. You survive. You would not have been thrown out if you had worn your seatbelt. You live...but you require constant care for thirty years. The cost to society in terms of medical expense is enormous. I cannot see and do not see that seatbelt laws have any relevance whatsoever to the abortion debate.

So, I am a cost to society. What about federally funded abortion clinics? Is that not a cost to society? The point is, if a woman has a choice, so should I. The woman's choice not only affects her, but the baby. My choice concerning a seatbelt affects only me. My point is, why do all the liberals preach freedom of choice, but tell me I have to wear a seatbelt? Who else could I possibly hurt by not wearing one? Who else could a woman hurt by having an abortion? An innocent life.
Shady Grady Wrote:So, I am a cost to society. What about federally funded abortion clinics? Is that not a cost to society? The point is, if a woman has a choice, so should I. The woman's choice not only affects her, but the baby. My choice concerning a seatbelt affects only me. My point is, why do all the liberals preach freedom of choice, but tell me I have to wear a seatbelt? Who else could I possibly hurt by not wearing one? Who else could a woman hurt by having an abortion? An innocent life.

A woman's right to choice in this matter is defined and limited by Roe V. Wade. At this point, no federal funds can legally be spent on abortion. We have debated the point about whether or not that "innocent life" is actually innocent, is actually equal in value (on a relative scale) to the mother. Actually, freedom of choice is to be exercised responsibly, within the confines of codified law. We keep plowing the same ground here.
thecavemaster Wrote:A woman's right to choice in this matter is defined and limited by Roe V. Wade. At this point, no federal funds can legally be spent on abortion. We have debated the point about whether or not that "innocent life" is actually innocent, is actually equal in value (on a relative scale) to the mother. Actually, freedom of choice is to be exercised responsibly, within the confines of codified law. We keep plowing the same ground here.

Federal funds will be spent after Obama takes office. He has already said that is one executive order he will overturn. I know the woman's choice is defined by Roe v. Wade. My point is why hasn't someone challened the seatbelt law? How can that not be a matter of choice?
Shady Grady Wrote:Federal funds will be spent after Obama takes office. He has already said that is one executive order he will overturn. I know the woman's choice is defined by Roe v. Wade. My point is why hasn't someone challened the seatbelt law? How can that not be a matter of choice?

Have you ever been pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt? I rarely ever wear mine and I've never been caught. It's honestly your choice to wear one because it isn't like you are going to be sentenced to death for breaking that law. If you change the seatbelt law that doesn't mean car companies are going to stop manufacturing cars without them. People will still choose to wear them and some won't. The law is only looking out for the safety of the people by enforcing the seatbelt law. I have had several wrecks myself, and I feel if I hadn't been wearing my seatbelt I could have been seriously injured.

Abortion is a much bigger issue. If you take away the choice for a woman to have one, it's like telling her she can't choose what she does with her own body, and you are still going to have the idiots who have back-alley abortions and risk getting themselves infected with God-knows-what and possibly even death. I wonder how many people will have "accidental" miscarriages if Roe V. Wade is overturned .It's not hard to be accidently hit in the stomach, and accidently trip down a flight of stairs, etc. It sounds awful, but people will do it.

Everyone thinks people who are pro-choice are awful, but I don't support partial birth abortions. I feel anything over 8 or 9 weeks is not right. That is enough time for someone to find out they are pregnant and schedule an appointment. I also don't agree with the government supplying funds for it. I think the person having the abortion should have full responsibility for paying for it. So go ahead pro-lifers hack up my post.
catsfan072 Wrote:Have you ever been pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt? I rarely ever wear mine and I've never been caught. It's honestly your choice to wear one because it isn't like you are going to be sentenced to death for breaking that law. If you change the seatbelt law that doesn't mean car companies are going to stop manufacturing cars without them. People will still choose to wear them and some won't. The law is only looking out for the safety of the people by enforcing the seatbelt law. I have had several wrecks myself, and I feel if I hadn't been wearing my seatbelt I could have been seriously injured.

Abortion is a much bigger issue. If you take away the choice for a woman to have one, it's like telling her she can't choose what she does with her own body, and you are still going to have the idiots who have back-alley abortions and risk getting themselves infected with God-knows-what and possibly even death. I wonder how many people will have "accidental" miscarriages if Roe V. Wade is overturned .It's not hard to be accidently hit in the stomach, and accidently trip down a flight of stairs, etc. It sounds awful, but people will do it.

Everyone thinks people who are pro-choice are awful, but I don't support partial birth abortions. I feel anything over 8 or 9 weeks is not right. That is enough time for someone to find out they are pregnant and schedule an appointment. I also don't agree with the government supplying funds for it. I think the person having the abortion should have full responsibility for paying for it. So go ahead pro-lifers hack up my post.

I absolutely believe that a woman should have the right to choose. Choose whether or not to practice safe sex. And no, I don't believe that everone who is pro choice is an awful person. But I do think that if a person chooses to have an abortion, then they should have to be educated about it. Show them pictures and footage of abortions and see if they still want to. I know of some who have had it done, then admitted later that they really didn't know all the details. Go have lasik surgery done. They will show you a video educating you about the process. It shouldn't be too much to do the same concerning abortion. Too many emotional things going on not to be properly informed and educated.
i say let the peson do what ever they want. if they want an abortion they should be able to get one.
Shady Grady Wrote:I absolutely believe that a woman should have the right to choose. Choose whether or not to practice safe sex. And no, I don't believe that everone who is pro choice is an awful person. But I do think that if a person chooses to have an abortion, then they should have to be educated about it. Show them pictures and footage of abortions and see if they still want to. I know of some who have had it done, then admitted later that they really didn't know all the details. Go have lasik surgery done. They will show you a video educating you about the process. It shouldn't be too much to do the same concerning abortion. Too many emotional things going on not to be properly informed and educated.


Thats a really good point and also a good idea! I never thought of that (educating people before they make a final decision)
Shady Grady Wrote:I absolutely believe that a woman should have the right to choose. Choose whether or not to practice safe sex. And no, I don't believe that everone who is pro choice is an awful person. But I do think that if a person chooses to have an abortion, then they should have to be educated about it. Show them pictures and footage of abortions and see if they still want to. I know of some who have had it done, then admitted later that they really didn't know all the details. Go have lasik surgery done. They will show you a video educating you about the process. It shouldn't be too much to do the same concerning abortion. Too many emotional things going on not to be properly informed and educated.

If I show you footage of what REALLY happens in mass feed lots and slaughterhouses for beef and chicken, will you, SG, swear off any meat not free range? Probably not...because you place relative value on all kinds of things: life, cruelty, suffering, etc. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
thecavemaster Wrote:If I show you footage of what REALLY happens in mass feed lots and slaughterhouses for beef and chicken, will you, SG, swear off any meat not free range? Probably not...because you place relative value on all kinds of things: life, cruelty, suffering, etc. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land for now.
thecavemaster Wrote:If I show you footage of what REALLY happens in mass feed lots and slaughterhouses for beef and chicken, will you, SG, swear off any meat not free range? Probably not...because you place relative value on all kinds of things: life, cruelty, suffering, etc. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

I made a good point, cave. I don't know why, but if I got on here and said it is cold outside, you would say it is just my imagination. You say abortion rights and seatbelt laws aren't relevant; well, neither is abortion and slaughterhouses for beef and chicken. I wish just once you would think things through.
Shady Grady Wrote:I made a good point, cave. I don't know why, but if I got on here and said it is cold outside, you would say it is just my imagination. You say abortion rights and seatbelt laws aren't relevant; well, neither is abortion and slaughterhouses for beef and chicken. I wish just once you would think things through.

The connection is the relative value we place on all kinds of things, justifying ourselves with cognitive dissonance when our behavior conflicts with certain realities... example: the smoker who denies overwhelming research affirmation of the dangers of smoking, or refuses to think about it. It is cold outside today. I do think things through: maybe I don't think as you do...but those are two different things.
Against abortion.
I love talking about birth control on a sports chat site, but I'm for both control and abortion, because that alot of responsibility.
Beetle01 Wrote:Roe v. Wade is the law of the land for now.
By the looks of our poll I don't see it changing anytime soon.
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8(current)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)