A woman's right to choose.

[Rick]

A woman does have a right to choose - the choice is when she decides to have vaginal sex. After she chooses to have sex, the point of choice has come and gone. Every women knows or should know that the possible result of sex is pregnancy, protection or not. Claiming she has "choice" after she gets pregnant is erroneous. If she "choses" an abortion, she is actually trying to escape the known possible consequences of her previous action.

Claiming that the prohibition of abortion is a negation of choice is analogous to the following. A person signs a contract to buy a house. They change their mind later but are held to the sale. They complain that they've been deprived of their choice.

When a woman has sex, she is implicitly entering into a contract (as is the man) in the case of a possible pregnancy. Nobody forced her to do it, and she should be held to the possible consequences of the act - not the fetus.

 

[Iriemon]

A woman does have a right to choose - the choice is when she decides to have vaginal sex. After she chooses to have sex, the point of choice has come and gone. Every women knows or should know that the possible result of sex is pregnancy, protection or not. Claiming she has "choice" after she gets pregnant is erroneous. If she "choses" an abortion, she is actually trying to escape the known possible consequences of her previous action.

Claiming that the prohibition of abortion is a negation of choice is analogous to the following. A person signs a contract to buy a house. They change their mind later but are held to the sale. They complain that they've been deprived of their choice.

When a woman has sex, she is implicitly entering into a contract (as is the man) in the case of a possible pregnancy. Nobody forced her to do it, and she should be held to the possible consequences of the act - not the fetus.

Without agreeing to your concepts of choice, we can agree therefore abortion on demand is not only permissible but appropriate in cases of rape or incest or involuntary intercourse where a woman cannot possible be deemed to have entered into the contract.

 

[Rick]

Without agreeing to your concepts of choice, we can agree therefore abortion on demand is not only permissible but appropriate in cases of rape or incest or involuntary intercourse where a woman cannot possible be deemed to have entered into the contract.

Ahhhhh, let's not expand beyond what I said. I dealt with the 99% of abortions that are not for rape or incest - I didn't deal with the 1%. Please read more carefully.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Little Pricks

"Little Pricks"

Dumb crap.

How about mind your own needle dick business.

 

[rivrrat]

A woman does have a right to choose - the choice is when she decides to have vaginal sex. After she chooses to have sex, the point of choice has come and gone. Every women knows or should know that the possible result of sex is pregnancy, protection or not. Claiming she has "choice" after she gets pregnant is erroneous. If she "choses" an abortion, she is actually trying to escape the known possible consequences of her previous action.

A person does have the right to choose - the choice is when they decide to get into and drive a car. After they choose to get into a car, the point of choice has come and gone. Every person knows, or should know, that the possible result of driving or getting into a car is getting injured in an accident - seatbelt, careful driving or not. Claiming they have a choice after getting into an accident is erroneous. If they "choose" to seek medical treatment for their injuries, they're actually trying to escape the known possible consequences of their previous actions.

 

[1069]

Re: Little Pricks

"Little Pricks"
How about mind your own needle dick business.

... :kissy:

 

[ILDUCE]

Now I'm not exactly experienced in this department, but from a moral perspective wouldn't adoption be a more feasible option than abortion?

 

[Rick]

Re: Little Pricks

"Little Pricks"
How about mind your own needle dick business.

Insulting people is against the rules - don't you know that?

 

[Rick]

A person does have the right to choose - the choice is when they decide to get into and drive a car. After they choose to get into a car, the point of choice has come and gone. Every person knows, or should know, that the possible result of driving or getting into a car is getting injured in an accident - seatbelt, careful driving or not. Claiming they have a choice after getting into an accident is erroneous. If they "choose" to seek medical treatment for their injuries, they're actually trying to escape the known possible consequences of their previous actions.

Uh......... I like analogies, but you lost me. :roll:

 

[OKgrannie]

Now I'm not exactly experienced in this department, but from a moral perspective wouldn't adoption be a more feasible option than abortion?

No, there is nothing moral about requiring women to do something that damages them. Adoption doesn't relieve a woman of pregnancy/childbirth.

Planned Parenthood - The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion

"Emotional Reactions to Adoption

The psychological responses to abortion are far less serious than those experienced by women bringing their unwanted pregnancy to term and relinquishing the child for adoption (Sachdev, 1993).
While first-trimester abortion does not affect most women adversely, and nearly all women assimilate the abortion experience by six months to one year after the procedure (Sachdev, 1993), one study indicates that 95 percent of birth mothers report grief and loss after they have signed their consent to adoption, and two-thirds continued to experience these feelings five to 15 years after relinquishment (Sachdev, 1989).
Women who relinquish their child for adoption are at risk for long-term grief that can have physical, psychological, and relational repercussions. While this response is comparable to that of losing a child through death, the grieving response post-adoption is often more symptomatic and can be chronic in nature (Askren & Bloom, 1999)."

 

[Rick]

No, there is nothing moral about requiring women to do something that damages them. Adoption doesn't relieve a woman of pregnancy/childbirth.

"Relieve"?? Look at how they regard pregnancy as a disease!

Planned Parenthood - The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion

"Emotional Reactions to Adoption

Your link is to a pro-abortion group. Provide citations from a neutral, credible source.

The psychological responses to abortion are far less serious than those experienced by women bringing their unwanted pregnancy to term and relinquishing the child for adoption (Sachdev, 1993).
While first-trimester abortion does not affect most women adversely, and nearly all women assimilate the abortion experience by six months to one year after the procedure (Sachdev, 1993), one study indicates that 95 percent of birth mothers report grief and loss after they have signed their consent to adoption, and two-thirds continued to experience these feelings five to 15 years after relinquishment (Sachdev, 1989).
Women who relinquish their child for adoption are at risk for long-term grief that can have physical, psychological, and relational repercussions. While this response is comparable to that of losing a child through death, the grieving response post-adoption is often more symptomatic and can be chronic in nature (Askren & Bloom, 1999)."

What was the methodology used for this guy's research?

 

[Rick]

Now I'm not exactly experienced in this department, but from a moral perspective wouldn't adoption be a more feasible option than abortion?

OBVIOUSLY. The fetus, which may be a live human being, doesn't get killed!

 

[ILDUCE]

Honestly, I can totally see things from both sides of the argument. I personally would attempt any alternative to abortion, but, again I've never bore a child and I'm guessing that there is some kind of security in having an abortive option if something goes wrong. Now that being said, there is still something MAJORLY wrong with late-term abortions. The issue at hand is in fact when does life truly begin.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Claiming that the prohibition of abortion is a negation of choice is analogous to the following. A person signs a contract to buy a house. They change their mind later but are held to the sale. They complain that they've been deprived of their choice.

No it isn't. You are making the assumption here that a woman is required to give birth once they get pregnant, when that isn't the case.

When a woman has sex, she is implicitly entering into a contract

Really? Could you show us this contract? Does it have to be notarized?

How about mind your own needle dick business.

Monk-eye, usually I can't make any sense whatsoever of any of your posts, but this one, sir, was completely on point.

Now I'm not exactly experienced in this department, but from a moral perspective wouldn't adoption be a more feasible option than abortion?

No. Throwing more kids at the already overcrowded and underfunded adoption program that has much less demand than the amount of children it has is more destructive, not only to the child and parents, but to society in general.

Uh......... I like analogies, but you lost me.

No, it made perfect sense. Read it again.

Your link is to a pro-abortion group.

Irrelevant. If you can't dispute the content then don't attack the source.

OBVIOUSLY. The fetus, which may be a live human being, doesn't get killed!

Sperm may be a living human being. Are you against masturbation? Maybe we should start arresting women for manslaughter once they have their period, because they "killed" potential "human beings" by ovulating.

The issue at hand is in fact when does life truly begin.

That's a diversionary tactic used by anti-choice extremists in order to distract from the real issue. The real issue is the rights of the mother. The mother has a right to the sovereignty of her own body, and nobody can violate that - that includes the fetus.

 

[ILDUCE]

No. If you are willing to take away the fetus' rights, you have to acknowledge the fact that it possesses life and not just potential to live. Therefore citing stating the fetus' rights do not superceeds the mother's is completely irrelevant. I'm sorry, all those adamantly opposed to adoption as an alternative to non-critical abortions really aren't very considerate and in my opinion need to reevaluate the value of life.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

If you are willing to take away the fetus' rights, you have to acknowledge the fact that it possesses life and not just potential to live.

That's irrelevant. I didn't say it did or didn't "possess life" because it's completely irrelevant to the fact that the rights of the mother can't be compromised.

Therefore citing stating the fetus' rights do not superceeds the mother's is completely irrelevant.

The "rights of the fetus" are also irrelevant. One cannot violate another's rights, even if that means it results in death. It has nothing to do with putting the "rights of the fetus" over the mother.

I'm sorry, all those adamantly opposed to adoption as an alternative to non-critical abortions really aren't very considerate and in my opinion need to reevaluate the value of life.

Do you even know anything about adoption? Or are you just using that as a good alternative to throw unwanted kids at?

 

[OKgrannie]

"Relieve"?? Look at how they regard pregnancy as a disease!

If pregnancy is unwanted, it is similar to disease. It is "dis---ease". Any woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy necessarily feels dis at ease.

Your link is to a pro-abortion group. Provide citations from a neutral, credible source.

You should be aware that there is no such thing as a "pro-abortion" group. There are many groups supporting CHOICE. Pro-choice sources ARE credible, but here is another source out of many:

Dr. Rickarby Part Three.

"When I first heard of the distress and illness in the lives of women who had lost a child to adoption, I thought the problems were unusual. Throughout the decades following I found I continually underestimated the severity of their distress and the widespread gravity of their disrupted and blighted lives."

"What was the psychological impact of women being given advice to "start life afresh" and that "they would soon get over " the loss of their baby and the experience of the loss?
The experience of the mothers who lost a child to adoption is so polarised towards the inability to continue with their life and to almost universal Pathological Grief that simplistic advice of this ilk is fatuous. Remembering such advice makes them angry, but worse, they have feelings of hopelessness that what they went through at the time and their present plight will not be recognised by society and that their life as broken by the loss will not be validated.

It is a provocation that makes their depression more likely, their personality defences more rigid and their life more isolated, many of them believing they are the only ones who are grieving and who didn't start life "afresh"."

 

[ILDUCE]

Oh and brace yourselves because apparently some people want to give the rights of a fetus, a developing fertilized egg, the same rights of sperm! And by the way, how in the hell can you refer to a kid as unwanted?! Get real! How about let homosexuals adopt. Widen the base if there is such underadoption. Life is an UNALIENABLE right! And OK Grannie's sources really do seem less pro-choice and more pro-abortion. Pro-choice does not necessarily mean that the first option is abortion.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Oh and brace yourselves because apparently some people want to give the rights of a fetus, a developing fertilized egg, the same rights of sperm!

One could certainly argue that the "process" was "set in motion" before the fertilization of the ovum. This would imply that life "began" before fertilization, using the same logic as one that states that it begins there!

:shock:

 

[ILDUCE]

One could certainly argue that the "process" was "set in motion" before the fertilization of the ovum. This would imply that life "began" before fertilization, using the same logic as one that states that it begins there!

:shock:

Or simply you are comparing fertilizer to plant. you could substite lettuce for manure on a sandwich?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Or simply you are comparing fertilizer to plant. you could substite lettuce for manure on a sandwich?

Well, sure, if you use the logic of someone that claims life to begin at conception.

 

[ILDUCE]

so let me get this straight, you're saying that abortion applies to sperm? Never heard that one before...

 

[Khayembii Communique]

so let me get this straight, you're saying that abortion applies to sperm? Never heard that one before...

No, I'm saying that people that claim that life begins at conception are loopy.

 

[Cephus]

Now I'm not exactly experienced in this department, but from a moral perspective wouldn't adoption be a more feasible option than abortion?

Whose morals? Since the woman having an abortion obviously has no problem with it, I'd say that's plainly false. Besides, the adoption system is so overloaded now, there are thousands upon thousands of kids out there that will NEVER be adopted and you want to add to the load?

 

[ILDUCE]

All I was suggesting with the adoption idea is an alternative to death. Even if the system is crap, don't kill them off for such a reason. Fix the system, don't kill the kid.