Z
zuchick
Guest
RoseRed, believe me if I were in better health, I would not hesitate in the slightest to adopt. I love kids I am sure there are more out there like myself.
Z
zuchick
Guest
With a rusty knife and nothing to dull the pain, but with most sexual preditors it ain't about the sex..
I used to know someone years ago that was a total Fertile Myrtle. At that time, I knew she had had 6 abortions (way to many) and last I heard, she now has three kids.
I am not against abortion, but in her case, that was way to many and if that was her form of "birth control" shame on her. Pure carelessness.
I am not against abortion, but in her case, that was way to many and if that was her form of "birth control" shame on her. Pure carelessness.
Z
zuchick
Guest
Originally posted by PFgal
Whoa...I'm not even getting in the middle of this thread.
(LOLOL) Chicken.
@ Tater
Toxick
Splat
That's not really abortion then. I mean, technically it is, but the only "choice" involved is deciding who lives or dies.
While we're on this subject - I see things like this as a pro-choice arguments all the time. "What about if the mother's life is in danger - what about rape - what about incest?"
Like 95% of abortions are for rape, incest, or saving the mother's life.
I'd like to know what the real percentage is.
I have a feeling it's closer to 0.95% than 95% .
Nitrospeed16
New Member
Hrmm..so are you saying that just because the precentage of rape/incest abortions is low, it should be grouped together with regular abortions and outlawed altogether, since there aren't enough of them to worry about?
Z
zuchick
Guest
Originally posted by PFgal
(ROFLMTO)
Pete
Repete
Tough issue, as a parent I say no, as a realist I do see the validity of what vrai says. If they really don't want a child it will probably grow up deprived in a poor and broken home. My former step-daughter is a prime example. She went on a hump fest after being booted out of college and is now a welfare queen in HUD housing on every "dole list" imaginable at 20. Is her baby wonderful, of course, honestly does it have a chance at having a good life? Statistically probably not. Would it ever if she had waited until further along in life to get pregnant, NO I think not because of character.
Where does it become a problem? Well when I was a kid we had it very tough, relatively poor, a struggle, but I only remember it as great. As a kid you don't really care that you had salmon patties again last night. Where the problem comes is what the parents teach them and how involved they are. Hence the delinquents replentish the loser list faster than they die off. My theory is that although the libs love to equate financial status to the chance a person will grow up to be a useful member of society and not the rat ba$tard who carjacks your Aunt when she goes to town, it is not. I think it is character instead. Social programs can give the poor money but they cannot give them character. As long as people use unprotected sex as a cheap form of entertainment and produce unwanted, unloved, potential delinquents there will be a pro choice argument and abortion will remain. HOWEVER, in our society we cannot round up the legitimate proven losers who contribute nothing to humanity but grief and pain and shoot them like cattle, why should we allow it before birth just because they have "potential" to be losers. Hell no one can predict what someone will be in utero. Hence since society will never be given the right to make you go to a board and prove yourself worthy of being a parent first there will always be children born to people who really didn't want to be parents.
Do I feel it is right to tell someone that the choice they made to have an "early first trimester" abortion rather than have a baby during bad circumstances and make their contribution to the "potential losers list" no not really. I have to admit while chosing an abortion is nothing to be congratulated or praised, I has a higher opinion of them than I do one who veiws a pregnancy as a revenue generator.
Still it is a human life and should be cherished. I really wished that our society would become so responsible that this issue would just go away due to it not being needed, but it will not. So if it must be that abortion is a part of our society it must have tighter controls to make it more palitable to me.
1. NO abortions on underage girls without parental consent.
2. NO abortions without the fathers consent. It's his baby too and he should have the option of raising the child himself if the mother doesn't want it.
3. NO abortions past first trimester unless the mothers life is at risk.
4. Madatory depo shots for 5 years or 25 years of age if you chose an abortion. Male birth control shot for the sperm donator if they can make one.
I am against abortion but it will never go away. Maybe if we made this harder it will make a difference.
Where does it become a problem? Well when I was a kid we had it very tough, relatively poor, a struggle, but I only remember it as great. As a kid you don't really care that you had salmon patties again last night. Where the problem comes is what the parents teach them and how involved they are. Hence the delinquents replentish the loser list faster than they die off. My theory is that although the libs love to equate financial status to the chance a person will grow up to be a useful member of society and not the rat ba$tard who carjacks your Aunt when she goes to town, it is not. I think it is character instead. Social programs can give the poor money but they cannot give them character. As long as people use unprotected sex as a cheap form of entertainment and produce unwanted, unloved, potential delinquents there will be a pro choice argument and abortion will remain. HOWEVER, in our society we cannot round up the legitimate proven losers who contribute nothing to humanity but grief and pain and shoot them like cattle, why should we allow it before birth just because they have "potential" to be losers. Hell no one can predict what someone will be in utero. Hence since society will never be given the right to make you go to a board and prove yourself worthy of being a parent first there will always be children born to people who really didn't want to be parents.
Do I feel it is right to tell someone that the choice they made to have an "early first trimester" abortion rather than have a baby during bad circumstances and make their contribution to the "potential losers list" no not really. I have to admit while chosing an abortion is nothing to be congratulated or praised, I has a higher opinion of them than I do one who veiws a pregnancy as a revenue generator.
Still it is a human life and should be cherished. I really wished that our society would become so responsible that this issue would just go away due to it not being needed, but it will not. So if it must be that abortion is a part of our society it must have tighter controls to make it more palitable to me.
1. NO abortions on underage girls without parental consent.
2. NO abortions without the fathers consent. It's his baby too and he should have the option of raising the child himself if the mother doesn't want it.
3. NO abortions past first trimester unless the mothers life is at risk.
4. Madatory depo shots for 5 years or 25 years of age if you chose an abortion. Male birth control shot for the sperm donator if they can make one.
I am against abortion but it will never go away. Maybe if we made this harder it will make a difference.
Nitrospeed16
New Member
Just wondering...how many people here that are so hell bent against any form of abortion support the death penalty? Same thing...people acting as god....
Toxick
Splat
No, you quoted me, so you should know what I'm saying.
Translating english to english: I said that I wonder what the real numbers are, as it's often implied that the numbers of these cases are significant.
The inference that can be drawn, if one must be: I'm wondering if decisions about abortions are being made on the numbers of rape and incest. Obviously exceptions should be made in certain cases. But should they be the exception or the rule?
Further, I'm not entirely sure where I fall when it comes to killing babies for the crimes of their parents.
Big difference. One is taking a life because it inconveniences the person that created it. The other is removing the mad dogs from our society so they can't harm others anymore.
I can understand somewhat the anti-death penalty/anti-abortion people - they are against taking a life in any form. What I don't understand are the anti-death penalty/pro-abortion people. Kill the babies, but let the criminals live?
