Abortion
- Thread starter katy perry is hot
- Start date
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Hello Governor Palin. How's that new job at Fox working out for you?paine said:
what the hell do you lefties have wrong with Palin? Leave the woman alone. Let her live her darn life. Remember that peeping tom who moved in beside her home? She has been the target of the largest smear campaign since '08.Irviding said:
Watch Me Sink
Madly Diligent
Spitzer gets all the CNN hoes now.Irviding said:
<br /><br />-- Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:36 pm --<br /><br />
In some cases...Irviding said:
http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/bl ... -abor.html
Abnormalist
Acquaintance
For me it comes down to basic moral values. If you have the basic moral values then abortion won't even be an option on the table. In today's world, there are fewer and fewer individuals with honorable values and that is a fact.
If a woman has been raped, I might be willing to accept that as a reason.. But she should give the child up for adoption. The only other way I feel abortions should ever be allowed is if the mothers life is in danger.
Other than that, the woman should have kept her legs closed.
-- 07 Oct 2010, 03:09 --
I actually knew of one woman who is still married to one of my friends & I know for a fact that she's been pregnant with the children of other men. She's had abortions left and right.
If a woman has been raped, I might be willing to accept that as a reason.. But she should give the child up for adoption. The only other way I feel abortions should ever be allowed is if the mothers life is in danger.
Other than that, the woman should have kept her legs closed.
-- 07 Oct 2010, 03:09 --
I actually knew of one woman who is still married to one of my friends & I know for a fact that she's been pregnant with the children of other men. She's had abortions left and right.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Abnormalist, please read my post that's right on this page. Thanks.
Kirisute, that doesn't mean every woman. That's maybe 1 out of hundreds of thousands.
Kirisute, that doesn't mean every woman. That's maybe 1 out of hundreds of thousands.
Family Chat
Acquaintance
[quote="Irviding
Alright, but again, let me state the same thing I've stated 150 times. Abortion is not an easy thing to go through. Not many women just say "**** this baby i'm going to get it aborted and then i'm going to find some guy at the bar and have unprotected sex again!". That's just not how it works. The way the right wing media portrays women who get abortions is just simply wrong. I have met many women who have had abortions. And even if it is being used as contraception, ok, so, since the couple chose not to use protection or the morning after pill or whatever, they should be PUNISHED by the woman being forced to carry an unwanted baby? I'm sure it will receive lots of love and be taken care of to the fullest extent, right? Wrong. And please, don't use the adoption argument. I've torn that apart on the past like 10 pages and I really don't want to get into it again.
Furthermore, people always make the only-rape argument. The point is, how do we determine whether or not it was a rape? Women can just walk in and say "Oh I was raped" and get an abortion, even if she is lying? And the court case thing is bull****. Court cases are not 43 minute procedures like they are on TV, I hate to say. Rape cases can take up to (or over) a year to complete.* In that situation, if we were to make it so only rape victims can get abortions, who makes the decision as to whether or not they were rape victims? The woman was sort of beat up? There is no accountability there. The fact is, you have to either allow it across the board or just not permit it at all. And the only way to ensure full liberties and freedoms for everyone is to allow it. That includes for the rape victims, and for those with mental defects or whatever other reasons.
*http://www.perthshirerapecrisis.org/pdf/Police%20&%20Court.pdf
http://www.perthshirerapecrisis.org/pdf ... 0Court.pdf[/quote]
Honestly... yes. I do believe that if a person just cannot be bothered using protection then they should not be allowed an abortion. If they cannot be bothered to use protection that is their issue but they should not expect their irresponsibility to just be "fixed". Most people do not descover they are pregnant until around 5-6, when their period is around a week or so late. By 6 weeks a baby has a beating heart, so in my opinion to just have that beating heart scraped out of the womb should not be allowed just because someone couldn't be bothered using protection.
I do agree with you that it would be difficult to determine if a woman had been raped. And as you say you never would get away with limiting abortion, it would have to be across the board one way or another. But I am still entitled to my opinion on what is right or wrong (as is everyone)... even if it something that could never actually work in reality.
Although I definitely think that the upper limit for abortion should be lowered to say 16 weeks.
I do believe that those who have repeat abortions through not having safe sex should be made to pay to go private for the abortions. Here in the UK everyone can have abortions free on the NHS, you just have to have a doctor to sign it off. But maybe if some people had to pay out of their own pocket for an abortion then they would think more seriously about using protection.
Alright, but again, let me state the same thing I've stated 150 times. Abortion is not an easy thing to go through. Not many women just say "**** this baby i'm going to get it aborted and then i'm going to find some guy at the bar and have unprotected sex again!". That's just not how it works. The way the right wing media portrays women who get abortions is just simply wrong. I have met many women who have had abortions. And even if it is being used as contraception, ok, so, since the couple chose not to use protection or the morning after pill or whatever, they should be PUNISHED by the woman being forced to carry an unwanted baby? I'm sure it will receive lots of love and be taken care of to the fullest extent, right? Wrong. And please, don't use the adoption argument. I've torn that apart on the past like 10 pages and I really don't want to get into it again.
Furthermore, people always make the only-rape argument. The point is, how do we determine whether or not it was a rape? Women can just walk in and say "Oh I was raped" and get an abortion, even if she is lying? And the court case thing is bull****. Court cases are not 43 minute procedures like they are on TV, I hate to say. Rape cases can take up to (or over) a year to complete.* In that situation, if we were to make it so only rape victims can get abortions, who makes the decision as to whether or not they were rape victims? The woman was sort of beat up? There is no accountability there. The fact is, you have to either allow it across the board or just not permit it at all. And the only way to ensure full liberties and freedoms for everyone is to allow it. That includes for the rape victims, and for those with mental defects or whatever other reasons.
*http://www.perthshirerapecrisis.org/pdf/Police%20&%20Court.pdf
http://www.perthshirerapecrisis.org/pdf ... 0Court.pdf[/quote]
Honestly... yes. I do believe that if a person just cannot be bothered using protection then they should not be allowed an abortion. If they cannot be bothered to use protection that is their issue but they should not expect their irresponsibility to just be "fixed". Most people do not descover they are pregnant until around 5-6, when their period is around a week or so late. By 6 weeks a baby has a beating heart, so in my opinion to just have that beating heart scraped out of the womb should not be allowed just because someone couldn't be bothered using protection.
I do agree with you that it would be difficult to determine if a woman had been raped. And as you say you never would get away with limiting abortion, it would have to be across the board one way or another. But I am still entitled to my opinion on what is right or wrong (as is everyone)... even if it something that could never actually work in reality.
Although I definitely think that the upper limit for abortion should be lowered to say 16 weeks.
I do believe that those who have repeat abortions through not having safe sex should be made to pay to go private for the abortions. Here in the UK everyone can have abortions free on the NHS, you just have to have a doctor to sign it off. But maybe if some people had to pay out of their own pocket for an abortion then they would think more seriously about using protection.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
At least you're willing to admit that you don't think it's possible to limit it to such a manner. I can't tell you how many politicians we have in America who support the "after rapes only" policy.
Family Chat
Acquaintance
Irviding said:
The thing is rape has such a low conviction rate here in the UK (not sure on other countries) and the person who got raped has to go through a lot of turmoil to ensure a conviction. For that reason alone a lot of rapes go unreported. So I guess if a woman had being raped but didn't want to report it, there would be a problem straight away.
I guess for me I just don't like how easy it is to get an abortion. Of course for some women it will be a much thought over occurance and a one off and not something they go in to easily. But I think there should be tighter guidlines around abortion so people cannot go in to having sex thinking "oh if I do get pregnant I will just have an abortion".
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
That sounds reasonable, but what type of guidelines could be put into place?
Family Chat
Acquaintance
Well I guess here in the UK repeat abortions shouldn't be allowed free on the NHS. So if a doctor signs off an abortion for someone for whatever reason, they should make it clear that if the person got pregnant again and wanted a termination then they would have to pay to go private for it. Although that wouldn't stop all, it might make some women think twice about having un-protected sex.
There are clinics in the UK where you can have a lunch hour abortion. Literally nip in there on your lunch hour! I think things like that should not be allowed, I think it takes away from the seriousness of what the woman is doing if she can just pop in and "sort the problem" on her lunch hour.
There are clinics in the UK where you can have a lunch hour abortion. Literally nip in there on your lunch hour! I think things like that should not be allowed, I think it takes away from the seriousness of what the woman is doing if she can just pop in and "sort the problem" on her lunch hour.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Well, what if this woman is working 2 jobs and doesn't have the time to go on any other hours of the day? There's no reason to demonize them for it.
Now I don't live in the UK, but I can see your point about not having the government pay for it more than once..
Now I don't live in the UK, but I can see your point about not having the government pay for it more than once..
It'd be better if the government supplied people with free condoms. Would be a lot cheaper than paying for abortions and the other risks associated with unprotected sex.
Oh wait I forgot the vatican doesn't allow condoms. My bad.
Oh wait I forgot the vatican doesn't allow condoms. My bad.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
It shouldn't matter. That's her business, not yours.Cosmic said:
Irviding said:
This day and age there is no need for abortion after rape, if a girl goes to a clinic in the Uk or to the Police claiming rape, and I think within 48hrs of the rape, she is offered the morning after pill, which is a lot cheaper than surgical abortion.<br /><br />-- 10 Oct 2010, 01:11 --<br /><br />
if someone murders someone else, then it is, by that standard, business between the murderer and the murdered. It is not a concern of the court, by that logic.[/quote]Cosmic said:
Once a person is murdered it becomes the concern of the court because by definition murder means death, and dead people are unable to defend themselves, so it falls on justice ( the courts) to defend the deceased, which sort of destroys your logic.
It doesn't. what if I am defending the unborn child, which is exactly my point? If a person who is already dead can be defended, why not a person who is not born? They are both equally non-existent on this earth.
Watch Me Sink
Madly Diligent
The Vatican. Not most people.Gimgak said:
Affiliates
