winstonjen

:notworthy

Wanna get it on?

Anyway, remember this quote. I don't remember where I heard it, perhaps someone could enlighten me.

"The moral majority are neither."

Chicken Girl

What if the woman has a medical problem such that pregnancy and/or childbirth poses a serious risk to her health?

Is she "selfish" for having an abortion to save her life?

winstonjen

I would say "no" to selfishness. I have read a SEXtion in "Understanding Human Behaviour and the Social Environment," and an abortion is about 20 times safer than childbirth for the woman. It is the RTL group that is selfish. Also, childbirth is easier for both mother and child when the child is planned for and wanted.

cheetah

Well, gee, then why would they also be offering contraceptive services and counseling? That would work against their own future "profits" in abortion! Your argument is pretty much totally without merit. Anti-choicers want to see PP shut down and want to believe it's an evil institution, but they do far more to prevent unwanted pregnancy than any other org I know of.

winstonjen

Not only that, but Obligation-to-Lifers do not support government aid for new parents (those that I know of, anyway). How logical.

:boohoo:

phil

It's amazing how much this agument is used. How many people do you know that have died from having a baby? The ratio is tremendously in favor of the mother surviving. Almost all abortions are for a reason other than the mother's own safety.

In the extremely rare event that either the mother or baby must die for the other to live, the choice is up to the parents.

People want pleasure without responsibility. How foolish. If you get promoted in a job, you get added responsibility. If you're going to have sex, you might as well accept the fact that you might end up being responsible for birthing a life.

To kill a son or daughter because its cheaper or because you don't want them is not selfish?

-phil

winstonjen

Like I mentioned earlier, about 20 times as many as those who have an abortion.

[QUOTE][B]The ratio is tremendously in favor of the mother surviving. Almost all abortions are for a reason other than the mother's own safety.

The parents of the baby or the mother?

Then you oppose contraception?

But what about cases where the baby is born without a brain? 99% of such pregnancies naturally abort. How is giving birth to a pile of flesh that will rot within weeks any better?

Hedwig

Phil, I'm a woman and my reproductive organs are extremely messed up. I've already been told that it would be a bad idea to ever try to carry a child to term. So I'm definitely one woman who would fall into the high risk category. It's a damn good thing I don't want kids anyway.

phil

The parents of the baby. However, if the parents of the baby are minors, then it might be good to get advice from their parents.

No. But contraception methods aren't 100% effective (they come pretty close though). You still have to be willing to accept the responsibility for a child if one should come along.

And what about babies born without hearts too? Are you going to bring up every fatal defect that can happen? Once again, the vast majority of births out there are normal ones.

I realize stuff happens, but it shouldn't be like "Whoops, I'm pregnant. I guess I'll just book an appointment with the abortionist."

That is definitely not a life or death situation (well, for the baby it is). And that is the abortion that I'm against.

Hedwig, I am sorry to hear your situation. Have yourself checked out again. I prayed for you.

-phil

winstonjen

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Another shining case for women's rights.

It's people like Phil that make me support abortion even decades after birth. (Only joking, of course)