“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#231500 Nov 19, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
Maybe it's a guy thing (as in I'm not a woman so I'll never understand it) or maybe it's a legal issue I'm not aware of but why would she not be able to place the child for adoption. Forgive my ignorance here but I really don't understand the scenario you're presenting.
<quoted text>
When you carry a child in your body for 9 months, you bond with it, more deeply than you can possibly understand. It's a part of you. Giving that child away for adoption is like severing a limb, only worse. That limb doesn't isn't living and you don't worry if it's hungry, cold, being loved, or being appropriately taken care of.

Hormones play a BIG part in this. Every instinct in your body is screaming to hold on to that baby, to nurse it, love it, and keep it safe.

That said, these hormones generally don't kick in 'til maybe 5-6 months.

For many women, it's far easier to have an abortion and end the pregnancy BEFORE those hormones begin and before you fall irretrievably in love with that child.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#231501 Nov 19, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
I would imagine if the boy (real men don't treat their significant others like that) is that violent then the woman in question should be seeking government assistance such as domestic violence shelters and probably seek a emergency protective restraining order. The pregnancy isn't the issue there it's the boy that needs to grow up or get out.
<quoted text>
I have two words for you:

Scott Peterson

Domestic Violence Shelters only protect for a limited period of time and never have enough funding to last long enough or for enough women.

Restraining orders are only as good as the paper they're written on. THOUSANDS of women are killed each year by the men they have a restraining order against.

Now let's add a helpless infant into the equation. She's not only protecting herself, she's got an infant to take care of and to worry about, and he has another tool with which to torture her.

Have you seen the stories of children stolen by their biological fathers?

I agree that the men need to grow up; but do you really want someone who would physically hurt a woman raising an innocent child?

You see, that's what's lost in this entire argument - the continued well-being of the child. It's not just a 9 month gig. A woman is a mother for life. They can be in their 30s and 40s and mom still worries about them, and still mothers them, but in a different way.

When you have a child, you don't get a day off. You can be deathly sick with a cold, and now you have to weight going to work to get paid or staying home to get well, but going without the pay. Same scenario with the child. Let's add in a minimum wage job with no benefits. And having to take public transportation everywhere you go. Ever had to take a puking baby on a bus? I have.

It's so incredibly complex, that there's not enough room to discuss even a tenth of the scenarios.

Bottom line. If you cannot be the mother that child deserves (financially, physically, emotionally, mentally) and know you cannot give the child up for adoption, an abortion is a responsible, loving choice.
That Geek 5410

Richmond, VA

#231502 Nov 19, 2013
I truely believe there is always going to be a better way. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I have two words for you:
Scott Peterson
Domestic Violence Shelters only protect for a limited period of time and never have enough funding to last long enough or for enough women.
Restraining orders are only as good as the paper they're written on. THOUSANDS of women are killed each year by the men they have a restraining order against.
Now let's add a helpless infant into the equation. She's not only protecting herself, she's got an infant to take care of and to worry about, and he has another tool with which to torture her.
Have you seen the stories of children stolen by their biological fathers?
I agree that the men need to grow up; but do you really want someone who would physically hurt a woman raising an innocent child?
You see, that's what's lost in this entire argument - the continued well-being of the child. It's not just a 9 month gig. A woman is a mother for life. They can be in their 30s and 40s and mom still worries about them, and still mothers them, but in a different way.
When you have a child, you don't get a day off. You can be deathly sick with a cold, and now you have to weight going to work to get paid or staying home to get well, but going without the pay. Same scenario with the child. Let's add in a minimum wage job with no benefits. And having to take public transportation everywhere you go. Ever had to take a puking baby on a bus? I have.
It's so incredibly complex, that there's not enough room to discuss even a tenth of the scenarios.
Bottom line. If you cannot be the mother that child deserves (financially, physically, emotionally, mentally) and know you cannot give the child up for adoption, an abortion is a responsible, loving choice.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#231503 Nov 19, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
I truely believe there is always going to be a better way. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
<quoted text>
Well, you can believe what you please. You are wrong, and regardless, it is NONE of your business. Ever.
That Geek 5410

Richmond, VA

#231504 Nov 19, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>Well, you can believe what you please. You are wrong, and regardless, it is NONE of your business. Ever.
As I said before, I'm passive pro life. Meaning if I was a woman I'd never have an abortion and I will never advocate it. If people ask me about my views I'm more than happy to discuss them but that's the extent of it.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#231505 Nov 19, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said before, I'm passive pro life. Meaning if I was a woman I'd never have an abortion and I will never advocate it. If people ask me about my views I'm more than happy to discuss them but that's the extent of it.
As I said, your views, your opinions are irrelevant. It isn't your problem, and since you have no uterus, it never will be.
sallygal

Pittsburgh, PA

#231506 Nov 19, 2013
youtube.com/watch... Ö
Ban sex and abortion is cured
That Geek 5410

Bridgeport, WV

#231507 Nov 19, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>As I said, your views, your opinions are irrelevant. It isn't your problem, and since you have no uterus, it never will be.
All views may be irrelevant except to the individual and possibly those with similar interests.

Since: Oct 13

Sweden

#231508 Nov 19, 2013
sallygal wrote:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ygy0eLVMlG g Ö
Ban sex and abortion is cured
oh?:) NO flame tags on that one. Guess you must have said something right xD

Religion sure is BORING x)

Since: Oct 13

Sweden

#231509 Nov 19, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>As I said, your views, your opinions are irrelevant. It isn't your problem, and since you have no uterus, it never will be.
kudos. you and that tea cup thumb are both real fighters <3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#231510 Nov 19, 2013
AverageGuy87 wrote:
<quoted text>
kudos. you and that tea cup thumb are both real fighters <3
Thanks, it's been an interesting life, and at my age I'm getting really tired of the whole anti-woman attitude of the powers that be. Laws restricting our reproductive rights, to stop or make it more difficult for us to vote, to empower rapists to make our lives even more miserable than the rape did.
When I was first married there was no such thing as spousal rape. It simply was not a crime, even if it was forced on a woman only a few days after she'd given birth and ripped open her episiotomy, as was my case. Nothing to be done but cry and deal with the pain.
I was pressured to have an abortion, and that was just as wrong as those who pressure women to attempt to carry to term.
Thanks for your support!

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#231511 Nov 19, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
I don't believe it's foolish or wrong sir. The 4th amendment is a shall not clause governing the states interaction with the citizen in that it protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures. Now if some state or the federal government tried to pass a law mandating an abortion then it very well become a 4th amendment issue (as well as other civil liberties) however this does not appear to be one if those cases.
<quoted text>
No, it is indeed wrong. You focused on just one part of the amendment, while ignoring the first clause "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."
That right to be secure in their persons includes the right of women to seek such medical treatment as they deem necessary, even elective procedures.

If anything, forcing women to gestate against their will would be a violation of the very clause you cite, the clause prohibiting unreasonable seizures.
That Geek 5410

Richmond, VA

#231512 Nov 19, 2013
Maybe the solution here is to keep abortion at it's current status and enact legislation and programs to make the alternatives more practical and reliable to actually give women more options. For instance revamp the foster care and adoption system to provide better care to children and help them lead better lives while they are under state care and expidite adoption to place them with wanting and loving families. Better funding for domestic violence protection programs to protect women and childre with harsher consequences for offenders. And finally if the woman still really doesn't believe she can go through with it then abortion is still an option.

Just a thought.
That Geek 5410

Richmond, VA

#231513 Nov 19, 2013
How is that a search or seizure? If an individual state would rule abortion to be illegal or further restrict it then they are governing the physicians scope of practice. Additionally the amendment specifically states against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can't omit a portion of an amendment when you are interpreting it
.
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is indeed wrong. You focused on just one part of the amendment, while ignoring the first clause "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."
That right to be secure in their persons includes the right of women to seek such medical treatment as they deem necessary, even elective procedures.
If anything, forcing women to gestate against their will would be a violation of the very clause you cite, the clause prohibiting unreasonable seizures.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#231514 Nov 19, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
Maybe the solution here is to keep abortion at it's current status and enact legislation and programs to make the alternatives more practical and reliable to actually give women more options. For instance revamp the foster care and adoption system to provide better care to children and help them lead better lives while they are under state care and expidite adoption to place them with wanting and loving families. Better funding for domestic violence protection programs to protect women and childre with harsher consequences for offenders. And finally if the woman still really doesn't believe she can go through with it then abortion is still an option.
Just a thought.
No, the solution has to start with health care that give every woman the tools she needs to control her own reproductive health. Contraception that is reliable and as effective as possible, and when that fails, let her decide what to do about it and don't put obstacles in her way.
Yes the other things need work, but they're all related to the idea some men have that they have some sort of right to control what we do.
THAT is the thing that needs to change first, men who have that silly idea need to get it out of their heads.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#231515 Nov 19, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
Maybe the solution here is to keep abortion at it's current status and enact legislation and programs to make the alternatives more practical and reliable to actually give women more options. For instance revamp the foster care and adoption system to provide better care to children and help them lead better lives while they are under state care and expidite adoption to place them with wanting and loving families. Better funding for domestic violence protection programs to protect women and childre with harsher consequences for offenders. And finally if the woman still really doesn't believe she can go through with it then abortion is still an option.
Just a thought.
Good, but you left out teaching all kids about birth control (including proper use, benefits and risks associated) before they might need it, as part of a comprehensive sex ed class in middle school. And I do mean ALL kids - no one should be allowed to "opt out" of this for any reason, no kid graduates without it, including home schooled.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#231516 Nov 19, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
How is that a search or seizure? If an individual state would rule abortion to be illegal or further restrict it then they are governing the physicians scope of practice. Additionally the amendment specifically states against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can't omit a portion of an amendment when you are interpreting it
.
<quoted text>
The only way to keep a woman from getting an abortion would be to place her in custody for the duration of her pregnancy, which is definitely a seizure since she is now in custody, and certainly unreasonable, since it is forcing the woman to undergo a potentially life threatening process against her will.
That Geek 5410

Richmond, VA

#231517 Nov 19, 2013
I already said leave it the way it is. So abortion would still be 100% legal and an option. I also completely agree with you on womens health and contraceptives. Now if only they could make a birth control pill for guys.
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>No, the solution has to start with health care that give every woman the tools she needs to control her own reproductive health. Contraception that is reliable and as effective as possible, and when that fails, let her decide what to do about it and don't put obstacles in her way.
Yes the other things need work, but they're all related to the idea some men have that they have some sort of right to control what we do.
THAT is the thing that needs to change first, men who have that silly idea need to get it out of their heads.
That Geek 5410

Richmond, VA

#231518 Nov 19, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, but you left out teaching all kids about birth control (including proper use, benefits and risks associated) before they might need it, as part of a comprehensive sex ed class in middle school. And I do mean ALL kids - no one should be allowed to "opt out" of this for any reason, no kid graduates without it, including home schooled.
Mandatory sex ed... I certainly agree with you there. Middle School however I may not. There are kids getting pregnant earlier than middle school and both girls and boys are starting to enter puberty earlier. I would consider introducing as early as 4th grade.
That Geek 5410

Richmond, VA

#231519 Nov 19, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way to keep a woman from getting an abortion would be to place her in custody for the duration of her pregnancy, which is definitely a seizure since she is now in custody, and certainly unreasonable, since it is forcing the woman to undergo a potentially life threatening process against her will.
That's not how they control patient assisted suicide (for instance). They legislate what the physician can or cannot do. Actually I think a better example would be partial birth abortions. The law makers ruled it illegal so law abiding physicians stopped doing it. Once the woman passed the time frame of legally have an abortion they would have to find a physician that would do it anyway (Dr. Gosnel for instance). To the nest of my knowledge no women were placed in custody and/or restrained.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min June VanDerMark 560,182
I'm looking for a writer to write my true story (Nov '08) 3 min zoeybelle 211
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min Lumajuice 777,507
Can REAL PEACE be REALIZED without Jesus Christ?? 18 min Clarence688 4
Bull and Boar - an 18th century Welsh tavern. 40 min Ed Teach 97
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 51 min lovewithin 39,366
a dramatis false eye eook ? reviewing macís fal... 53 min mohamed sh 1
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr hpcaban 441,809
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr YellowPissreality 265,393
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Atheist girl 605,279
More from around the web