Adoption is a way out of keeping the baby. if you are not able ot provide for the baby give it up for adoption. There's so many kids in Africa starving without food or anything, so do you think we should kill them all? Because as quite a few of you have said, you should just kill them, put them out of their misery. Or did i misinterperate what you have said?

The problem is while anti-abortionists are all shouting "adoption" there are very few who are willing to adopt the kids. It appears once they are born they have no interest anymore, bit of a hypocracy that seems rife. There are far too many kids awaiting adoption as it is, putting more kids in there reduces the amount of care that each on their own can be given till they get adopted, if they get adopted.

Now we are not saying those in other countries should be killed, they are already alive, but if we can stop putting straws on the camels back, metaphorically speaking, things may improve just a little bit.

Robbs right. Care homes are full of kids waiting to find loving homes and thats the problem. They are sitting there waiting for someone to love them wondering why the hell their mum and dad didnt want them and why they gave them up, if you ask me that can give a child serious self confidence issues and cause them to be greatly unhappy. Are you honestly saying that putting a child through THAT is ok? No one is saying abortion is ideal and No one is saying that adoption is either. And niether did anyone say we should kill those in other countries. But the point is Niether of these are ideal situations but why should the child suffer because of the stupidity of their parents?

Neither of these are ideal situations but why should the child suffer because of the stupidity of their parents?



I agree and thats why I think abortion in that situation is ridiculous. The situation being the parents ignorance for having unprotected sex or before they were ready to commit to a child.

If you were never born, you cannot suffer. It was recently proven that it requires input after birth for the pain center to develop. If it is before 20 weeks there is no brain stem or neural tissue. It is no more alive then your spleen is. Hence your arguement is flawed, and fails.

I thought this was a statement in favour of abortion before I read your next sentence.

Hmmmm, abortion as an easy way out? What the hell are you on, baka? Oh, yeah, living with the consequences of that, definitely easy. You people are making it sound like most people who have had an abortion will have many more after, because it's easier than practicing safe sex. That's not the case at all. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm pretty sure going through something like that would probably shock you into being more responsible.

Most of the pro-lifers here are just stupid kids with so sense of empathy wahtsover and are just regurgitating the stuff they've been programmed to believe. Bakas!

but by week 5 the embryo's heart is already forming... if you have a heart your pretty much alive

My being born was an accident. My mother was on the pill at the time, there's 9 years between me and my older brother. My younger brother was also an accident, he was the result of a broken condom. So yes, accidents do happen.

my boyfriends mom was on the pill when she got pregnant with him, so accidents happen more than you think.

Those would be prime examples of why a couple should always use more than one contraceptive at any given time.

Iv fallen pregnant due to a condom failure. But i never got to choose the fate of my baby. That was chosen for me.

And for the record I am not able to take the pill or the morning after pill due to a heart problem

Erm, no. Without a neural system a heart is just a lump of muscle. No brain, no brain stem, not alive. Just a bunch of cells.

I would say you're truly alive when you gain sentience. Which doesn't happen in week 5.

I think although this can be taken for either argument.. for or against... but its a life your deciding the fate of. Its someones future. Someones happiness. And its YOUR responsibililty to make sure you give your child the best future possible. If you can't do that you shouldn't have a baby. I don't however think that abortion should be used as another form of emergency contraception. That is what the morning after pill is for. And the majority CAN take it. And should if they arn't in the position to provide a baby with its needs. However it seems to me that out of the two options abortion... before a certain point... may well be far less cruel for the child. I know i'd hate sitting around wodner why my parents didnt want me... wondering what was wrong with me.

If children are able to think to ask themselves that question, then the rather simple explanation is hardly beyond their comprehension.

Are they? When theyve grown up in a care home and they know that having no mum and no dad is normal? How can they honestly sit and tell themselves that it's because they were a mistake? Thats why they try to find their parents... to ask.

That would require someone to tell them that something is not right about them, that they did not want them. That is hardly thought, that is someone putting a stigma on the child and thrusting the need for an answer upon them.

But surely thats what happens naturally to a child when they grow up in a care home and go to a school where all the rest of the class have mums and dads who come to parents evening and sports day assemblies.. They immediatly know they are different and wonder why they don't have parents.

Why would they immediately conclude that they were not wanted?

I think the mere fact that they were given up would make them think that, REGARDLESS of the circumstances in which the mother/parents gave up the child.

What would you immediately assume if you were an adopted kid in school? Why do you think a lot of parents hide it from their adopted children that they were adopted?

This is kind of off topic, though.

Death is hardly giving up the child. How would a child know that he or she was given up?

That would be my point. It is hidden from them. They have not the legal right to know until adulthood, by which point they should have their own life, where this knowledge has no reason to "ruin their life".

It is a recurring pro-choice argument. I do not like seeing it any more.

Unless you know you are financially and emotionally capable of caring for another life and you accept that pregnancy could happen.

And that you agree that you will not stop it if it does.

Not if you live in a care home and you haven't been adopted then you'd figure pretty quick that someone didn't want you.

that might be true, but many kids ARE adopted and go in to loving homes. Not all of them are necessarily going to live in the homes for the rest of their lives or going to have horrilbe lives. Sure, some kids will have problems, but who doesn't? i think it's better then not having a life to live, not having problems, not having anything, litteraly.

QUOTE

Abortion is a good thing.

i have to agree and disagree with you on this one. If someone was planning to have a baby and than when they have one and they decide to get an abortion...than that's just plain wrong and cruel. I mean hey, if you were planning on it than keep it and don't kill it..it was your choice for what you did and your bad choice shouldn't have to result in having your baby die. but also...if someone gets pregnant and not by choice (rape or something else..) than yes, i agree on abortion..especially if this person if only 14 or 15 or something..than it's the right thing to do and they're showing responsibility by having an abortion and admitting that they can't take care of this baby. I'm all up for it ..but only if its by rape or something..otherwise boo.

Umm... why?

If abortion is available where you are, and you can afford one, and you're not morally opposed to them, and you're prepared to have one... then what reason on earth is there not to have sex unless you "agree that you will not stop [a pregnancy]"?

It is the woman's personal decision to make, along with the guy she slept with unless it is rape, if he wants to keep it she should take that into consideration, however not just go by his decision either. If you are married or with someone it is a decision you should make together.

That's a very good point, iknowimaprincess. A lot of the time a girl or woman will have an abortion without consulting her sigificant other about it. I think they should make the decision together.

Thank you Suzy! I just think it is a decision that they should make together unless of course they weren't together, in which case she should still inform him that she got pregnant to let him help with the decision.

Try not to utterly ignore the post to which I was replying, and the post to which that replied.

And if you did not, glad to see you are a proponent of horrendously irresponsible behaviour.

How did I "utterly ignore" any post?

Are you going to explain why people should use two forms of contraception unless they agree not to get an abortion if they get pregnant? What's wrong with using one form of protection and accepting that, in the .1% chance you get pregnant (if you're taking the pill perfectly), you will get an abortion? Is that not a choice people should make for themselves, whether or not to take that risk? What, pray tell, is "horrendously irresponsible" about using a form of protection that is "only" 99.9% effective?

Even taking the pill perfectly and using 2 forms of contraceptives you can get pregnant. Nothing is fool proof.

You people seem to be missing the point of Mas here. He is playing Devil's Advocate. So don't attack him directly. Challenge his views though.

His views are quite strange but he has some valid points that made me think...I've actually thought alot about what I would do in each situation and everyone has brought up valid points that I am not sure what I would do if I was put in that situation.

Cost. That of your emotions, your time, the time of someone else, and the life of another that, given that single celled organisms are life forms, does exist.

1 in a thousand is nothing in the grand scheme of things, given how common an occurance a sexual act is. Because of the simple fact that because so many people are having sex, 1 in a thousand probability means it may have happened many times over the last week. 1 in a million, however, would mean it happens once for every thousand times it normally does. 1000 times as little time wasted on someone who did not want to spend the few minutes and dollars on using an actual form of contraception.

Also, I was under the assumption that Pyratekk meant no protection at all.

Why use protection at all then? After all, it might not work!

How common the occurance of a sexual act is has nothing to do with it. That figure means that one out of a thousand women who have sex regularly using the pill as their sole method of contraception will become pregnant after a year.



Why stop at two forms? Why not three or four? By saying that using only one form is "horrendously irresponsible" and using two forms isn't, you're drawing an arbitrary line. Why not use more in order to truly be responsible?



The pill isn't an actual form of contraception now, is it? In what universe?

Firstly, perfect use is unlikely. How many people do you know that can take a pill at the same time every single day? I would think the lower-bound (1 in twenty) is more accurate.
Secondly, prove this is an annual rating, and not per pill. I am highly suspicious of this interpretation.

Indeed! Why not? Just because three is less effort than two, and some people can not even be bothered with one. Even then, is an abortion really easier than using that much contraceptive, or does abortion simply pander to one's wont for procrastination?

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01...appendix_01.pdf




...Did you think that they asked people participating in contraceptive studies to count how many sexual acts they experienced before becoming pregnant?

1. OK, so 2 in 25.

2. Fair enough

Yes actually. By neglecting to state whether or not all of these women had sex at all, I could say that the 8 that got pregnant were the only 8 to have sex. Or, if I were to say something plausible, those 8 were only ones who reported results and had sex regularly.

I don't know if any one necessarily said that it's horrendously irresponsible, just that if you do choose to only use one form you should not be ignorant of the consquences your actions might have. If you realize the risks being taken using no birth control or only one type, and the person you are having sex with also realizes the risks and you have a plan of action of those things were to ever happen...then of course there is no problem with participating in the act. However, to be completely ignorant of the possible consquences of your actions and then trying to use abortion as some sort of emergency contraceptive is a bit well...unnerving.

Mas seemed to say that it's "horrendously irresponsible" to only use one form of protection unless you agree to not have an abortion if you get pregnant.

I agree with everything you're saying.

I thought I was saying it was irresponsible to not use any at all. Meh.

I don't know, but abortion is just wrong...you are agreeing to terminate, in other words, murder an innocent child.

now even if you were raped, which means that the child would NOT be conceived in love, but there is now a child involved, people think that it is okay to have an abortion. but WHAT DID THE CHILD DO? they didn't do anything...but their mommy is going to end there life.

abortion should be illegeal, but then again, if that was to happen, there are plenty of morons out there that would just try and HARM themselves inorder for them to have a miscarriage.

As in the homosexual topic we have pretty much annihilated all your arguements over the past 64 pages. Come up with something new.

sorry...i was just trying to share my view on it..i'll try to never let it happen again..

I just I get mad when people say that they would never have one, until you have been put in the situation you never know...

i wouldn't want to be put in that situation. i would never put my baby in that situation.

you've said stuff like that before in this topic, why, have you had one before?

EDIT::
&& the only reason I am asking is because why are you saying that you get mad about it, when you've said it before...because it seems as if you were directing that at me. So please explain...

ahem . I may be on the pro-life side here but I have learned to keep my oppinion to myself.

Have you ever been pregnant? especially with an unplanned child , and been so scared that you didn't know what was gunna happen to your life after that? or what would happen to your child if you decided to have it??

personally I would not have one, but that is only because I have miscarried and would be afraid that I may never have another child again. but you have never been... so you have no standing point in your arguement.

And if you were in that sitch it would be your own fault, so you can't say "I wouldn't want to be put in that situation" and if you never got pregnant you wouldn't have to put the baby( fetus, etc.) in that situation. In my mind you would be the exact candidate for an abortion. nuff said.