Gallup Pro-life/choice

FreeEnterprise wrote: choopie911 wrote: Dunbar wrote: Abortion is sick and wrong. you know how they do that crap? they flip the baby around, so the head is still in the womb, they stick a needle in the baby's neck, at the base of the skull and in the spinal cord, and suck the spinal fluid right out of the baby. If you still think abortion is right you must be one very sick individual. You know what is worse than that? When a child is born to a home that can't support it, or doesn't want it. Abortions aren't just because think a baby is inconvenient at the moment. And besides, the procedure doesn't change a thing for me, I'm still completely pro choice.     Oh, please. That is the worst argument for pro choice...   I have a good friend who was almost aborted. His mom was raped, and she didn't want to have him...   He is a great guy, and has started a very successful company, and his mother loves him very much, and is super close to him still...  And she can't believe she even considered killing him before he was born.           BTW. he looks just like the rapist who was convicted of multiple rapes and is in jail.     Even with the best of circumstances life is hard. Why is it so easy to kill a child in our world?

I'm calling shens on this one.

I agree on the shens. Even if it isn't shens then that is probably a rarity.

Why should a woman who was raped and got pregnant have to father a child from that rape? A child who when grown could bear resemblance to the man who raped her.

Making it illegal would also bring completely unwanted children into the world. Probably not a significant number, but some. Children who will either be left in the trash to die(has happened), or left at a hospital costing the government money. This is not to mention people that may not be able to support a child also receiving welfare checks, who may have wanted to abort but couldn't/

Also, it is wrong for someone who may have taken the proper procedures with condoms and whatnot. They could have an accident. Should they have to have a child because of an accident?

Assisted suicide is so much different than abortion, I don't even know how you can relate the two.

I'm amazed at how this is still considered a black and white issue. Myself, I'm Pro life.....for the most part, though I believe that there are probably extenuating circumstances which might dictate the necessity of an abortion.

However, those that are pro choice because a baby is 'inconvenient' or would be a burden, I don't get at all. I'm a pretty firm believer that someone who aborts because of these reasons....already made the choice to go ahead and get pregnant in the first place. and aborting is an easy way out. Abstain, protect, whatever, just don't be so damned irresponsible with your body in the first place, and you wouldn't have to make the freakin 'choice'

Situation: You go ahead and get pregnant on a one night, unprotected stand. A baby is inconvenient, so you decide to abort. You're irresponsible and take the easy way out of a bad situation, effectively freeing you of the consequences of your actions, also freeing you up to make more stupid decisions, 'just because you can' The flippant disregard for what is (or will become for those of you who don't consider a fetus a human) a human life is pretty disturbing to me.

If its not a medical reason, result of a rape or incest....I can't get behind it.

That's my two cents.


Edited by Reb Cpl - 19 May 2009 at 7:27pm

jmac3 wrote: If they're so irresponsible that they got pregnant, why would they be any more responsible once having a child?

I totally agree. Besides, we already have enough stupid people, we don't need more

You'd think in the land of choice and freedom this would be a non-issue...

Yeah, that sounds about right

Pro-choice is the only acceptable option for a national government to take.

The choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is the responsibility of the parents (or potential parents).

Abortion should never be viewed as the easy way out, or a method of birth contraceptive, however. Which is what I think many pro-lifer's think others (pro-choicers) view it as. Maybe some do, they shouldn't be alive.

As for the method of abortion, it's a little more complicated than sticking a needle into the fetus's neck and extracting the fluid ...

There are several methods, all dependent on the development of the fetus. There is the medical approach, which is a non-invasive procedure during the first trimester, representing about 10% of abortions in the us. The surgical approach is a little more tricky. The more common methods are vacuum aspiration and menstrual extraction. Inducing premature births, and stopping the body processes of the fetus are used if the development is far enough along.

I personally think there is a point during the third (or second - not positive of the exact progression) trimester where it should be illegal to perform an abortion though. That is where the line should be drawn.


Edited by Bolt3 - 19 May 2009 at 10:34pm

jmac3 wrote: Also, it is wrong for someone who may have taken the proper procedures with condoms and whatnot. They could have an accident. Should they have to have a child because of an accident?

It could be viewed essentially as a safety net, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that. But like anything, it becomes a problem when it's abused and used incorrectly. It's a serious procedure both mentally and physically. It takes a mature person to do it, or not do it. And if that person is not mature, they will be after it's over.

The whole issue of abortion is iffy, morals, religion, culture, etc. Which is why the government should really not be able to have much say on it.

That is a good point. Just because abortion is available does not mean it will be used as a method of birth control. People still use the pill, and condoms, frequently both. Accidents happen.

jmac3 wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: Why should someone who isn't even born yet pay the price for another person's transgressions? Because they aren't even born yet.

So they're fair game for punishment for someone else's issues? That's a pretty lame ass way to weasel your way out of consequences for mistakes you might make.

Why does that strike me as paramount to throwing a virgin into a volcano in order to purify a whole village of their transgressions?