Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

The powerful mind of the Brainwashed Kneegrow never fails to amaze me.

Faheem IF this is the hardship that a child will eventually face WHAT DO YOU PLACE UPON THE BACKS OF THE MOTHER and the FELLA that will have sex with her as to the CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS?

I keep trying to feel out you and your running buddy Noah. You all are NOT naturalists. You are not inclined to be seen at reggae concerts chewing on a root conversing with a measure of spirituality about you.

You both are classical LIBERALS.

You operate off of your ideology than you pay attention to the END RESULTS of what you believe.

When are you going to start CHERISHING that Black baby that God has created for the couple who has pro-created? When are you going to see that ONLY THE DEFENSE OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THIS GIFT WAS CREATED IS GOING TO DELIVER US A "KING" TO LEAD THE MASSES FORWARD?

Instead you IMMEDIATELY talk about how THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO FEED SOMEBODY'S KID.

If the God-verment fails to do it's job WHERE ARE YOU AND THE REST OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY TO STEP IN AND TAKE OVER?

Why do you look to the same government that ENSLAVED YOU to now FEED YOUR DAMNED KIDS?


You ask where are me and the rest of the community, if I am not mistaken, this includes you as well, so where ever you are that's where I am and where ever I am that's where you are. Your point is timely and understood and speaks more to what I have written than you think. When I wrote earlier (those who wish to stop a woman from having an abortion should be ready to help care for that child) is actually in agreement with your asking where am I, but more importantly where are those in our community like yourself, Rowe and everyone in this thread who are anti-abortionist that wish to seek if not force a woman to give birth to a child she admittedly states she is incapable of caring for? You and Rowe and the rest of the anti-abortionist are hiding behind the silly argument; it is not my responsibility to care for other people children but yet find it your responsibility to force that woman and man to have a child they do not want, I guess that's where your responsibility ends.

I am not asking nor seeking help from the government to feed my children, I feed my children and do what I can to help other people feed their children and that's why I can speak intelligently to this issue. I can feed my children and if I was unable to feed them, I know I could not count on Negro men and women like you to help feed my child nor can I count on the government. I understand this and the man and woman who has chosen to kill their child in the womb knows this.

BTW, I didn't know you Negro-Cons still believed in a deliverer being that you consistently tell Black folk that one is not coming but maybe you are just engaging in verbal masturbations.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
However these same individuals have taken it upon themselves to take responsibility and action in many cases as to rather [whether] or not this person has the child but upon birth they remove themselves after injecting themselves into the lives of other folk.


Honestly, I don't care if Rowe vs. Wade gets overtuned, and I would never take actions to prevent someone from having an abortion. I consider myself a preventionist, and what I've emphasized here is prevention. People need to understand that everything you do has consequences. And if do not want to find yourself in a jam, then there are precautions that you can take so that you won't have find yourself having to deal with this problem in the first place.

quote:
Any arguments about precautions is irrelevant when talking about abortion. It makes little sense to say to a pregnant woman, take precaution so that you will not get pregnant. Women who take precaution don't get pregnant in most cases.


I expected this response, and I strongly disagree with it. Have you not considered those young men and women who have yet to have children? Educating teens and young adults, for example, about how very important it is to take precautions when participating in sexual activity outside of marriage can deter some folks from turning in abortion-dependent adults. And what of those men and women who consistently find themselves pregnant with babies they cannot afford? Shouldn't something be done to control this irresponsible behavior, which ultimately impacts us all?



Rowe, I am shocked, maybe everyone else did not notice but I sure as hell noticed. I can't believe you had the galls to do it but what should I expect. What am I talking about? I am talking about you taking my words chopping them up to fit a response you expected that was not from me as to give you an opportunity to respond to something that was not said.

Not only did you chop my words up, you added punctuation to make it appear as if what you quoted was actually what I said. This is an egregious act on your part Rowe and sister I have lost all respect for you.

You quoted me as saying;

quote:
Any arguments about precautions is irrelevant when talking about abortion. It makes little sense to say to a pregnant woman, take precaution so that you will not get pregnant. Women who take precaution don't get pregnant in most cases.



But that is not what I said, and the reason you did not quote me correctly is because what I wrote was fool proof, meaning you could not refute it without changing it. Here is what I really said which renders your response irrelevant.

quote:
Lastly, any arguments about precautions is irrelevant when talking about abortion, being that for an abortion to happen pregnancy will have to be the reality we are dealing with, and thus taking precaution is no longer on the table because the woman is pregnant.


You made it appear as if I was against teaching preventive methods to children who have not had children which is completely false and what I actually wrote confirms this. You Rowe are a scoundrel!
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
Rowe, I am shocked, maybe everyone else did not notice but I sure as hell noticed. What am I talking about? I am talking about you taking my words chopping them up to fit a response you expected that was not from me. You Rowe are a scoundrel!


Listen brother, I did NOTHING to your statements other than put in brackets the word whether, because you mistakingly wrote rather instead. I added no punctuation marks, no additional words, or comments to your original statements.

So that readers won't have to reread entire statements again and again, in a quote, I usually only include those parts of a response that I feel sums up what the responder has written. I delete those parts of the response that are redundant and repetitive. If you must know, sometimes your writing gets all jumbled up with a lot of run-on sentences, and so I merely clean up your statements so that readers can read your writing better (see quote above for an example). You should be grateful that I do that for you, not be mad at me. Lastly, I don't think that you're against prevention, and I never did. I'm merely telling readers where I stand on this issue. That's all.

I think you need to give me an apology. NOW.
Owe you an apology! Please, I am not talking about you correcting my use of a particular word, which truly was not necessary being that the point I was seeking to convey was understood, if you want to display your superior ability to use the proper word and spell that word correctly by all means do so, you definitely have come to the right place being that every thread on this forum is full of misspelled words and run on sentences.

The deleting of my words and adding punctuation I did not use does not sum up what I wrote it changes what I wrote again look at what I wrote and look at what you quoted me as writing.

My words:

quote:
Lastly, any arguments about precautions is irrelevant when talking about abortion, being that for an abortion to happen pregnancy will have to be the reality we are dealing with, and thus taking precaution is no longer on the table because the woman is pregnant.


Your quote:

quote:
Any arguments about precautions is irrelevant when talking about abortion. It makes little sense to say to a pregnant woman, take precaution so that you will not get pregnant. Women who take precaution don't get pregnant in most cases.


These are entirely two different statements, wouldn't you agree?

If you do not get it yet, the problem is I qualified my statement about teaching precaution in cases of abortion when I wrote for an abortion to happen a pregnancy must be the reality we are dealing with, hence it makes little sense to say to a pregnant woman take precautions so you don't get pregnant.

Next time, if you going to quote me, quote me properly.

If anyone should be apologizing it is you, for taking my words and using them as you "feel".
quote:
Lastly, any arguments about precautions is irrelevant when talking about abortion, being that for an abortion to happen pregnancy will have to be the reality we are dealing with, and thus taking precaution is no longer on the table


I like how you put this into perspective and agree to a point.

However, the argument of precaution is NOT irrelevant. Yes after the fact and dealing with a pregnancy it may be irrelevant, but on the topic of abortion itself it is still very relevant.

Abortion is or at least has been turned into a form of birth control. So if we can argue vigorously for THIS form of birth control then we can and should talk about all forms.

If a women can agonize over the "choice" to terminate a child then why not agonize over the "choice" BEFORE getting pregnant.

I don't believe in accidental pregnancy. Even the dumbest, naïve young persons get the general process of how babies are made.

Too many of us "choice" to be irresponsible. We "choice" to engage in unprotected sex.

And whatever happened to the option for adoption? Why has it come so unacceptable to encourage unwanted pregnancies to be carried to term and then the children be given to someone who will want to take on the responsibilities of raising them?
You said a fetus is like a finger. Its funny that since a fetus is so much like a finger, that it has fingers, a heart, and everything else. I didn't know a finger had a heart... Humm. At 6 weeks, you can hear a babies heart beat. I'm not trying to force women to have babies. But rather take responsibility for their actions. I do not think there should be abortion clinics. That's my thought, and I could care less if Roe v Wade was overturned.
If your unmarried and poor, get birth control, use a condom.


Like I said, there are only about 5 fertile days in the month that a woman can get pregnant for the vast majority of women. So, if more women were educated about pregnancy maybe they wouldn't get pregnant so easily and use abortion as an easy way to cover up their mistake.

Dick + Pussy = Baby... So, if you look at the statistics below then if they understood those simple mathmatics, maybe these people would take more caution. I'm all about preventing pregnancy, but if you get pregnant I DON'T THINK ITS RIGHT to abort. That's my opinion. You won't change it.

25% of women want to postpone pregnancy, but many women don't understand how abortions traumatize the womb and with repeated abortions make it less likely to have a successful pregnancy in the future.

Here are some statistics about abortion:

Age - The majority of women getting an abortion are young.

52% are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)
Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.
Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.
Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.
Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
quote:
Originally posted by Texas Star:
Dick + Pussy = Baby... So, if you look at the statistics below then if they understood those simple mathmatics, maybe these people would take more caution. I'm all about preventing pregnancy, but if you get pregnant I DON'T THINK ITS RIGHT to abort. That's my opinion. You won't change it.


Great! Then don't have an abortion...You have my blessing Smile
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Overturning Roe is going to lead to criminalizing black folk at an even steeper rate than we have at the present.


If (emphasis on IF because I remember reading somewhere that there are more WHITE women having abortions than Black women) this is true, then what does that tell us "Black folks" need to do? Less baby-making and more educating perhaps? It's worth considering.


What white people are doing is absolutely irrelevant to my point. Statistics also show that white drug use is comparable to or even exceeds black drug use. But everyone knows that black folk are disproportionately punished for it. And we will be in this instance too at the very least because whites (who tend to have greater resources) will have greater access to safe illegal abortion or legal abortion elsewhere.

My statement is true regardless of what white people are doing....

Also, I would love if you didn't preach education and responsibilty to me AS IF I were against those things. I am for BOTH responsible and informed sexuality AND reproductive freedom.

I am for creating a world in which we minimize the number of abortions... But I also believe that ultimatedly it is no one else's business whether any particular person wishes or does not wish to have an abortion. If you're against it. Beautiful. Don't have one. You've made a choice for yourself. That's what I'm all about.

Disclosure: I personally wouldn't advocate an abortion for my partner if I found myself in that situation. It happened to me once (and once only) and I know the pain it can cause. I vowed to myself never again. If my partner wishes to have the child, I will accept whatever 'inconvenience' it caused rather than go through that again.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Texas Star:
Dick + Pussy = Baby... So, if you look at the statistics below then if they understood those simple mathmatics, maybe these people would take more caution. I'm all about preventing pregnancy, but if you get pregnant I DON'T THINK ITS RIGHT to abort. That's my opinion. You won't change it.


Great! Then don't have an abortion...You have my blessing Smile

yeah

Texas Star, no one is trying to change your mind, because no one has any interest in telling you what to do with your body. It's not as if po-choice people are telling you that you have to have an abortion because the world is overpopulated. The reason no one is telling you that is because it sounds just a silly as your anti-abortion rhetoric.
quote:
Originally posted by Texas Star:
You said a fetus is like a finger. Its funny that since a fetus is so much like a finger, that it has fingers, a heart, and everything else. I didn't know a finger had a heart... Humm. At 6 weeks, you can hear a babies heart beat. I'm not trying to force women to have babies. But rather take responsibility for their actions. I do not think there should be abortion clinics. That's my thought, and I could care less if Roe v Wade was overturned.
If your unmarried and poor, get birth control, use a condom.



TexasStar, if a woman getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for her actions, than what is it? Clearly the woman has concluded for whatever reasons she does not want a child thus she kills the child in her womb, thus doing the responsible thing in her eyes to prevent her from being in a situation she does not want to be in.


quote:
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health


Very insightful.

Should the 25.5% of women who have an abortion as a means of postponing child bearing have the child because you are anti-abortion?

Should the 21.3% of women who believe they can not afford the child have the child because you are anti-abortion?

Maybe they should all stop having sex because you are anti-abortion, and after that maybe they can structure their whole life around things that are near and dear to your heart.
More babies will be born. A disproportionate percentage will be to minority women and lower-class whites, many of whom are financially unstable. The ultra conservatives will then start bitching about people who "breed 'em but can't feed them", and about the general poverty and overcrowdness of urban areas, as well as their further dwindling numbers (let's be real, most ultra conservatives are whitebread). The funny thing is that they will truly not connect the ban on abortion with the rise of lower-class minorities and "whitetrash". Funny, how life is so sacred to these jerks, but only when it's in the womb. Once the fetus is a child, the the parents are irresponsible for having a kid they can't afford, and they (conservatives) will be damned if any of their tax money goes to actually helping a poor woman feed, clothe, and educate a child she was forced to bare. Also notice how, when the inevitable increase of deaths from backroom abortions increase, suddenly life won't be that precious. No, the women who die will just be more "trash" and even if not expressly stated, many UCs will have the attitude that it's better such children weren't born to "those kind of people". Hypocrites.

If anyone's ever been to stormfront, you'll see that their number one reason to ban abortion is because the white birthrate in the US is stagnating, and in western Europe they aren't even having enough children to replace themselves. What they don't take into account is that far more minority women have abortions in relation to their total numbers than white women, so in the end they'll be double screwed because there'll be even more people to use the dwindling resources for this planet, and even less of them will be white.
This is kinda off topic, but has anyone else noticed that many of those who scream the loudest against abortion don't find life sacred enough to move them to adopt children, or send aid money overseas to the millions of starving kids already on the planet. Ask them what they think about the genocide in darfur, you'll draw a blank look. Ask them what they have done to get medicine and clean water in some rural Asian village, you won't get a reply. Heck, some of these same people are such classist that they would never let their children play with the little brown kids and white trash. yeth through all this, they feel they have a divine righ to force women to have children. Grrrrrrrrr.......
quote:
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:
I like how you put this into perspective and agree to a point.

However, the argument of precaution is NOT irrelevant. Yes after the fact and dealing with a pregnancy it may be irrelevant, but on the topic of abortion itself it is still very relevant.

Abortion is or at least has been turned into a form of birth control. So if we can argue vigorously for THIS form of birth control then we can and should talk about all forms.

If a women can agonize over the "choice" to terminate a child then why not agonize over the "choice" BEFORE getting pregnant.

I don't believe in accidental pregnancy. Even the dumbest, naïve young persons get the general process of how babies are made.

Too many of us "choice" to be irresponsible. We "choice" to engage in unprotected sex.


If birth control is used properly, the chances of an unintentional conception are very slim, but still there nonetheless. Condoms break. The pill is on occassion faulty. I agree with your sentiment that a lot of "accidental" pregnancies are due to irresponsibility, but not all are.
quote:

And whatever happened to the option for adoption? Why has it come so unacceptable to encourage unwanted pregnancies to be carried to term and then the children be given to someone who will want to take on the responsibilities of raising them?

Because pregnancy is a huge stress on the female body, and not to mention a drain on the checkbook. Even giving up the child doesn't prevent the physical and possibly financial hardship of brining a fetus to term. Also consider that the overwhelning majority of Black orphans are NEVER adopted or raised in permanent, loving homes.
I dont believe in Abortion and if its the law is overturned good. how can you say its murder to kill someone outside the womb but its not murder to kill the baby in the womb? if you all didnt know since Row vs Wade was law over 15 million black babies have been aborted. 15 million and i do not believe financial situations should be a prerequisite for a baby to be allowed to live and grow, at least give the child a fighting change to make it
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
I dont believe in Abortion and if its the law is overturned good. how can you say its murder to kill someone outside the womb but its not murder to kill the baby in the womb? if you all didnt know since Row vs Wade was law over 15 million black babies have been aborted. 15 million and i do not believe financial situations should be a prerequisite for a baby to be allowed to live and grow, at least give the child a fighting change to make it


Fine, then don't have one. That's your right and that's your choice. But don't attempt to tell others women what to do with their bodies.
where did i try to tell women what to do with their bodies? Fortunately i cant have an abortion since i am a man but i do believe men should have some say so over a procedure that can change his life. Why is it only the women who can decide to have the child or not and the man has no say so. But if she wants to have it he is responsible to pay for 18 years? If its the womans right to choose it should also be the mans right to choose if he wants to be a father or not , its only right
quote:
Because pregnancy is a huge stress on the female body, and not to mention a drain on the checkbook.

So knowing all this, the BEST option is to continue the irresponsible behavior, have unprotected sex, get pregnant, and then kill the unborn child?

I see...since this "mistake" would be an "inconvenience" to the mother and possible to society we correct this with rationalizing the destruction unborn children.

We don't work towards a more civilized way of dealing with unwanted pregnancy. We don't promote safe sex, preparing one self to take on the financial responsibilities of having children, that would mean people taking responsibility for their actions and we can't have that.

I'm sorry the "they are taking responsibility for their actions by realizing that they can't take care of a child and therefore are "do the right thing" by aborting the fetus" argument doesn't fly.

They're coping out at the expense of the unborn child.

I understand that not all pregnancies are from being irresponsible but I'm doubtful that the majority of the pregnancies are due to rape, incest, or are a treat to the mother's life.

Also, we should also take into consideration that one thing that cause the need for abortion was the stigma of getting pregnant outside of marriage.

I don't really see that being an issue anymore. So we seem to have gone for women "needing" the abortion option to save themselves from embarrassment to save them from being "inconvienenced".
quote:
So knowing all this, the BEST option is to continue the irresponsible behavior, have unprotected sex, get pregnant, and then kill the unborn child?


NO. In an earlier reply I noted that many women do tend to use abortion as a means of birth control instead of just practicing responsble prevention. However, what reason do I have to believe that once a woman gets an aborton, she will regularly use it instead of contraceptives? If anything, the likeliness of this decreases because abortions are very stressful to the female body, and repeated abortions effect the ability of a woman to conceive. You haven't established a link between a woman getting an abortion, and using it as a regular means of birth control.

quote:
They're coping out at the expense of the unborn child.


Well, like I said in the previous post, it depends on how you define "child". I'm against "partial birth abortion" because it usually happens at a time when the fetus is more or less fully developed and the woman had carried it so far into term, that it makes more sense to just give it away then and there. I have a different take when a woman is one month along because at this point, it's a little piece of tissue floating around. If a woman were to go into spontaneous labor at 8 months, the fetus would likely be fine and healthy if it got medical care, and perhaps even if it hadn't. If you try that at 4 weeks, then what is expelled is bits of tissue--a miscarriage.

quote:
We don't work towards a more civilized way of dealing with unwanted pregnancy. We don't promote safe sex, preparing one self to take on the financial responsibilities of having children, that would mean people taking responsibility for their actions and we can't have that.

Just because I am in favor of a woman's right to choose doesn't mean I'm against better sex education and more readily available preparation should the situation arise. You're framing this as a "this or that" situation.

Just out of curiosity, how many children have you personally adopted? How much money have you pumped into orphanages, and I mean not in taxes but voluntary "leisure" money? I know that sounds like I'm picking a fight, and I'm sorry, but sometimes I can't get over how people can campaign on the "children are precious" issue, and then do didly squat to actually help children. If you do practice what you preach, then I admire you greatly. If not, why?
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
so instead of dealing with my post you turn the topic to something technical. when the baby is concieved, when the sperm penitrates the egg and fertilizes it to form a embryo life has begun.


Well, I asked because that's the heart of the issue: you make it sound as if people are all joyous about killing children, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees on the definition of a child. I'm not avoiding the issue, but getting to the point that many who are pro-abortion honestly don't see feti at certain stages as being actual human beings. Expelling a conglomerate of tissue at the 5th week of pregancy is not murder, IMO, because it;s not even human. The argument against that, of course, is that it has the potential to become human. Consider this: is a redwood seed a redwood tree? Would you bemoan the loss of a redwood seed the same you would a giant sequoia?

Of course the logical question would be "then when is it human", and that's where all the arguents start. I am personally against abortions after the first trimester (although I wouldn't wish to dictate what another woman does with her own body). My reasons:

*A fetus can't not feel pain until about the seventh month of pregnancy. While the nerve tissue develops earlier, the synapses do not connect until around 27 months into the term.
Anand, K.J.S. & P.R. Hickey. "Pain and Its Effects In the Human Neonate and Fetus." New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 317, #21 (19.November.1987): pp. 1321-1329

*A fetus doesnt gain awareness until around the same time that it gains pain perception, since these brain processes are all inter-related.

*A fetus is not viable outside the womb before 28 weeks. While possible to live with the aid of lots of medical technology, fetii under 6.5 months are not fully developed. By 32 weeks, a premature baby differs little from a baby who was gestated to full term, except in size.

*Almost 90% of women have abortions in their first trimester anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
I dont believe in Abortion and if its the law is overturned good. how can you say its murder to kill someone outside the womb but its not murder to kill the baby in the womb?


I guess the key issue is exactly when a fetus is a "child". Upon conception? At 5 months? At viability? At actual birth?

Folks, this is not about whether or not abortion is murder. This is not about when a fetus becomes a child, or when life begins.

This is about control.

There is only one difference between a born child and an unborn child. That difference is the womb. Killing an unborn child is not the same as killing one that is born. If a woman has a child that she unable (or unwilling) to take care of, there are things that we, as a community, can do for that child. It is possible for someone to step in and care for the child. Someone can feed him, clothe him, change his diaper, ect. But, so long as the child is still in the womb, we can't do any of those things. We have no control. Nothing is going to change that. There is no possible way to make a woman take a baby full term if she doesn't want to.

All the anti-abortionists that keep restating their own choice, that they would never do it, are displaying their control over their bodies, while simultaneously trying to use their control over themselves to justify trying to control someone else. Can we smell the hypocricy yet?

Again, this is about control. If it's your body, you're on the field with the ball in your hands. If it's not your body, then you're watching from the sidelines. The woman on the field is not required to care about what you think, even if you're the father. This is one of the perks of being a woman, being the actual bearer of life and all.

We can argue about whether or not abortion is right or wrong, moral or immoral, until the end of time. It will have no effect on who is actually in the driver's seat.
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
so instead of dealing with my post you turn the topic to something technical. when the baby is concieved, when the sperm penitrates the egg and fertilizes it to form a embryo life has begun.


Well, I asked because that's the heart of the issue: you make it sound as if people are all joyous about killing children, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees on the definition of a child. I'm not avoiding the issue, but getting to the point that many who are pro-abortion honestly don't see feti at certain stages as being actual human beings. Expelling a conglomerate of tissue at the 5th week of pregancy is not murder, IMO, because it;s not even human. The argument against that, of course, is that it has the potential to become human. Consider this: is a redwood seed a redwood tree? Would you bemoan the loss of a redwood seed the same you would a giant sequoia?

Of course the logical question would be "then when is it human", and that's where all the arguents start. I am personally against abortions after the first trimester (although I wouldn't wish to dictate what another woman does with her own body). My reasons:

*A fetus can't not feel pain until about the seventh month of pregnancy. While the nerve tissue develops earlier, the synapses do not connect until around 27 months into the term.
Anand, K.J.S. & P.R. Hickey. "Pain and Its Effects In the Human Neonate and Fetus." New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 317, #21 (19.November.1987): pp. 1321-1329

*A fetus doesnt gain awareness until around the same time that it gains pain perception, since these brain processes are all inter-related.

*A fetus is not viable outside the womb before 28 weeks. While possible to live with the aid of lots of medical technology, fetii under 6.5 months are not fully developed. By 32 weeks, a premature baby differs little from a baby who was gestated to full term, except in size.

*Almost 90% of women have abortions in their first trimester anyway.


If I recall correctly: Technically, "pregnancy" doesn't even begin until two weeks after fertilization when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall.
No a man may never be able to control a womans body,but he should be able to control weather or not if he wants to be a father. How can you on the one hand say a man has to take care of his responsibility when a woman gets pregnant, but all a woman has to do is abort it if she doesnt want to be a mother.How does that make a man feel who wants to be there for his child who wants to be a father and have his baby killed because its inconvience for a woman. I can really understand why brothers act the way they do sometimes
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
How does that make a man feel who wants to be there for his child who wants to be a father and have his baby killed because its inconvience for a woman.

You missed the point, ZAKAR. She is not required to care about how you feel. If she cares about how you feel, then you will have a say. If she doesn't, then you won't. She is the woman, not you. She is the bearer of life, not you.

Listen, I do feel you. I desperately want to be a father. I don't want to live this entire life having missed out on one of the major factors that makes this life worth living. But, in order to do that, I must find a woman that also wants to be a mother. If I can't find that, then I'll resign myself to the inevitable.

Maybe next time around...
quote:
I know that sounds like I'm picking a fight, and I'm sorry, but sometimes I can't get over how people can campaign on the "children are precious" issue, and then do didly squat to actually help children. If you do practice what you preach, then I admire you greatly. If not, why?


Open minded honest debate and expression isn't a fight in my book. Wink

My wife and I have discussed adopting a child at some point. We have just had our first child and are still adjusting AND deciding on if we will try to have another. We are also trying to orgainize our finances in order to do more to help other including sponsoring a child from a third world nation.

So I agree that more people, including myself need to do more to help children. Yes there is a cost to take care of unwanted children...but we shouldn't downplay or overlook the "cost" we pay as a society for sanctioning abortion as an option.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
These are entirely two different statements, wouldn't you agree?


Doesn't matter. You, Faheem, wrote both of those quoted statements, and I will address whatever parts of your statement that I see fit. I don't do anything different than what others on the forum are doing: Responding to parts of people's statements that they feel are important enough to address. And in this instance, I have chosen to respond to those parts of your statement with which I disagree.

quote:
If you do not get it yet, the problem is I qualified my statement about teaching precaution in cases of abortion when I wrote for an abortion to happen a pregnancy must be the reality we are dealing with, hence it makes little sense to say to a pregnant woman take precautions so you don't get pregnant.


What you've written here is not clear. "You qualify teaching precautions by writing for an abortion to happen a pregnancy must be the reality we are dealing with, hence it makes little sense to say to a pregnant woman take precautions so you don't get pregnant." Exactly how are you teaching readers the importance of taking precautions in this statement? It reads as if you are simply making a point not instructing anyone on anything. In any case, you do realize that a couple can get pregnant, again? Therefore, as I said before, if a man or woman is incapable of caring for their own children, regardless of the number of children the couple already has, they both need to take precautions.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:
So I agree that more people, including myself need to do more to help children. My wife and I have discussed adopting a child at some point.


I happen to agree with your position on this topic, and I don't think you should have to justify your position to anyone. Adopting children is an admiral thing to do, but you don't have to adopt a load of children in order to stress the importance of preventing unwanted pregnancy by taking precautions. You have a right to express your opinion like everyone else.
quote:
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:
Open minded honest debate and expression isn't a fight in my book. Wink

My wife and I have discussed adopting a child at some point. We have just had our first child and are still adjusting AND deciding on if we will try to have another. We are also trying to orgainize our finances in order to do more to help other including sponsoring a child from a third world nation.

So I agree that more people, including myself need to do more to help children. Yes there is a cost to take care of unwanted children...but we shouldn't downplay or overlook the "cost" we pay as a society for sanctioning abortion as an option.


You and you're wife are admiral people! bow

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×