TUP Wrestling Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Random Chat > General Chat > Serious Topics
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Abortions
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Abortions

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
Message
Pac-Man View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
2008 Hall Of Famer "The Champ"

Joined: 06/March/2006
Location: This Town.
Status: Offline
Points: 8105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pac-Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29/June/2010 at 01:26
You make two mistakes in there, Kon. First off, my argument is that life beginning at conception and abortion being murder is something half the populace is not convinced of, therefore you cannot force them to comply with it. It's not about whether murder is totally and completely wrong, that's pretty much understood by anyone who's not within the walls of a psych ward and plenty that are. Abortion being equal to murder, on the other hand, is not understood by a vast relative majority of people in the United States. You can fish out a pro-conservative number to suggest mostly everyone thinks it's murder if you look for it hard enough, but then so can anyone fish out a pro-liberal number that suggests mostly everyone believes that until a fetus can breathe outside the womb a virus is no less an independent life. That is what creates the problem. Under pro-choice laws, those who think of it as murder have the choice not to practice in it or to convince others that it is wrong. Under pro-life laws, those who don't consider it murder do not have that chance.

You started to get on the right track about it when you mentioned how a resolution would be voted on in order to be brought in. Now if this were agreed on by a vote that was not limited to the Congressmen or to any one city or state, it would be fair to say that a high enough percentage of folks consider it murder that treating it as such under federal law can be a good idea. But not only does your statement not imply something that goes that far, but you go on to use that slippery slope of legalizing murder, which would never happen in a sane society, to signify that the half of your country that disagrees with you basically is unfit to have a voice in determining the laws under which they and you live. That's not an implication that flies when you're on the limiting side. Remember, in the Orwellian society of Nineteen Eighty-Four, sex is limited to nothing more than a joyless scheduled activity to breed children under the control of a government party that has systematically bred fascism through manipulated the populace into fear and hate to be directed at everything but it.

Also, graphic shock and awe is not going to make your point any more valid whatsoever. One could easily point to articles and cases of people selling their children for Euros, pounds, dollars, etc. not within the millions, or the case of the UK's Baby P, where all those who were supposed to take care of him were complicit through abuse or inaction in his long, agonizing, violent death. If someone feels like they don't want a child and are in no way morally inclined to have it, I would rather they be able to have the choice to abort it (as long it's not partial birth) than be forced to go through the entire pregnancy, go on to hate the kid, and do something completely monstrous to him/her while he/she is breathing outside the womb. would rather an unwanted child be aborted of a baby that was had.

Moreover, we go back to prohibition and the War on Drugs. You say that these worked for society as a whole because less alcohol was consumed during prohibition and less drugs are used now during the War on Drugs. Unfortunately, you conveniently ignore what I've already pointed out - while reducing the amount of alcohol and drug users by 20%, the real mass effect of the whole approach that is switching from legal moderation to outright banning is that we've got an entire massive profitable industry turned over from the legal system into the hands of organized crime. Alcohol could no longer be guaranteed to be mildly safe in those days. There were people dying from one or two drinks of poisoned illegal alcohol in some cities back in those days that would never get through a legal moderated alcohol industry. And in this day in age, how many people have died from taking only one drug dosage that was toxically dosed while the dealer that sold it to them didn't even know it? Seriously. Ask any prominent member of any drug cartel what they think about the War on Drugs. If they're not in a position to kill you quickly, they will tell you that they love it and they completely laugh in its face. Would legal drug distributors ever be in a position to kill you for me to have to say it? Obviously, the answer is no. Because unlike the cartels, a legal chain wouldn't have to kill and walk over absolutely everyone to survive. And the ones that get caught, both dealers and addicts, are treated the same as violent criminals such as robbers, rapists, and even some murderers. They are thrown in similar prisons for similar sentences and under similar freedom-stripping conditions. And do you think prison cleans people up? No, it only corrupts them worse.

Speaking of which, do you really want to lump in women who cannot emotionally or financially handle the stress of being a mother and have no faith in the adoption system so they decide to get an abortion and spare the potential baby the pain of becoming another victim of life in the same vein as, say, Joran van der Sloot, or Ted Bundy, or Harris and Klebold from Columbine? Furthermore, since you created a slippery slope, I guess I can exercise the same myself. By definition, a murder is an intended, pre-meditated killing. A manslaughter is a killing that was not intended to be a killing. If abortion is legally treated as murder, does that leave room for legislation treating miscarriage as manslaughter? Does the woman who got impregnated in a rape whose assailant was thrown in jail a few weeks later go through the next five months carrying a fetus who turns out to be little else but a growing reminder of when she was violated, then fall down the stairs while woozy and depressed, lose the baby, and end up standing a chance of being thrown in the same prison as her rapist for an even longer period of time? If so, then criminalizing abortion could lead us closer to that aspect of the Orwell society than it may appear.

As for that girl? I'd like to answer her, quite frankly, and if I had the chance to talk to her on the subject, this is what I would tell her:
"No. Unless your mother lived in a country, city, state, province, or whatever, where she was forced by law to have you, then you do not have to justify you existence, because the fact that your mother chose to have you is all the justification you need. When people debate on the subject of legal abortion and say either "no, except" or "yes, especially" in cases of rape, they don't mean to say your mother automatically should have aborted you. They mean to say that this is where your mother, and no one else, should absolutely have all the final say in the world about whether she keeps you or not. People like you, who were actually chosen despite rape and who know through your upbringing that your mother loves you, are truly the fortunate sons and daughters in this world. Because your parents have passed the ultimate parenting test that life can possibly administer."
In a world where abortion was legal in its past but is no longer legal in its present, could you really expect every child to know they were wanted? To not wonder occasionally or even accuse their mother or father of having wished they could abort them as in earlier times if they ever have problems? Because I don't expect that. I expect every parent short of Holly Marie Combs to end up facing that accusation from their son or daughter in that world. And I can tell you right now, that accusation coming out of the mouths of my future children would likely piss me off. In the long run, the stripping of this liberty may damage the fabric of families… as it does in the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, where children are actually trained to detect and report their parents' thought-crimes.

Want less abortions? Don't start with the law. Start with the adoption system and make it fucking competent. Start with financial aid so that bearing a child will only cost one or two small fortunes instead of a thankless three or four. And start with the education that you, Kon, wisely speak of. But DO NOT start with making it a crime that can get people sent to jail for the rest of their lives or summarily executed. That step should only come as insurance, after the right to abortion has been truly de-necessitated in the eyes of the world at large.
Back to Top
Kondor View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Forum Moderator / Ticket Wars Founder

Joined: 02/June/2010
Location: Right here
Status: Offline
Points: 7020
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kondor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29/June/2010 at 11:41
Originally posted by Pac-Man Pac-Man wrote:

You make two mistakes in there, Kon. First off, my argument is that life beginning at conception and abortion being murder is something half the populace is not convinced of, therefore you cannot force them to comply with it. It's not about whether murder is totally and completely wrong, that's pretty much understood by anyone who's not within the walls of a psych ward and plenty that are. Abortion being equal to murder, on the other hand, is not understood by a vast relative majority of people in the United States. You can fish out a pro-conservative number to suggest mostly everyone thinks it's murder if you look for it hard enough, but then so can anyone fish out a pro-liberal number that suggests mostly everyone believes that until a fetus can breathe outside the womb a virus is no less an independent life. That is what creates the problem. Under pro-choice laws, those who think of it as murder have the choice not to practice in it or to convince others that it is wrong. Under pro-life laws, those who don't consider it murder do not have that chance.


You miss my point. If "half the populace is not convinced of" it; then I may have no choice but to live with abortion being legal and to speak out against it when I can (as I am); I am very well aware of how democracy works. I did not advocate not following the democratic process; in fact I described it. Elected officials vote up or down for various reasons... from their conscience to what they think their constituencies want to what they think will best get them elected. But IF what I want is passed; it would be through the democratic process. But if the pro life laws I want are in effect; "those who don't consider it murder" will not "have that chance" any less than anyone who disagrees with any other law; such as anyone might disagree with the controversial Arizona immigration law (which I might start a thread about actually) or the fact that they have to wear a seat belt when they drive. But the laws, Constitutional amendments, and Constitution itself was put there by the people; as were the officials who vote on all of them. Yes, people will disagree with any given law; but all I'm saying is that I want to see pro life laws in effect through the democratic process and voicing my opinion on it as a citizen.


Originally posted by Pac-Man Pac-Man wrote:

You started to get on the right track about it when you mentioned how a resolution would be voted on in order to be brought in. Now if this were agreed on by a vote that was not limited to the Congressmen or to any one city or state, it would be fair to say that a high enough percentage of folks consider it murder that treating it as such under federal law can be a good idea. But not only does your statement not imply something that goes that far, but you go on to use that slippery slope of legalizing murder, which would never happen in a sane society, to signify that the half of your country that disagrees with you basically is unfit to have a voice in determining the laws under which they and you live. That's not an implication that flies when you're on the limiting side. Remember, in the Orwellian society of Nineteen Eighty-Four, sex is limited to nothing more than a joyless scheduled activity to breed children under the control of a government party that has systematically bred fascism through manipulated the populace into fear and hate to be directed at everything but it.


Right, and I personally would consider any society that legalizes abortion to no be a "sane" society. Take that as you will.

But of course that's a generalization and I'd look at individual people before I judge them.

Originally posted by Pac_Man Pac_Man wrote:

Also, graphic shock and awe is not going to make your point any more valid whatsoever. One could easily point to articles and cases of people selling their children for Euros, pounds, dollars, etc. not within the millions, or the case of the UK's Baby P, where all those who were supposed to take care of him were complicit through abuse or inaction in his long, agonizing, violent death. If someone feels like they don't want a child and are in no way morally inclined to have it, I would rather they be able to have the choice to abort it (as long it's not partial birth) than be forced to go through the entire pregnancy, go on to hate the kid, and do something completely monstrous to him/her while he/she is breathing outside the womb. would rather an unwanted child be aborted of a baby that was had.


I am not happy with the baby trade; and of course I look down on it. But two points where that arguments works against you. One, that the fact that baby selling exists, for better or for worse, places only further value on life; and two, that (in most cases) once a baby does arrive via the baby trade it ends up in a loving home. I know there may be a few exceptions, but no more so than how many children are abused by their birth parents. In fact it's less so.

If someone does something monstrous to a (born) child, 
the problem lies with the individual person who does it. And I also ask you what the difference is between butchering a child after it's born than before it.

Originally posted by Pac-Man Pac-Man wrote:

Moreover, we go back to prohibition and the War on Drugs. You say that these worked for society as a whole because less alcohol was consumed during prohibition and less drugs are used now during the War on Drugs. Unfortunately, you conveniently ignore what I've already pointed out - while reducing the amount of alcohol and drug users by 20%, the real mass effect of the whole approach that is switching from legal moderation to outright banning is that we've got an entire massive profitable industry turned over from the legal system into the hands of organized crime. Alcohol could no longer be guaranteed to be mildly safe in those days. There were people dying from one or two drinks of poisoned illegal alcohol in some cities back in those days that would never get through a legal moderated alcohol industry. And in this day in age, how many people have died from taking only one drug dosage that was toxically dosed while the dealer that sold it to them didn't even know it? Seriously. Ask any prominent member of any drug cartel what they think about the War on Drugs. If they're not in a position to kill you quickly, they will tell you that they love it and they completely laugh in its face. Would legal drug distributors ever be in a position to kill you for me to have to say it? Obviously, the answer is no. Because unlike the cartels, a legal chain wouldn't have to kill and walk over absolutely everyone to survive.


I see your point. To tie in the pro life movement to the War On Drugs; if abortion were made illegal, then (who would then be) criminals would find their way around it and an underground abortion business would rise, as we had in the 1800's. Yet, I still maintain my stance that it would decrease the level of abortions nonetheless (and like I said before to save one life is worth it). Plus those illegal abortion clinics would be raided eventually as drug houses are. Plus while many are addicted to drugs and would seek to obtain them any way they could; this does not compare to abortion, which even pro choicers say is a hard thought of decision that a need for a fix would not influence although financial situations may (and that's why I brought up the programs I did).

Originally posted by Pac-Man Pac-Man wrote:

And the ones that get caught, both dealers and addicts, are treated the same as violent criminals such as robbers, rapists, and even some murderers. They are thrown in similar prisons for similar sentences and under similar freedom-stripping conditions. And do you think prison cleans people up? No, it only corrupts them worse.


Fine, then reform the prison system; which must be done anyway no matter what's made legal and illegal. I won't go into a slippery slope argument about how we should legalize (insert name of crime here) just because the prison system makes the perpetrators worse.

As I said, I wouldn't call drug use (nor even selling) comparable to abortion anyway because in the case of drug use one is only harming themselves and in the case of abortion you are harming someone else. So I agree with you on that point that an addict should not be treated the same as a murderer or a rapist. 

Originally posted by Pac-Man Pac-Man wrote:

Speaking of which, do you really want to lump in women who cannot emotionally or financially handle the stress of being a mother and have no faith in the adoption system so they decide to get an abortion and spare the potential baby the pain of becoming another victim of life in the same vein as, say, Joran van der Sloot, or Ted Bundy, or Harris and Klebold from Columbine?


At it's core, yes. But of course I'd look at every individual situation as we do anyway in the case of murder (of born people). If a man killed another man because he rapped his wife; neither society nor the legal system looks upon him in the same manner as they do a serial killer. Of course a mother who (it seems like) believes she is doing what is in the best interest of her child won't be looked at the same as a serial killer. Plus of course character witnesses will be brought in. I am still against abortion; but I won't see a mother in a situation like that the same.

And once again that's why I also advocated a reversion of the adaption system. Surely the Democratic Congress can authorize one for this good cause with all the money they like to spend.  


Originally posted by Pac-Man Pac-Man wrote:

Furthermore, since you created a slippery slope, I guess I can exercise the same myself. By definition, a murder is an intended, pre-meditated killing. A manslaughter is a killing that was not intended to be a killing. If abortion is legally treated as murder, does that leave room for legislation treating miscarriage as manslaughter? Does the woman who got impregnated in a rape whose assailant was thrown in jail a few weeks later go through the next five months carrying a fetus who turns out to be little else but a growing reminder of when she was violated, then fall down the stairs while woozy and depressed, lose the baby, and end up standing a chance of being thrown in the same prison as her rapist for an even longer period of time? If so, then criminalizing abortion could lead us closer to that aspect of the Orwell society than it may appear.


Of course not. Miscarriage is a medical fact and a terrible accident, including the situation you described.

Originally posted by Pac-Man Pac-Man wrote:

As for that girl? I'd like to answer her, quite frankly, and if I had the chance to talk to her on the subject, this is what I would tell her:
"No. Unless your mother lived in a country, city, state, province, or whatever, where she was forced by law to have you, then you do not have to justify you existence, because the fact that your mother chose to have you is all the justification you need. When people debate on the subject of legal abortion and say either "no, except" or "yes, especially" in cases of rape, they don't mean to say your mother automatically should have aborted you. They mean to say that this is where your mother, and no one else, should absolutely have all the final say in the world about whether she keeps you or not. People like you, who were actually chosen despite rape and who know through your upbringing that your mother loves you, are truly the fortunate sons and daughters in this world. Because your parents have passed the ultimate parenting test that life can possibly administer."


Right, her parents were not forced to get an abortion; but #1, this is still a valid example that Ministry Hunter asked for of a product of rape going on to live a happy, productive life; and #2, it is still an argument against making that "exception" clause for rape that even some who would normally be pro life would advocate. And while it is true that the U.S. doesn't require abortions in the case of rape; the mindset of society arguably recommends it, and I believe her testimony is a powerful argument against that. But that is why she feels she has to justify her existence. 

Originally posted by Pac-Man Pac-Man wrote:

In a world where abortion was legal in its past but is no longer legal in its present, could you really expect every child to know they were wanted?


No, but that should be a prime goal of any society. But most of it in the family. 

Originally posted by Pac-Man Pac-Man wrote:

Want less abortions? Don't start with the law. Start with the adoption system and make it fucking competent. Start with financial aid so that bearing a child will only cost one or two small fortunes instead of a thankless three or four. And start with the education that you, Kon, wisely speak of. But DO NOT start with making it a crime that can get people sent to jail for the rest of their lives or summarily executed. That step should only come as insurance, after the right to abortion has been truly de-necessitated in the eyes of the world at large.


I would still start with an outright banning of abortions; but I never said what sentence I'd give. I want to treat abortion as a crime of sorts yes; but I never advocated sending a woman who has one up the river for the rest of their lives; nor did I ever advocate capital punishment (which I am actually against). I don't want to give harsh sentences to women who have abortions (but I do for those who perform them); but at the same time I would want to have a stiffer penalty than a slap on the wrist.

But the rest of what you say I completely agree with and even said such to some extent in my previous post myself; as I did education. We need to make an adaption system that is competent yes; and financial aid,  even an expansion of WIC... all good ideas that I advocate so that as you eluded to society would have less of a desire to have abortions so that the actual law against it can be that insurance you speak of.

Back to Top
HOO-RAR View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Hall Of Fame 2010

Joined: 02/June/2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3812
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HOO-RAR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29/June/2010 at 19:18
Due to there being a good discussion going on already, I will throw my two-pennyworth in for good measure.
In brief, I agree with the concept of abortion in certain circumstances, but I do not believe that abortion should be either plausible for all situations, nor outright banned. I would wholeheartedly support abortion:

- When a woman has been raped and is suffering/potentially going to suffer considerable physical/mental harm. I would not wish the trauma which such a situation must impose on ANY human being on this earth. In such situations (provided the abortion is called early) I think the rights of the mother should over-ride that of the foetus - whose living status is still disputed by most of society today.

- When five qualified doctors agree that the circumstances in the above situation are suitable for an abortion to be considered a plausible option.

I do NOT however support abortion as a safety clause for the recklessness and stupidity of other people, for example:

- In situations where teenagers are too naive and don't use contraception which results in a pregnancy. In such circumstances I would actively promote the use of adoption as I feel a child should not suffer as a result of general recklessness. 

- Where a woman has decided against a family and wants rid of the child. If you decide to start a family and then reconsider, I don't think the person has properly considered the consequences of such an action. 

To be blunt, I think that pro-choice over-rides pro-life simply because most pro-life arguments negate the rights of the mother, but then complain that pro-choice arguments negates the rights of the child. The foetus is yet to be confirmed as a fully-living being and therefore any arguments stating otherwise have to be seen as partly hypothetical.


> Official TNA resident mark <
TUP Long Term Poster 2012
TUP Quality > Quantity Poster 08/09
Back to Top
Kondor View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Forum Moderator / Ticket Wars Founder

Joined: 02/June/2010
Location: Right here
Status: Offline
Points: 7020
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kondor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30/June/2010 at 07:12
Originally posted by HOO-RAR HOO-RAR wrote:

To be blunt, I think that pro-choice over-rides pro-life simply because most pro-life arguments negate the rights of the mother, but then complain that pro-choice arguments negates the rights of the child. The foetus is yet to be confirmed as a fully-living being and therefore any arguments stating otherwise have to be seen as partly hypothetical.


A fetus has DNA, moves, grows, and gets to "know" his or her mother. That's why babies have a tendency to want to cling to their mother's chest after they're born, so they can be near the mother they've grown accustomed to and hear the heartbeat they are used to hearing. 

But even going by the pro choice argument that a fetus is not "a fully living being"; it will still grow into one barring a miscarriage.  But that aside, it's not "hypothetical" that a fetus will become a "fully living being".

The central core in the abortion debate is always around whether a fetus is a life or not. If you don't think it is, then ripping it apart is acceptable. If you do, then it's not. With myself, as I said before I see a fertilized egg as being a life; so therefore I put the life of the embryo/fetus/baby ahead of the will of the mother.  


Edited by Kondor - 30/June/2010 at 07:14

Back to Top
Grinning Reaper View Drop Down
Heat/Velocity
Heat/Velocity
Avatar

Joined: 23/October/2008
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 226
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grinning Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30/June/2010 at 10:56
I've got to admit I'm pro life on this subject , I'd never have a abortion, even though through medical reasons I could of had two . But to me a life is a life  and I wouldn't change my choice for anything in the world . However I do think that it is up to personal Choice in this and nobody should be told what they can and can not do  with their body.

It's up to the Invidiual in my opinion .

Cheers Grinning Reaper
Time Gentlemen Please.
Back to Top
Raven View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
TUP Mr. 200,000!

Joined: 03/September/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 16067
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raven Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/July/2010 at 05:04
I'm with Hoo on this. I personally would actively discourage any woman I get pregnant in any situation against getting a abortion, however I do believe in a person's right to choose and all that.

The one thing that pisses me off in the abortion debate is that the father is often forgotten. I personally believe that if one parent is for the abortion, and one is against, the child should be born, no matter which parent is pro-birth, provided that parent is capable of looking after the child by themselves. There's all this "Rights of the woman/Rights of the child" shit, where's the right of the father?
Back to Top
JJsGirl View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 27/November/2008
Location: The Asylum
Status: Offline
Points: 3327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJsGirl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/July/2010 at 08:47
I'm pro-choice - I believe every girl/woman should have the right to choose if she wishes to have an abortion or not. That's all I'm going to say on this topic.
 
 




"It can't rain all the time" -Eric Draven in The Crow



Proud Member of the Hardy Party
Back to Top
admin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Open To Bribes For Favours

Joined: 01/October/2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 47136
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote admin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/July/2010 at 10:59
Originally posted by JJsGirl JJsGirl wrote:

I'm pro-choice - I believe every girl/woman should have the right to choose if she wishes to have an abortion or not. That's all I'm going to say on this topic.
 
Why should she have the right to end the life of the innocent party in the situation?
 
Shouldn't their at least be a limit to the amount of abortions so some daft bint can't keep having them?
 
It's sickening loving couples have to spend thousands on IVF to give love to a child and others get rid instead of putting it up for adoptions once it's born.
Back to Top
Phoenix View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer


Joined: 16/May/2006
Location: Hippie commune
Status: Offline
Points: 2742
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phoenix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/July/2010 at 12:55
I'm with Suze on this one. Pro-choice all the way. Yes, I think it's sad that some women choose to abort instead of adopting out, but it should still be their choice. I do think that if someone were to have say... three abortions, the doctor should talk to them about sterilisation, rather than let them have any more. But, again, it should still be the woman's right to choose.

Before anyone jumps on me, I hate child abuse in any form and yes it could be argued that abortion is just that. But, I would rather the child be aborted than treated like a punching bag, neglected, etc.
Back to Top
JJsGirl View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 27/November/2008
Location: The Asylum
Status: Offline
Points: 3327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJsGirl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/July/2010 at 13:03
Admin, in my mind it's still the woman's choice if she wants to have an abortion so who am I (or anybody else for that matter) to tell her she can't have one? It's not my place to tell people how to live their lives, who to love etc so this isn't any different to me. I do agree that if a woman has had several abortions, the doctor should speak to her about other options or whatever but ultimately, it's still her choice and there's nothing anybody can do about that.




"It can't rain all the time" -Eric Draven in The Crow



Proud Member of the Hardy Party
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.