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  <12345 7>
Author
Message
admin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Open To Bribes For Favours

Joined: 01/October/2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 47567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote admin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/July/2010 at 13:11
If a woman has had say two none rape abortions and wants a third it should be law for something like adoption and then sterilisation to happen.
 
Obviously BOTH parents should have an equal say on what happens as both had an equal part on producing the child.
 
More females who get pregnant when they don't want to should think the adoption route so at least something amazing can come out of their sillyness.
Back to Top
Fletch View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
TUP Hall Of Fame 2009

Joined: 06/January/2006
Location: Portsmouth UK
Status: Offline
Points: 17229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fletch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07/July/2010 at 15:22
I personally wouldn't be against a law that blocked abortions if the girl/woman in question had already had say 2 abortions where the pregnancy had been caused through carelessness. Obviously allowances should be made depending on the circumstances as contraception does malfunction regularly and of course in the case of rape nobody should be denied the option of a abortion.

My views here are similar to how I feel about teenage pregnancy where I feel the parents should have the power to decide if any daughter of theirs under the age of 16 should have a abortion or not because I believe that the majority of girls of that age are not mature enough to know what a responsibility a baby is.
Back to Top
Tragon70 View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar

Joined: 17/February/2009
Location: Planet Z
Status: Offline
Points: 3983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tragon70 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/July/2010 at 22:55
Most people can't live up to being a mother or doesn't wanna take the responsibility to do so. Everyone has a different reason for having an abortion so no matter the reason we can't bash them for it. If it's not against the law then there shouldn't be a problem but people are always gonna have there beliefs which is why there's half that's for it & another half that's against it which is why there are a lot of debates on various things in the world.
Trags for HOF'er !
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: 09/July/2010 at 09:52
Originally posted by Tragon70 Tragon70 wrote:

Most people can't live up to being a mother or doesn't wanna take the responsibility to do so. Everyone has a different reason for having an abortion so no matter the reason we can't bash them for it. If it's not against the law then there shouldn't be a problem but people are always gonna have there beliefs which is why there's half that's for it & another half that's against it which is why there are a lot of debates on various things in the world.


Fair Point there Tragon well put .

Cheers Grinning Reaper
Time Gentlemen Please.
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: 03/June/2011 at 07:28
Originally posted by Raven Raven wrote:

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?

I would have addressed that if I gave any credence to the "right" of the mother to terminate her pregnancy. 

Originally posted by JJsGirl JJsGirl wrote:

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.

No, but an abortion is telling the baby that they can't live his or her life. 

Originally posted by Tragon70 Tragon70 wrote:

Most people can't live up to being a mother or doesn't wanna take the responsibility to do so. Everyone has a different reason for having an abortion so no matter the reason we can't bash them for it.

I'm not so much interesting in "bashing" people who have had abortions nor demonize them as I am explaining my own arguments against it and attempting to prevent any more from happening.  

Originally posted by Tragon70 Tragon70 wrote:

If it's not against the law then there shouldn't be a problem but people are always gonna have there beliefs which is why there's half that's for it & another half that's against it which is why there are a lot of debates on various things in the world. 

The "problem with it" is that a baby's body is ripped apart and a life is lost. Pro lifers don't want that to happen. 

Another issue in the abortion debate is taxpayer funding of it. The Hyde Amendment is supposed to ban federal funding of abortion; but here is an article that exposes a loophole in it.

Quote Source: LifeNews.com

Obama Admin Denies Indiana Request to De-Fund Planned Parenthood


by Steven Ertelt  Indianapolis, IN  6/1/11

The Obama administration today denied Indiana’s use of its new state law that would deny millions in taxpayer dollars to the Indiana affiliate of the nation’s largest abortion business.

Governor Mitch Daniels signed the law, which would cut off anywhere from $2 million to $3 million the Planned Parenthood abortion business receives in federal funds via the Indiana government through Medicaid.

Daniels said that “any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions.”

However, the Obama administration has told the state it can’t implement the new law, with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Donald Berwick denying a request to deny funds saying the federal Medicaid law stipulates that states can’t exclude providers based on the services they provide.

“Medicaid programs may not exclude qualified health care providers from providing services that are funded under the program because of a provider’s scope of practice,” Berwick wrote, according to National Journal. “We assume this decision is not unexpected.”

Berwick also said the law makes it so states can’t prohibit access to family planning, which is provided under federal law. His department released a memo advising states that they can’t exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer funds via Medicaid.

“Medicaid programs may not exclude qualified health care providers — whether an individual provider, a physician group, an outpatient clinic or a hospital — from providing services under the program because they separately provide abortion services,” Center for Medicaid Director Cindy Mann wrote in the memo.

Mike Fichter, the director of Indiana Right to Life, responded to the decision in comments to LifeNews.

“The Obama administration appears to be intent on trying to force Indiana to subsidize the business of abortion in direct contrast to the desires of the state legislature and the people of Indiana.  Indiana must refuse to be bullied by the federal government and must challenge this politically-charged determination with full vigor.  The state of Indiana has a right to determine how it will manage its Medicaid program and to select the providers it will partner with.  Planned Parenthood is not entitled to public funding,” he said.

The law also contains several pro-life provisions that directly affect abortion, such as banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on fetal pain and provisions to opt-out of abortion coverage in any state health exchanges required under the new federal health law, to require that women considering abortion be given full, factual information in writing, and to require doctors who do abortions, or their designees, to maintain local hospital admitting privileges in order to streamline access to emergency care for women injured by abortion.

Planned Parenthood challenged the constitutionality of the law and filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis just hours after Daniels signed the legislation into law. It alleges the law would violate contracts already in place between it and the state and that it forces Planned Parenthood to choose between doing abortions and getting taxpayer funding.

However, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt declined to issue the injunction while she takes more time to analyze the legal issues involved in the lawsuit. That type of decision is usually an indicator that the judge will eventually issue a ruling against the party bringing the lawsuit.

In legal papers filed after the decision, the Indiana state government filed a memorandum of opposition to a motion for an injunction by Planned Parenthood of Indiana in an attempt to block three provisions of Indiana’s newly-enacted law. Indiana essentially says Planned Parenthood does not try to segregate its funds to ensure the taxpayer money is not paying for abortions.

The state argues that there is “no record that PPIN makes any effort to either segregate Medicaid reimbursements from other unrestricted revenue sources or to allocate the cost of its various lines of business, whether abortion, family planning, cancer screenings, or other services.”

“This indicates that, while PPIN may not receive Medicaid reimbursements directly related to abortions, the Medicaid reimbursements it does receive are pooled or comingled with other monies it receives and thus help to pay for total operational costs,” the state said, making it so abortions or costs related to abortions are indirectly funded.

In addition, the state argues that the new law serves the public interest in three ways:  the funding qualification provision prevents taxpayer dollars from indirectly funding abortions; it advances the State’s goals of encouraging women to choose childbirth over abortion, and the informed consent requirements ensure that women who choose abortion have all the information necessary to make an informed and voluntary decision.

“The state’s thorough and well-reasoned defense of HEA 1210 underscores that this new law is on solid legal footing,” Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter told LifeNews in response.

A federal judge will hear arguments on Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s motion for an injunction on June 6.

First of all this article proves what I've been saying for years, that Planned Parenthood does NOT separate funds received from public funding (which of course ultimately comes from the taxpayers) to ensure that none of it goes to abortion. As I said before, the Hyde Amendment (which is attached to the appropriations budget annually) is supposed to outlaw public funding of abortions. Because of this on paper law, some Democrats have argued that federal funding of abortions is illegal; yet as Planned Parenthood offers other "services" to their clients they can use that as an excuse for accepting public funding, and the fact that they put all their monies into one big slush fund is the loophole that allows indirect taxpayer funding of abortions. Plus of course Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider; I actually think they should be classified as a terrorist organization (even though yes I know that will never happen.) 

And obviously I'm against federal funding of abortion as even if one is pro choice, they'd I'd hope understand that many people are morally opposed to it, and that an American should not have it on their conscience that their money went to an abortion. It's bad enough abortion is legal in the opinion of the Court in the first place.  

Second, I never liked this Donald Berwick guy who's directing Medicare & Medicaid. He's the one who has gone on record to be in favor of health care rationing (and I can easily provide evidence of this if somebody calls me out in it) after months of those who worried about death panels were mocked by some on the left. Berwick saying, "Medicaid programs may not exclude qualified health care providers from providing services that are funded under the program because of the provider's scope of practice," well actually, yeah, they can; that's the point of the Hyde law, DUH!!

Even though I am against abortion in all cases and forms, I like the part of the law Governor Daniels signed that provides for emergency care of a mother accidentally injured in the course of an abortion; and I also like the State's argument that it will cause women to lean towards "choosing childbirth over abortion."



Edited by Kondor - 03/June/2011 at 07:34

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: 03/June/2011 at 12:38
Originally posted by Kondor Kondor wrote:

Plus of course Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider; I actually think they should be classified as a terrorist organization (even though yes I know that will never happen.)

Sorry, what? The rest of it is all differences of opinion and things that we will never agree on, but that statement is patently absurd. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. The Taliban is a terrorist organisation. Planned Parenthood? They provide family planning advice, and abortions. Do you know what a terrorist is? It is a person or organisation that aims to instill terror in the general populace by causing destruction via violence and intimidation wherever possible, for political reasons. Would you kindly tell me how abortions spread terror and fear throughout communities? If so, would you like to show how this is the aim of Planned Parenthood?

I mean, I could see how you'd want it outlawed, but classed as a terrorist organisation? That's outright insane. People who bomb their clinics are terrorists, people who work for, donate to, and support them, are not terrorists, or helping terrorists.

Back to Top
Rob Franklin View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 09/April/2009
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Points: 3405
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rob Franklin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03/June/2011 at 14:56
Not everyone who doesn't agree with abortions is as insane as Kondor, though.

There's a million different ways of birth control, so there's no fucking excuse to kill a baby. Condoms, birth control pills, vasectomy, getting your tubes tied, insertable contraceptive devices, even female condoms.

But fuck all that, right? Let's wait until we get pregnant to care about the consequences?

Nope.
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: 03/June/2011 at 15:01
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't use contraception, although you bring up an interesting point.

If you use protection whilst having sex, or masturbate for that matter, are you not ending a potential life? If your jizz doesn't make it to the egg, has it not been deprived of life? What about emergency contraceptives? Are they okay? That's basically an abortion, right? Slippery slope...
Back to Top
Rob Franklin View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 09/April/2009
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Points: 3405
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rob Franklin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03/June/2011 at 15:06
It's not a slippery slope logically. For some, life begins at birth. For some, life begins at conception.

I don't think anyone believes life begins in the ballsack.
Back to Top
The Pain Train View Drop Down
Wrestlemania
Wrestlemania
Avatar

Joined: 20/November/2010
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 846
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Pain Train Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03/June/2011 at 19:29

God, if life began in the ball-sack I'd be accused of fuckin' genocide by now.

(That's a masturbation joke, kids.)
 
In all seriousness though, my stance on abortion is just like my stance on everything else; let's use our intelligence.
 
Abortions should be allowed in several circumstances, including but not limited to;
-Rape
-Incest
-Risk of the Mother's Health
-Risk of the Child's Health
-Upbringing
 
Abortions should not be allowed;
-As a form of birth control
-If the parents get cold feet.
 
The rape and incest things should be obvious. It's not a matter of punishing the child for the father's sins, it's about the mother. I know damn well if my wife was raped and found out she was pregnant from it, that pregnancy would be over real quick (so long as she wanted to be rid of it).
 
As to the mother's/child's health, that's a no-brainer on one end and a slippery slope on the other. For the mother, if the birth will lead to lasting damage or death for the mother, abortion should probably be considered. When I say child's health, I'm referring mostly to mental and physical deformities. That's a call too big for me to make a judgment on.
 
Then there's the upbringing. I am SO SICK of people bringing in adoption like it's some kind of magic word to make everything better. All the people who say 'Put the child up for adoption,' are absolute twats in my opinion. How many kids are up for adoption these days? How many actually get taken in to loving homes? Hey there, Mr. "Don't kill the baby, Abandon it," why don't you take the kid?
 
Now I'm not saying all adoption is bad. But it's not the easy, non-abortion way out people make it out to be.
 
And even beyond the adoption thing, what about the poor? Shall we condemn the child to a life of being hungry?
 
What sounds better? Terminating the gene sequence before completion, or condemn a living, breathing, THINKING human being to a possible life of misery?
 
People who abort for the two reasons I listed above are even bigger ass-holes than the adoption folks. And I say that as a man trying to become a father.
 
Here's the cold, hard fact; until the synapses of the brain start to fire, the creature is not living. Once the brain dies, a person is dead. No brain, no life. The end.
 
I want to bring this to a close with me para-phrasing a news story I read years ago that has stuck with me; a 10 year old girl was raped by the neighborhood ice cream man. Her body had already started puberty, and she became pregnant. Bringing the child to term was incredibly dangerous for her, and could have lead to death or disfigurement.
 
Too bad abortion was illegal in her country.
 
I always wondered what happened to her.
 
Of course, this all strengthens my belief that there should be licenses to breed.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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 0.078 seconds.