November_rain Posted January 1, 2014 Author Share Posted January 1, 2014 Are you serious? Do you really think women use abortions as a form of birth control?.Uhm....yes....many women do use abortion as a form of birth control. I've lived through and seen it first hand. I grew up witnessing several "friends" of mine that were on their 2nd and 3rd abortions by the time they were 21.What would you call that?Well, that is your experience but it doesn´t mean that this is the general way to do things. I don´t know if this is the case with the people you mention but if they are irresponsible and use abortion as a birth control it doesn´t mean that all women do it too and it doesn´t mean that all women are irresponsible either. As I´ve said before, that decision is very difficult and each woman has different reasons and circumstances to go one direction or another. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***Flawless Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Come to think of it....I think I'm tired of appeasing the pro choice circle....Other than if the life of the mother is at risk....(rape and incest maybe)....I think I'm leaning pro-life. Technology and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting to adopt....no....women (and men) shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a form of birth control - which 90% of them are. I'm a bit late, but I'm curious as to where you got this 90% from? Seems like it's just a number pulled out of thin air to try and support your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I've never been able to settle, personally, on a position with abortion, a personal one i mean, if the decision were up to me…i think I almost cop out with saying it should be the womans choice because it's a choice that i don't think i could make. Basically I couldn't okay it myself, I just couldn't. So yeah, womans choice, definitely, her body and that, and without sounding out of order, i ain't having that on my fuckin' conscience.Definitely the woman's choice.Unless it's my teenage daughter coming home pregnant then I'll be getting the hanger and taking care of it myself. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Come to think of it....I think I'm tired of appeasing the pro choice circle....Other than if the life of the mother is at risk....(rape and incest maybe)....I think I'm leaning pro-life. Technology and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting to adopt....no....women (and men) shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a form of birth control - which 90% of them are. I'm a bit late, but I'm curious as to where you got this 90% from? Seems like it's just a number pulled out of thin air to try and support your argument.He's full of shit. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzygirl Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) I've also read somewhere in this thread someone defending abortion over adoption because a full pregnancy has many risks and also that a birth has stronger emotional ties. Abortion has many risks too, from infertility to serious infections. And let's not forget the psychological effect. Adoption and the emotional ties with the baby are very very hard for the woman, but for most women, abortion carry a huge emotional pain too. Not agreeing or disagreeing with you here...but when adoption is considered, it's not only the emotional state for the woman, but that of her unwanted child as well, that seems to get forgotten in these discussions. No doubt a woman who decides to abort must live with that decision, however options are weighed, and if she feels that choice was the best one for her, it's a decision she can accept. Obviously the alternative was not an acceptable choice for her..and what people seem to forget is that none of us have the right to second guess and judge, even if it's not the same decision we would make. Simply put, we don't live her life, nor should be so arrogant as to tell her how to.When women decide to carry the pregnancy to term, it now becomes a choice that doesn't just affect her. A child is given up, gets shuffled thru a system, the lucky ones find caring and loving homes. But they're not all that lucky. And what is considered lucky anyway? Who defines that for these children? Lawmakers? Pro-lifers? Religious leaders?One of my closest friends was adopted. There are emotions SHE's had to deal with her entire life, it's not only the mother who let her go, who lives with that decision. There are questions that will never be answered. A medical and psychological history that will never be known, which doesn't only apply to my friend but also affects her children as well. It's ongoing. There are indeed emotional scars that those who are given up for adoption live with everyday. And very few people ever take that into consideration. Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. I was just weighting up the different arguments. As I said, I think that people who don't have any doubt or second thought about abortion, whatever their position is, are either too smart or too stupid, because I think we all can agree that this is a really delicate issue. Actually I maintain that abortion is a social failure, not the failure of a woman or a couple. I've simply read a post saying that a full pregancy is risky and it sounded as if abortion was a walk in the park and also that adoption had deeper physhological effects and I honestly think it's bullshit. First, an abortion has its dangers too, it will cause heavy bleeding for days, infections are not unfrequent, it can cause infertility, uterine perforations, increase the risk of miscarriage in subsequent pregnacies, etc. And second, the phycological effects of abortion vs. adoption are completely subjective. This is one of the toughest decisions a woman could ever have to deal with. And in most cases, regardless of the final choice, they end up doubting if they took the right decision. A famous case, Chilli from TLC, she stated that she had an abortion when she was very young, and she said she regrets every day for that decision. Of course I agree with what you're saying; the difference between abortion and going on with the pregnancy is that, in the second case, the woman is taking a decision that will condition another human being's life forever. But that's called parenthood and that's called life. I mean, when a woman or a couple have a wanted baby, they will take decisions such as working more hours so the baby can go to a better university or spending more time with the kid but earning less money. And in the future, the kid can reproach their parents that they didn't spend enough time with him or be thankful because they worked hard to give him/her a good education. Parents will try to take the best decisions ever while raising the kid, but that doesn't assure the kid will be happy. There are plenty of wanted kids that are depressed, miserable, taking drugs, etc. So, the woman thinks carrying on with the pregnacy is the better choice and decides to give the baby in adoption, thinking it will be the best for him/her because he/she will have more chances to have a good life. Sometimes the kid will live a good and happy life and in other cases that decision and knowing that they are adopted will cause them a traume and problems. But we can't know that. It's true that there is genetic illnesses they will not know about and the adopted kid will have to deal with unsolved questions... but then... what about sperm donation? Or what about women that decide to be single mothers (traditional way)? -----------------------Also, I wanted to add 2 things I didn't mention in my first post. I wanted to give a second thought about an argument used in these debates: "it should be only the woman's choice". First, why only the woman and not the father? What if the man wants the kid badly? Yes, it's HER body, but it goes against all contemporary laws and morals where equality is the key. In the past, the woman got pregnant, the father didn't want the kid, the woman had the baby and she couldn't claim anything from the man, neither money nor the name. But nowadays, if the woman decides to have the baby, and the man doesn't want it, she can sue him and a judge will force him to pay for the kid expenses until he is an adult and give him his name (at least in here the law is like that and I agree 100% with this law). But, it leaves the father always in a second position. it's the woman's body, yes, but it's just nature. it's just reproduction. Someone had to "grow" the baby, in other species is the male, but in our one we evolved like that. But I don't fully understand that, let's say, sense of entitlement of the woman. By now, you need 2 persons of different sex to have a baby. That's a fact. And we have cases like Ricky Martin, he resorted to surrogate and egg donation to have his children because he really wanted to be a father. So, maybe the man wanted to have that baby and, given that the women decided no, he will suffer too all his life ebcause he didn't have the baby he wanted. In these debates no one thinks in this possibility, which btw I find kind of sexist, but not sexist with men, I think it's sexist towards women, it's like in the past: "pregnancy is only her thing, and it's her problem". And finally and probably most important because it's the key: "CHOICE", "ultimately it's the woman's choice". FIne, I agree, but, then I think... until what point is that really a FREE decison and a free choice? I mean, in a big percentage of cases there are economic reasons, external pressures from the family, society, fear of losing your job for which you studied or prepared hard for years, etc. Are you telling me that's totally a free decision?So yeah, I've spent a fair amount of time reflecting about this. I've argued with myself a lot, and I still don't have a conclusion. I see the different points, I tend to agree with a law that makes it legal under certain conditions so in the end it's up to everyone's conscience and feelings but damn, it's tough. Edited January 2, 2014 by izzygirl 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Come to think of it....I think I'm tired of appeasing the pro choice circle....Other than if the life of the mother is at risk....(rape and incest maybe)....I think I'm leaning pro-life. Technology and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting to adopt....no....women (and men) shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a form of birth control - which 90% of them are. I'm a bit late, but I'm curious as to where you got this 90% from? Seems like it's just a number pulled out of thin air to try and support your argument.Obviously that was a very arbitrary number. I was heavily distracted when I wrote that entire post....and Rita was egging me on....sort of like when someone keeps pricking you with a needle....and you just start spouting out the first thing on your mind......Long story short, Izzygirl has done a much better job communicating a balanced view of the entire pro choice/pro life debate....a much better job than I have done. This is a subject that I can't debate without being emotional about it so it's best I take a step back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***Flawless Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Come to think of it....I think I'm tired of appeasing the pro choice circle....Other than if the life of the mother is at risk....(rape and incest maybe)....I think I'm leaning pro-life. Technology and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting to adopt....no....women (and men) shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a form of birth control - which 90% of them are. I'm a bit late, but I'm curious as to where you got this 90% from? Seems like it's just a number pulled out of thin air to try and support your argument.Obviously that was a very arbitrary number. I was heavily distracted when I wrote that entire post....and Rita was egging me on....sort of like when someone keeps pricking you with a needle....and you just start spouting out the first thing on your mind......Long story short, Izzygirl has done a much better job communicating a balanced view of the entire pro choice/pro life debate....a much better job than I have done. This is a subject that I can't debate without being emotional about it so it's best I take a step back. I just have a pet-hate for that I guess, I've had too many arguments with people where they magic up statistics to try and 'prove me wrong' (although there is no absolute wrong or right in a situation like this imo).I disagree about Izzygirl too, I think like you, her opinion seems to sway in the direction of an emotionally based one rather than an absolutely balanced one. I also prefer it not to be called pro-life, as I don't think pro-choicers are homicidal psychopaths, I think the correct term is anti-choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Whenever I hear someone use the epithet "anti-choice," the first thing I think is how the speaker's position is absolutely balanced and not at all emotionally based. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake-Pit Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Catholic Country Bans Abortionshocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 There's nothing more emotionally based than labeling it "Pro-Life." As if anyone is Anti-Life in the debate. Typical strawmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake-Pit Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Perhaps Spain's tired of all the immigrants, British Ex-Pats included, and they're all like'Shit, where's the Spanish Spanish people?'So this probably has NOTHING to do with morals, but maybe politically motivated for population control and the would be future voters?.. Edited January 3, 2014 by Snake-Pit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
November_rain Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 Perhaps Spain's tired of all the immigrants, British Ex-Pats included, and they're all like'Shit, where's the Spanish Spanish people?'So this probably has NOTHING to do with morals, but maybe politically motivated for population control and the would be future voters?.. Population control? Immigrants?LOL@Izzygirl: I see what you mean and I agree with some of your points but if this law is passed the least of the problems will be whether the father has any say in the matter or not. Imagine how unfair it is going to be with cases of severe illnesses or deformities.I have a relative who years ago gave birth to a child with severe deformities like a shorter arm, he was deaf, blind and had severe brain damage. It was a wanted baby and very expected but he died three days after the birth, imagine the pain and how much the parents suffered. The mom said that had she known all this sooner she would have had an abortion because even though the pain is there, she thought it was worse to have his son inside her for 9 months and love him, to give birth, to carry the baby in her arms and later see him die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB. Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) I have a friend who aborted a child with severe deformities. The doctors were sure about all the deformities in week 16. The baby couldn't live outside the womb. In week 17, the doctors inducted the labour, so she gave birth. In cases like this, it's mostly done this way. My friend loved the baby, hold the baby and saw it die. She was totally heartbroken. The only difference is the pregnancy didn't lasted as long and maybe it was 'somewhat' easier too accept, cause the baby wasn't and didn't look fully grown. Still a horrible thing. When you are pregnant of a wanted baby, you basicly love it as soon as you find out. It's good an option like this excist, still it must be horrible. I agree with many things Izzygirl has said. I am pro choice, still the mother in me, has a hard time justifying the cases, not caused by rape, or deformities or the mother's health.I Abortion is one of the most delicates issues anyone can try to approach and I still don't know how some people can have a so solid opinion about it (either pro or against it), without any single doubt or "double thought". So exactly this. Edited January 3, 2014 by MB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzygirl Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Perhaps Spain's tired of all the immigrants, British Ex-Pats included, and they're all like'Shit, where's the Spanish Spanish people?'So this probably has NOTHING to do with morals, but maybe politically motivated for population control and the would be future voters?.. Yeah... no. @Izzygirl: I see what you mean and I agree with some of your points but if this law is passed the least of the problems will be whether the father has any say in the matter or not. Imagine how unfair it is going to be with cases of severe illnesses or deformities.Oh, I think it's a mistake to remove that case from the law. And I would even add socioeconomic factors as another legal case (as it is in the UK). I was simply saying all the factors that are not always taken into account in this debate, and one is the father. They also have emotional bonds, they also can have paternal isntinct, they also suffer. I don't think this law will be passed as it is right now. I'm sure it will suffer many modifciations, and I hope one of the modifications is that one. It's the controversial point of this law as it was allowing girls under 18 to have an abortion without the knowledge of their parents in the previous one. In that case, it was amended; now, it should be amended too. Anyway, I'm not even sure if this law will be finally passed because there are a lot of critics in the own party. But I don't want to enter into politics here, it's not necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IZZYISGNR Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 But I don't want to enter into politics here, it's not necessary. lol, everything is politics.there was no popular demand for a change in the abortion law. the law was working well. there's a very small minority who wants to change it only to satisfy the church led by archbishop rouco-varela (a right-wing extremist who probably has franco's posters in his room). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzygirl Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) But I don't want to enter into politics here, it's not necessary. lol, everything is politics.there was no popular demand for a change in the abortion law. the law was working well. there's a very small minority who wants to change it only to satisfy the church led by archbishop rouco-varela (a right-wing extremist who probably has franco's posters in his room).Ok. You obviously didn't get my point. I was trying to analyze the arguments given in this debate (abortion), regardless of the country or the law. "lol everything is politcis"... when did I say otehrwise?Anyway, someone had 7, almost 8 years to change the relationship with the Church, the Concordats of 1979 and the money they receive. They didn't. And why? Shit, I want votes! I'm pretty tired of all that hypocrisy. Let's be honest, Bibiana Aido and her "it's a living being but it's not a human being" and Gallardón "the progressist" are not the best people to make this kind of laws but I guess it's what we deserve. Seeing your enlightening post, I'm sure it's what we deserve. PPSOE Edited January 4, 2014 by izzygirl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IZZYISGNR Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 lol, this has nothing to do with bibiana aido or the concordate of 1979 ... as i said before : there's no popular demand for a new law, it is a very small minority who's promoting the new law. the current law is accepted by the vast majority of the population, there's no need to change it the only ones who want to change it are the old catholic fascists. period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.