Grand Dad...Get over here!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

My freedom will save lives. You still have the freedom to not have sex, or do it with the sheep, either way, if you make the baby, you should have the baby.

---

That's my Ddaaaaaaddddddy!!!https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

Not to change the subject, and or hijack the thread, but, you 're talking abortion, right?

When, exactly does a thought become a post? When you hit submit? Does the post have to be seen by people to truly be a post? When is the thread "born"?

Is not deleting a post, or thread, in fact linguistic murder?https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

Roe vs. Wade Ya_Know vs. Windrivers.

Not to trivialize abortion. But look at it from that point of view, and it takes on a totally different meaning, and reaction.

Plus, there's a whole bunch of threads started by Ya_Know, that should have been aborted....https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WebHead

So what choices does a woman have when she is brutally raped?

---

I can see exactly what you are saying .. but two wrongs don't make a right, the potential mother may hate the father with a passion & have suffered during conception, but put a newborn in her arms & she may feel very different, its also a part of her of course. (sure I accept there may be instances where it would really harm the mother & this personally is one of the few 'right' {I use that very advisedly before anyone jumps down my throat} reasons for abortion).

Personally I'm not against abortion (I can see circumstances - like above- where it might be 'right', extreme disabilty or danger to the mother etc are more reasons) but what I feel objectionable, truely horrible infact is 'arbortion on demand' - 'mad feminists' might term this 'choice' but lets be clear its simply post intercourse contraception very often..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confus-ed

I can see exactly what you are saying .. but two wrongs don't make a right, the potential mother may hate the father with a passion & have suffered during conception, but put a newborn in her arms & she may feel very different, its also a part of her of course. (sure I accept there may be instances where it would really harm the mother & this personally is one of the few 'right' {I use that very advisedly before anyone jumps down my throat} reasons for abortion).

Personally I'm not against abortion (I can see circumstances - like above- where it might be 'right', extreme disabilty or danger to the mother etc are more reasons) but what I feel objectionable, truely horrible infact is 'arbortion on demand' - 'mad feminists' might term this 'choice' but lets be clear its simply post intercourse contraception very often..

---

Right. I understand all that and for the most part agree. My point is that the potential mother should have a choice in the matter on whether she CAN abort or not.

Unless she's a rape victim she also had the choice, to not have sex or to use contraception, even if she left it too late (for whatever reason, as of course such things happen) she could take the 'morning after pill' effective (I think) up to a week after, which prevents pregnancy occuring rather than forces an abortion (as it prevents the fertilised egg implanting in the uterine wall).

In my country the 'abortion on demand' limit is effectively 24 weeks (its not very hard to find some doctor who'll agree with it 'harming' the mother), given todays technology babies are capable of surving outside the womb well before that, as long as the law remains that way, I can describe it as nothing less than murder & a particularly unsavoury version of contraception.