If you don't want a baby, get your tubes tied.

No thanks. I may want a baby / be better equipped to be a mother at a later date. An aborted fetus isn't causing harm to another human being.

 

If a woman is going to go out there and she is not ready for a baby, she should strongly consider getting her tubes tied/plugged.
For the good of the unborn little life within her she might abort.

Seems these days, women want to pick and choose exactly when they want to have a baby, and have no qualms about aborting the ones that don't come at the right time.
It seems very selfish to me, the overall concept of this.

She says she doesn't want to get her tubes tied because maybe she will want one some time in the future.
Why can't she just adopt when she is finally ready? If she get's pregnant, she can just give the baby to another woman who previously got her tubes tied, but is now ready for a baby.
Basically what the argument pro-choicers are holding to is effectively that the woman should kill her unborn child now so she can have a child of her own later. Why would a woman do this? Is it for the benefit of her future children? I don't think so.

I'm sorry, but it's just not realistic to want to pick and choose exactly when your baby comes, if you want to have one.
Should a woman just get an abortion now because she would prefer having the baby two years later ?!?
This just smacks of selfishness, choosiness, and irresponsibility.

 

I don't think many women do that. More than likely they know exactly when it is highly inconvenient to have a baby. Like when they are in Jr. High School. Or when they become parents again after already being grandparents.

 

Digging back over a year to make another flimsy point?


A. WHY do you think women have to do what YOU want them to do?

B. Why do you think women should be any less selfish than anyone else?

C. Yes, now it IS very realistic to be able to plan your life.

D. A woman should be able to get an abortion, or not, any time SHE chooses.

E. All humans have a right to be selfish, choosy, and irresponsible....and even if they didn't have that right they ALL have been and will be, it's called being human and women have just as much right to act this way as any man.

 

Society has a moral right (and obligation) to protect the vulnerable from the machinations of others who would do them harm.

At the expense of another human being.

I'm all for free choice, but most of the time when a woman gets an abortion it is reckless disregard for the life within. There is a direct cause-effect relationship between the woman's "individual" choice and her unborn child.

The feminist mentality holds that a woman should be able to go out their and act "just like a man" without the burden of having to worry about pregnancy. But in trying to further one type of equality, feminists are sacrificing another.
Fact is, when conception happens, it is the woman who holds the growing life.
Feminists don't like to hear it, but when it comes to the possibility of getting pregnant, women have extra responsibility.

 

Depends on who is doing the harming in the first place and whether it was consented to.

Just as any other person does when they kill in self-defence.

Cause and effect do not bind a person to suffer something they have not consented to . .you pro-lifers really need to research law, a person who consents to something that carries a risk of injury does NOT consent to the actual injury .. If that were not true then no person who is injured while taking a risk would be eligible for medical care.

You obviously know nothing about feminism, the "feminist mentality" is that a woman should be EQUAL to a man and not chatel .. which is of course exactly what you want women to be.

gosh, really I never knew that

Yet another reason why nameless, faceless men should not be making decisions for them, and just because you don't think abortion is a responsible action doesn't mean you are correct.

 

The vast majority of doctors will not do a tubal ligation on a woman who is

1. under 30 and/or

2. has no children

 

The vast majority of doctors will outright refuse to do a late-term abortion (especially when elective),
but women seem to be very proficient at finding the ones who will.

 

Your post once again has nothing to do with the post you quoted.....



Why would women need an elective late term abortion?
How many do you have proof of?

 

You really do have a very bad habit of posting things you cannot support or are just simply lies, you have been caught out on this numerous times and yet you still persist in doing it .. one does have to question the mentality of a person who does this sort of thing.

right so let's see your prove that elective late-term abortions (and that means post 24 weeks) are something women are queuing up to get.

Evidence please.

 

There is a simpler option - make men donate sperm then sterilise them. If and when they can afford to support a child they apply for procreation and the willing woman is impregnated

 

Really? Got any proof of these droves of women you allege are aborting late term (3rd trimester) without it being for maternal life/health or fetal deformity?

 

4.8% of abortions in the US occurred from week 16 of pregnancy to week 32.

This is a fetus at 16 weeks.



This is a fetus at 32 weeks



Looks human to me...and I'm sure this unborn child feels pain being ripped to shreds inside, where he or she previously found comfort, the womb.

This year in the US, approximately 50,000 abortions have occurred after 16 weeks gestation.

You don't need religion to understand this is a moral wrong and those who support this wanton killing are morally bankrupt.

 

And were those abortions for foetal abnormality incompatible with life?

 

Pure baloney

 

considering the debate was concerning late-term abortions and 16 weeks is not late-term, would you actually submit the figures for REAL late-term abortions . .that is post 24 weeks in case you didn't know, then we can move on to the justification for those abortions.

Well you would be wrong about the pain assertion.

So yet again the question is how many after 24 weeks (the correct designated point of late-term) and for what reasons were the abortions performed.

It is morally wrong to you, why do you feel that your moral base should be the one that all people adhere to, what gives you that right?

 

No, they weren't.

Late-term Abortions and the REAL reasons they are performed

For a long time I just believed the pro-choice diatribe on this forum that all those later term abortions were done for serious medical reasons... Then I bothered to do the research.

 

true, if you NEVER want to have a baby, if you just don't want one now, there are other BETTER solutions

if you don't want an Abortion ... don't get one..... anti-choicers are horrible

..

 

As I pointed out in that thread The definition of "late term abortion" was shifted to include everything over, by memory over 16 weeks

 

You wouldn't call 16 weeks late term?
This is a 15 week old fetus, the nurse prodded it and it moved around inside its amniotic sac.
And you don't call that late term??

 

No, it isn't considered "late term".

What your make believe nurse observed didn't have anything to do with "late term" definitions.

 

So you admit that life starts before it is late term?

 

Nothing to "admit"...life started about a billion years ago...

 

If you are offended by the sight of a women who has had an abortion, then you should simply pluck out your eyeballs.
That's what the Bible recommends.