English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I do. I'm a catholic by birth, but I think that religion is BS!

2007-11-28 17:38:16 · 51 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

51 answers

What I think is irrelevant - unless I'm the potential father...

It is ENTIRELY the woman's decision - though I would discuss it with her (if I was involved) before she made her final decision ;););)

2007-11-29 08:53:26 · answer #1 · answered by kr_toronto 7 · 0 0

Only when it is forced or coerced. More women than most know have had one, and are 100% fine with it, even years later, despite what the propaganda tells people. Its a personal decision, one never taken lightly. I honestly have to question the mental ability and stability of the women who have and regretted it. If after all that counseling that the always do (only insiders know ;) ) and time to think about it (you can't just walk in - its not immediate by far), I don't think those are women stable enough to sustain without drugs/alcohol or other harmful behavior during their pregnancy to give birth to a healty or even live child, let alone once its here follow through on the fantasy of just giving it up for adoption.

Anyone who believes otherwise needs to stop living in Fairyland and take of the rose colored glasses.

Thats simply not reality.

And not how the choice to do whats right and abort goes.

I shudder to think of how much more our already burdened justice system would be clogged with false rape claims by truly GOOD women who have no choice.

IT IS DISGUSTING to think that some belive that women should have to go before some male conservative old man judge who got where he is because he made the right political donations----
and he decides her fate. Something very wrong there.

You people need to WAKE THE F*** UP AND SMELL THE TRUTH COFFEE, because this planet isn't your glorious kingdom that you fantasize it is. Only 2% of rapists ever see a jail cell. Its less incestors that are ever even caught. Your words show how you TRULY feel about women... the lesser sex.

You just wait until it happens to your date raped TEEN DAUGHTER, and tell me then how much the courts should tell her what to do - most date rape victims never report dut to the stigma and unwarranted shame, and even when they do, are rarely believed, especially by the courts. You are a true genuine a** and anti-American if you are anti-choice.

Glass houses. Glass houses my friends...

2007-11-28 18:29:01 · answer #2 · answered by Learning Conformity 5 · 2 0

No. As it is, there are too many unwanted children in the world dying of starvation simply because persons are not sterilized who SHOULD be. I myself have been married several times, twice to women who were "unwanted." One grew up in an orphanage, the other in a state facility for children, so as an authority, who better to state what I have. In life, that means I have spent 29 years with "rehabilating" persons who were neglected in the area of understanding what a family setting "is." One of those persons was so confused over what love was that the marriage went to hell after 7 years. I am presently in one for the last 22 years, and "only" because the person I am with was rejected so much for being mentally impaired. Abortion should be an issue between the mother and her doctor NOT an issue of "society" or the "religious" who neglect to see how many of the unwanted live on the streets while they pat themselve on the back for what little they "do" do. Of the millions of dollars religions rake in each year NO person should be "unwanted" YET this is what remains as the disgrace to show the world what religions are really ABOUT.

2007-11-28 17:59:23 · answer #3 · answered by Theban 5 · 3 0

Here's how I feel, and this is an entirely non-religious point of view (I am a Catholic, but I don't allow my religion to judge my policy beliefs).

The main argument about abortion, for me, is about life. At what point is a fetus a living human being? Conception? Third trimester? Not until birth? As a father I have gone through the pregnancy stages and I can tell you from ultrasounds and everything that I have read that a fetus definitely appears to be a living thing capable of carrying out the actions of a living thing. They kick, they suck their thumbs, they get hiccups... At some point between conception and birth there is a moment that life begins and we need to determine that from a legal standpoint. Why is this important? Simple: The Constitution of the United States declares, clear as day, that all citizens of the US are guaranteed by the nature of the Constitution the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a fetus is a human being from conception, for example, then that fetus is an American citizen and the government of the US has an obligation to protect the right of that citizen to life. I know that many would say that not granting abortion is impeding upon the rights of the mother, but you can't sacrifice a life to make sure that someone still gets the "pursuit" of happiness (pursuit being the operative word). A mother unable to have an abortion is not denied liberty... She is still a US citizen and is able to do whatever she wants within the confines of the law in this country. You can't say she is being denied the pursuit of happiness... In this country everyone can pursue happiness, and it isn't the job of the government to come into your house and play Jenga with you to make you smile. If the life of the mother is at stake, however, you have to accept the fact that that woman has a right to life and that, if an abortion is her only option to ensure her well-being, she should be allowed to have that abortion. Denying an abortion that could be life-saving for a mother would be unconstitutional in the fact that it denies her the right to life.

I am pro-life because I believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution, and I believe life begins at conception as an educated man that has a son of my own and a relatively well-rounded understanding of biology.

2007-11-28 17:53:54 · answer #4 · answered by mfl_football 2 · 2 2

I think its wrong, but i'm cool with how its set up right now. Atleast how i think its set up......nothing after the first trimester......if it isn't that then i'm not cool with out its set up right now.

I just don't know how you could accidentally get pregnant. I mean penis + vagina = baby. By the time the average person hits puberty they should have learned this. Forget pregnancy, i think things like aids and herpes should be more on someone's mind....to the extent they wear protection. Even if you can't afford a condom....there are enough free condom places out there to get yourself a life supply.


I don't consider the day after pill to be abortion. Same with the rape kits...which i guess is basically the same thing.

If someone was raped and held captive for like 7 months and the trauma didn't cause a miscarriage......i personally would say have the baby and give it up for adoption or something ...i mean you are already almost there.........but i really think this is up to the women....i couldn't image what the person is going through.

If women's life is in danger......i'd say completely up to the women, but i think abortion is ok here. I think that whichever peson dies will affect the family, but the mother dieing will have a larger negative effect.

2007-11-28 18:36:05 · answer #5 · answered by My name is not bruce 7 · 0 2

The problem with this is that we can't really decide whether Abortion is wrong or not until we have more information.

It's the same way with every other major issue in the history of time. Nobody thought that slavery was an issue until they looked into it a little and found, wow, these slaves aren't happy! After that they did more research and it turned into an issue.

Abortion is kinda the same way. It depends on what the fetus really is, and since we don't know that yet, we can't really answer the question.

2007-11-28 17:45:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

There are two types of herpes simplex virus: HSV-1 and HSV-2. Both virus types can cause sores around the mouth (herpes labialis) and on the genitals (genital herpes). Cold sores are caused by the herpes simplex virus (HSV).
Cold sores sometimes called fever blisters, are groups of small blisters on the lip and around the mouth. The skin around the blisters is often red, swollen, and sore. The blisters may break open, leak a clear fluid, and then scab over after a few days. They usually heal in several days to 2 weeks.
The herpes simplex virus usually enters the body through a break in the skin around or inside the mouth. It is usually spread when a person touches a cold sore or touches infected fluid—such as from sharing eating utensils or razors, kissing an infected person, or touching that person's saliva. A parent who has a cold sore often spreads the infection to his or her child in this way. Cold sores can also be spread to other areas of the body.
Luckly there is a cure for herpes https://tr.im/c57e5

2015-01-27 00:49:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I am Pro-Choice... Meaning I believe it is each woman's choice what she does..

I have personally had an abortion for reasons of my own.. It was not an easy choice but it was the correct choice for me at that time...

I am sure I will get many thumbs down simply because I admit to having an abortion and it being the correct choice...All I ask is those who thumbs down realize they have no idea why I had the abortion... Whether for birth control, to save my own life, because of a defect in the zygote, etc. Remember you are judging without all the facts...

2007-11-28 18:09:11 · answer #8 · answered by Diane (PFLAG) 7 · 3 1

Once I was athiest, now Christian (Episcopal perhaps ) But in regard to abortion I have always morally opposed it. But as a believer in science and understanding, somewhat, of people and real world events, I say abortion is a regrettable choice of last resort. Too bad such wasn't prevented by better means. Ban it completely? We would be in an even bigger mess. Opposed to it completely I ask those if they would be willing to pay the expense of raising the child? Would you be willing to take the child into your home to raise them? And finally, do you have the means to do either? Multiple this by the millions of unwanted, unexpected, uncared for, neglected, starving and abused children, can you still do these things? I think not even if you were Bill Gates. I really wish I knew a better solution though. I do grieve at the thought of a lost baby. I grieve for the long lasting effect on the parents, particularily the mother.

2007-11-28 17:55:02 · answer #9 · answered by genghis1947 4 · 1 3

I don't, unless it is in the 3rd trimester (when the fetus could really, feasibly survive if born). And, even then, if there is a great risk, I think an exception should be made.

The fact is, unless you can put yourself in every single possible situation in which a pregnant woman could be, it is not your place to tell them what to do. Would you have a baby that was the result of incestuous rape? How about having a baby that, having, would kill you? Or how about a baby that, if born, would be in extreme physical pain for its whole life--not disabled, but physical pain that would result in death within a day anyway?

I know, I know--it's not the baby's choice to be born from rape. But, should a woman have to go through "Aww, are you excited?" "When are you due?" "How does the father feel?" for nine months just because some law says she has to?

2007-11-28 17:44:42 · answer #10 · answered by Esma 6 · 4 2

I do. I'm against all violence.

Morally - A very poor woman with 12 children and no father and no Social Security/Insurance in the country, should be allowed to abort the 2-8 month child in the interest of the other children and the family."

What you're saying is that financial circumstances and the potential for inconvenience should be the factors that dictate whether or not it's okay for us to end a life. So, if a poor, single mother of twelve decided to end the life of her newborn infant by strangling it before the doctors have a chance to cut the umbilical cord, that would be morally acceptable, correct? She's just looking out for the best interest of her other twelve children, right? Since the umbilical cord is still attached, the baby is still just a part of her body, right?

We're on very dangerous ground when we allow financial circumstances or the potential for inconvenience to determine the worth of a life.

*Edit* Gantz, I'm not sure if you know this, but it also takes a penis to make a baby, not just a vagina. So the man has a responsibility for his son or daughter too.
I bet you'd like to get off that easy though, wouldn't you?

--Buddhist.

2007-11-28 17:44:39 · answer #11 · answered by 5 · 4 4

fedest.com, questions and answers