I'm pro-choice because the world isn't a perfect place. Accidents happen; and women should not be denied treatment if they become pregnant. I am pro-choice for ALL early-term abortions. I go off of fetal viability - Around week 27 the fetus becomes capable of life outside of the womb and thus, at this point, I believe it has a right to life and can no longer be killed unless it is absolutely the only way to save the mother's life.

Thanks for posting cmyked!

Now, you say the world isn't a perfect place; I understand that and agree. So you believe that allowing abortions makes the world more fair? Can you elaborate as to why that should be a valid reason? Because everytime I get the, "Yeah, well life ain't fair!" excuse from an authority figure, I think it's a poor reason.

Accidents do happen, but I have a fundamental view of personal accountability. If a woman is not in the situation to have a child on her own terms, then she should not have s-e-x. It does not matter if she is in a steady relationship or had a single night of intercourse.

A pregnant woman should never be denied needed medical treatment. If there's a good chance that the woman would die during child birth, etc. then I have to say I would not be against abortion - especially if it were my wife. I value "established life" over "potential life." But, if the pregnant woman is seeking treatment for an abortion because she's just starting college/work and doesn't want a baby, then I don't believe that is needed medical treatment; its wanted treatment.

If the qualification for human life is independency from something that is vital in it's survival, then are people who are on respirators considered less human than someone who's breathing normally? What about someone who takes insulin? Or someone who's on dialysis? Is a child in an incubator less viable than a child outside the womb? Dependency, size, level of development, and environment are irrelevant when determining how much right to life a human possesses.

Great first post, btw.

As far as this post goes, I respect the fact that you feel that for your life, you will only be having sex the number of times that equals the number of children you wish to and can afford to have. For myself, I don't believe too many marriages could survive in a sexless state, but I wish those people nothing but the best.

Thank ya kindly.



I never insinuated that I think sex should be only used for procreation when married, or that married couples should not have romance. I only stated that I am saving sex for marriage. In fact, we'll probably do it more often since, well, we've never done it before.

If we don't want a baby, we'll use contraceptives. If the contraceptives don't work, at least we'll be in the position to take on the responsibility of a baby - married couples are usually more stable in their relationships/careers/education than non-married couples, or at least one would think. Hence why abstinance makes sense fundamentally, and sex for social purposes, even between a steady non-married couple, makes no sense. Non-married couples do not need to have sex, and individuals, not species, but individuals do not have to have sex in order to survive. Do people have the right to? Yes, but if they choose to do so, I think they should bear the responsibilities that come with it, including becoming pregnant despite not wanting to.

I think that is an excellent point of view, and I wish you much happiness and success in your married life.

But you need to understand that your view cannot be imposed on anyone else. People have as much right to have sex with whom, when and how they want as you will to have sex with your eventual wife. And your view of what is an acceptable reaction to an unwanted pregnancy holds only insofar as that action applies to yourself -- not even to your eventual wife.

I just wanted to chime in and say thank you for a very thoughtful, polite and respectful introduction post, Ewing. You seem quite open minded and rational. I look forward to discussing this issue with you when I've had some rest.

Some people forget the many ways to have sex. and it won't make a baby! If indeed you don' t want one.. and marriage survive.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying. Here is the paragraph that initially led to my erroneous conclusion:

I think it is so cute being lectured about how abstinence is acceptable for anyone who doesn't want children by an 18 year old celibate (virgin?) boy. And, incidentally, one who can't even spell it correctly.

But, what happened to "My body, my choice"?

The fetus is still in her body, isn't it?

It's still not legally a person, so why does it have a right to life?

Just trying to see the other side!

I'm not going to remain celibate because I don't want children. I don't care who I'm with, how old I am, or how financially ready I am. My body plain and simple cannot handle getting pregnant, nor do I want to even attempt and do so. I'm pro-choice for almost any reason stated above and my own. I don't believe any woman should refrain from sex because she doesn't want children at this time (or ever). I don't believe a marriage will survive without sex in it, tell me it however much you like. I'd also like for you to suggest to every living man that he should go without sex as soon as his girlfriend/wife/fling decides she has enough/doesn't want children. I also believe that people should be personally responsible, and this goes for both sexes. Use one or two (or more) forms of birth control. Talk about what will happen in case of an unplanned pregnancy. Protect yourself and those you care about. And above all, regardless of what some people think, abortion is a responsible course of action for someone who accidentally becomes pregnant. It's certainly a heck of lot more responsible than just ignoring the growing fetus, or in my case, killing both myself and the fetus.

I hate when people say "life ain't fair". There is almost always a way to fix the problem if you take action early enough. Waiting, now that's the problem. I remember a quote that goes something like this: "A mistake doesn't become a problem unless you refuse to fix it".

I don't think life isn't fair, thus I don't believe abortions make it "more" fair. Life is just life.



Having an abortion is being accountable. Sex isn't a bad word on this forum! I firmly believe that sex is NOT just for procreation. Sex is also for enjoyment. Do you believe men should also not have sex unless they're willing to become fathers and marry the woman if she becomes pregnant? There would not be any option for skipping out in that system to make it truly fair for the woman and the man. If she became pregnant and wanted to keep it, he would HAVE to marry her and care for that child. Otherwise, you are only punishing the woman for having sex, and saying it's OK for men to have sex and bad for women to have sex. If you make sex about procreation alone, then both genders MUST be held responsible. It takes two to tango.


An abortion is a medical procedure.

I guess you don't like braces or plastic surgery then, either? Those are "wanted" treatment.

I think it is a far more responsible decision to abort early on if you know you cannot afford the child than to give birth and hand it over or to raise it yourself in poor conditions, giving it almost no chance to progress in life. Poverty only breed poverty; it is a proven fact. Raising a child below the poverty line leaves them with almost no chance to go to college or become anything else other than poor themselves. That's why with teen parents the cycle often repeats itself for generations.


I always get asked this question, and the answer is that the fetus is dependent on the mother's body. It's not just that a viable fetus is "independent", it is that he is independent from another BODY. A person on a respirator is not connected to another human being; I do not breathe for him. A mother breathes, eats, drinks, expels waste, does everything for that fetus.


Again, none of those situations are similar to pregnancy.

What about the fetus's body? I find the phrase "my body, my choice" to be infantile. Both the mother and the fetus have a body, thus, they both have a choice. During any moment in pregnancy, the mother has the right to not have the fetus inside of her. In early pregnancy, this will result in the death of the embryo/fetus even if it is removed alive. It is safer to kill it in the process of removal, so that's what is done. However, once it reaches viability, its right to life is undeniable. You can make no more excuses. It is a human capable of independent survival. The woman still has the right to not have it inside of her, but I feel that at this point, unless there are extenuating circumstances, the fetus should be removed alive.

Do not list exceptions such as "what about fetal deformity, impending maternal death etc". I put in "extenuating circumstances" for a reason; and that reason is that I do not want to hear the exceptions. I am well aware of them and consider many of them to be very good reasons to have to abort instead of birth.

But, the fetus is STILL not legally a person even at eight or nine months gestation. Why can't it be killed late in the pregnancy? What if she did want the pregnancy, but her guy left her and she becomes too poor and not capable of taking care of the baby on her own? (This is just one possible scenerio.) What if she decides that she doesn't want to have to give up the baby for adoption because it would be too painful to? Hey, some people think the fetus isn't human until it's BORN. Some people don't care whether or not it can survive outside the womb. To them, it's a PART of the woman. It isn't a person. It doesn't have rights. So, why not abort an eight or nine month fetus? We're not talking about someone ELSE who harms the fetus against the woman's will. We're talking about what SHE wants. Isn't that what pro-choice is all about?

So, I guess what I'm trying to ask here is if it's wrong to abort a viable fetus, then what's the point of bringing up personhood? A viable fetus is ALSO not a person! According to pro-choicers, you're not a person until your'e born.

As you can see, I'm still trying to understand the pro-choice argument of personhood.

Your username is extremely inappropriate and I've already reported your post. I hope the moderators or admin take care of you soon, as you do not seem like the type of person who is going to make a positive contribution to this forum.

Well, paper's done! Pulled an all nighter, and thus, slept for 24 hours. Good times...

[quote=oopoopoo]But you need to understand that your view cannot be imposed on anyone else. People have as much right to have sex with whom, when and how they want as you will to have sex with your eventual wife. And your view of what is an acceptable reaction to an unwanted pregnancy holds only insofar as that action applies to yourself -- not even to your eventual wife.[/quote]

I'm not wishing to push my views onto anyone, and would never do so - I stated that in my initial post. I was just pointing out the obvious. If one uses something not for it's initual purpose, you are abusing that thing. If one uses sex not for reproduction, one is abusing it. That goes for married couples to.

That is irrefutable, and though the wording may not be accepted, it is accurate. Abusing yourself is used to refer to masturbation.

We still have the right to have sex though, but only according to the law.

[quote=darkmoon]I just wanted to chime in and say thank you for a very thoughtful, polite and respectful introduction post, Ewing. You seem quite open minded and rational. I look forward to discussing this issue with you when I've had some rest.[/quote]

Thank you, darkmoon. I look forward to talking too!

[quote=aochriss]Sorry about the misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying.[/quote]

I think I misunderstood you as well.

When I am married, and my wife and I have an unexpected and unprepared for pregnancy, we will go through with it. If I absolutely don't want a baby, I can have a vasectomy. In fact, I'd rather go through the uncomfortable procedure than having my wife go through a procedure that could have lasting emotional and physical consequences.

[quote=oopoopoop]I think it is so cute being lectured about how abstinence is acceptable for anyone who doesn't want children by an 18 year old celibate (virgin?) boy. And, incidentally, one who can't even spell it correctly.[/quote]

I'm not lecturing - I'm debating. If I ramble, then I'm sorry. But if you can only resort to mocking me and belittling the arguments of a "boy" instead of forming an intelligent rebuttle, then don't participate. I'd rather you'd stay and at least try to refute what I have to say, as an argument with a naive youth like myself should be easy to win for someone like you, right?

And people think southern Christians are ignorant?

[quote=Reptar]My body plain and simple cannot handle getting pregnant, nor do I want to even attempt and do so.[/quote]

I can't argue with part of your reasoning yet because you come from a unique perspective. Why can't your body handle pregnancy, if you don't mind my asking?

[quote=cmyked]Having an abortion is being accountable. Sex isn't a bad word on this forum! I firmly believe that sex is NOT just for procreation. Sex is also for enjoyment. Do you believe men should also not have sex unless they're willing to become fathers and marry the woman if she becomes pregnant? There would not be any option for skipping out in that system to make it truly fair for the woman and the man. If she became pregnant and wanted to keep it, he would HAVE to marry her and care for that child. Otherwise, you are only punishing the woman for having sex, and saying it's OK for men to have sex and bad for women to have sex. If you make sex about procreation alone, then both genders MUST be held responsible. It takes two to tango.[/quote]

Having an abortion is being accountable to...?

I spelled it originally with hyphens because, when I originally posted, it stated that I had used foul language. It was the only word I used that could have been considered bad, so I changed it, and it allowed me to post. I don't know why, 'cause I've used it since then...

Sex is used for procreation. Sex is used for enjoyment. Both can yeild the same result: offspring. So which method is probably what it's supposed to be for? You can use sex for enjoyment, but if you're not in the position to have children, then it is irresponsible to have sex knowing that there is a legitimate chance that the woman will get pregnant. The same goes for men. Having an abortion to make up the irresponsible act that caused the pregnancy does not make abortion responsible.

I believe men should only have sex if they're willing to have children, and should not have sex if they don't want a child.

You said there is no system to force men to father the baby if a woman decides to keep it. But, there is also no system that forces the woman to keep the baby if the father wants it. It is the woman's sole right to choose whether she wants to birth the baby or not, so the wanting father is out of luck even if he would brunt the 18 years of responsibility after the woman's 9 months of responsibility. She does to him what an unwilling father does to a willing wife, except in the willing man's case, he has no option to leave or stay. It takes two to tango, but the woman leads the entire way. The system can be unfair for both men and women, so claiming unfairness as a reason for abortion to be legal is flawed.

Also, if abortion is to cancel out the event of a man walking out on a pregnant woman, does that mean a woman having an abortion is analogous to a man walking out on a pregnant woman?

[quote=cmyked]An abortion is a medical procedure.[/quote]

But it is not always a needed medical procedure. I said a woman should never be denied a needed medical procedure. If she needs an abortion to save her life, then she should have the option to have one.

[quote=cmyked]I guess you don't like braces or plastic surgery then, either? Those are "wanted" treatment.

I think it is a far more responsible decision to abort early on if you know you cannot afford the child than to give birth and hand it over or to raise it yourself in poor conditions, giving it almost no chance to progress in life. Poverty only breed poverty; it is a proven fact. Raising a child below the poverty line leaves them with almost no chance to go to college or become anything else other than poor themselves. That's why with teen parents the cycle often repeats itself for generations.[/quote]

Don't equate straightening teeth or noses to an abortion. They don't even belong in the same grouping, as men can have plastic surgery but can't have abortions. A 13-year-old boy can have braces too.

If you can cite a source that says poverty breeds poverty, then please do.

You said almost no chance at college or prosperity, but there is a chance and probably a better one than you give credit for. You cannot possibly gauge a person's life before they are born. If the requirement for birth should be having parents who are middle-class or above, then the world's population should decline immensely. Do you know how many women in country's other than the United States, Great Britain, etc. have children, despite being in far worse living conditions than any American?

Abortion does not end poverty, and abortion is not the more humane option - If a child is living in property, you don't kill it rather than allowing it to be raised in poor conditions. The women who have abortions are still living in poverty the day after.

That is a very narrow minded argument.

[quote=cmyked]I always get asked this question, and the answer is that the fetus is dependent on the mother's body. It's not just that a viable fetus is "independent", it is that he is independent from another BODY. A person on a respirator is not connected to another human being; I do not breathe for him. A mother breathes, eats, drinks, expels waste, does everything for that fetus.[/quote]

The mother's body and a respirator, etc. are performing the same functions. I hope machines never become self-aware, or else they should be given the option of disconnecting from the human using it to survive.

Environment is does not give means to impose will, either. If the baby is inside the woman's body, then technically, it's his body too as they are both sharing it.



And if anyone can show me how to place names inside of quotes, I'd appreciate it. It seems I'm not doing it correctly...

Sex is not a bad word, murder is. Its silly. If you could maybe edit your post? You need quotation marks ("") around people's names for the quoting to work. It's too hard to read.

I have an iron deficiency, low B12, and I'm hypoglycemic. I'm not even legally allowed to give blood, much less give 90% of my nutrients to a fetus. I literally feel like crap everyday.

What's your point?