ForumGarden

Chloe_88;1375909 wrote: thanks for the explanation. cleared things up.

There are a portion of rapes that are really untrue I agree with that as well. But why does it still happen so often (that women lie about how they got pregnant, and why/how did they get pregnant in the first place anyway?!)? of course the odd accidents will always happen, but no one could say all abortions are due to "accidents". I think it's poor education i.e. ignorance or just stupidity.

In the last case they should deal with the consequences of being pregnant.


One of the consequences of having sex is getting pregnant I think that is one the most least understood, not thought of ideals that lead to not being able to handle other consequences down the line of course in the cases in which the abortion is mad because the pregnancy was an "accident"

**** happens sometimes even when you're carefull. What I object to is people who have 7 abortions and are still not spoken to about different types of birth controle. Or just keep getting pregnant even though they know better, and then having another abortion.

posted by chloe

**** happens sometimes even when you're carefull. What I object to is people who have 7 abortions and are still not spoken to about different types of birth controle. Or just keep getting pregnant even though they know better, and then having another abortion.




Why do you believe that most abortions are as an alternative to using birth control? Have you read that somewhere or do the actual statistics back it up?

Looks like there are going to be far more unwanted pregnancies in the United States. It seems if you are aduylt enough to have sex the state doesn't think you are adult enough to know about contraception. Sorry about the advent.

Rachel Maddow Show

I just don't get Americans, you oppose universal health care as government interfering in your freedoms but condone the state dictating whether you can use contraceptives and forcing women to carry a baby to term irrespective of the consequences for the mother. You condemn teenage single mothers but deny them free access to contraceptives or the knowledge that would help them make a choice all for spurious religious reasons. .

I grew up in the 60's.

While it was a time of free love and all of that, it was also a time of self-centered-ness and laws not yet catching up to what people were doing. Back then, go into any movie theater, store or even a doctor's office, and everyone is smoking a cigarette. Nobody cared if you had emphasima or you were a little kid. Too bad! If your neighbor came over your house and said that the little boy in the house spit on their car window - or whatever - your father or your mother would apologize, close the door, and you'd get your mouth smacked or washed out with soap. It was a me-me-me society. And that's the way I saw abortion back then. It was a solution to a problem. It didn't matter if the solution hurt someone else - or in the case of abortion - killed someone else. Hell, friends were dying all the time over in Vietnam. No one cares about them - why should I care about a fetus?

Then I grew up.

With that, I feel I got a little bit smarter. Or at least I hope I did.

We now mandate that everyone wears seatbelts in cars and children need to be a car seat. No smoking in public. You can't get divorced and then take your child out of the country forever without permission from the spouse. Manufacturers can't put anything they want in the food and the products they make. You can't put your baby in a crib and then come back in the morning to find he got his neck caught between the bars and died. But it's OK to kill him while he's in your uterus!?

What would the contributors on this thread do if they were told at 5 months that their baby's major organs were either underdeveloped or not positioned correctly and that their babe had only a 25% chance of surviving to full term and a 10-15% chance of surviving delivery...bearing in mind that the professionals could only point out the problems but not make the decision on whether or not the pregnancy should be terminated.

At 5 months, hope they have got it wrong and carry on.

Bruv;1376097 wrote: At 5 months, hope they have got it wrong and carry on.


Even when you can see the problems on the scanning monitor?

theia;1376098 wrote: Even when you can see the problems on the scanning monitor?


Of course I would not have the last say, I would try and be impartial, play down my concerns.

It would be down to the mother to choose, and whatever she chose I would back her up.

At 5 months there would be movement, there would be a connection.

I have no problem with contraception or termination in the early stages of pregnancy for mistakes.

I have major worries when termination is used as a secondary form of contraception, especially when there are many easily available methods of contraception.

Bruv;1376100 wrote: Of course I would not have the last say, I would try and be impartial, play down my concerns.

It would be down to the mother to choose, and whatever she chose I would back her up.

At 5 months there would be movement, there would be a connection.

I have no problem with contraception or termination in the early stages of pregnancy for mistakes.

I have major worries when termination is used as a secondary form of contraception, especially when there are many easily available methods of contraception.


I may have misread your post, Bruv, but I'm interpreting it that it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy in the first few months, when it's a mistake, but less acceptable to terminate a pregnancy in the later stages when there are major problems that are likely to threaten the baby's survival. Yes, at 5 months there is connection and there is movement...it must be hell to chose termination at that stage.

No I think you got it right, it's not a yes or no answer.

If a mother carries a child for 5 months it is a planned pregnancy, she has bought clothes, she has felt movement.

Whatever decision will be hard to make.

The medics get it wrong or cannot know the extent of any problems, I have known mothers advised to terminate and have had healthy births.

Somethings are better not to know, or not depending on your point of view.

Difficult dilemma.

A couple of months before I was born, a man died of a heart aneurism. His brain, they later found out, was smaller than normal. While an infant he didn't speak until he was 2 years old. His name was Albert Einstein.

I will answer this response next week...but I wanted to thank you for greeting of "Welcome"...it felt nice.

gmc;1376071 wrote: I just don't get Americans, you oppose universal health care as government interfering in your freedoms but condone the state dictating whether you can use contraceptives and forcing women to carry a baby to term irrespective of the consequences for the mother. You condemn teenage single mothers but deny them free access to contraceptives or the knowledge that would help them make a choice all for spurious religious reasons. .That's a mentality of a lesser group gmc, not "Americans" as if everyone feels that way. The fact is that abortion is pro-choice and will remain pro-choice regardless of any extreme group that might rub you the wrong way, as they do I.

I will say that if America isn't careful they will see just how voting in these religious nutcases will strip them of their freedoms faster than any pro government agenda...

I just cannot understand how anyone can vote for these right wing, "moral value", ignorant gorillas...

"How do you say delicious in Cuban"...Did you hear that sh**? My God

Newt Gingrich?

No

Please, no...

America cannot vote these idiots in office, they just can't...If they do, then I will join you in "I just don't get Americans"

gmc;1376071 wrote: posted by chloe

Why do you believe that most abortions are as an alternative to using birth control? Have you read that somewhere or do the actual statistics back it up?


I don't think I ever said that I believed most or all abortions are used as an alternative to using birth control.

I said : I object to woman who have 7 abortions instead of using proper birth control. So what I mean is people who are constantly having abortions because of the lack of proper birth control use.

Hi Ahso!



I think you're right - there are alot of children up for adoption.

So, those mothers didn't choose abortion. Glad to hear that.

I know there are a lot of couples waiting in line to adopt children also.

So, the better question might be: why is there a large supply of children waiting to be adopted and a concurrent large supply of couples wanting to adopt?

Sniff...sniff, sniff, sniff.

Is that a bunch of self-serving lawyers and businessmen I smell?

Blackslax;1376575 wrote: Hi Ahso!



I think you're right - there are alot of children up for adoption.

So, those mothers didn't choose abortion. Glad to hear that.

I know there are a lot of couples waiting in line to adopt children also.

So, the better question might be: why is there a large supply of children waiting to be adopted and a concurrent large supply of couples wanting to adopt?

Sniff...sniff, sniff, sniff.

Is that a bunch of self-serving lawyers and businessmen I smell?Are you claiming there are an equal number of willing, able and qualified individuals or couples to adopt as there are children in need or want of adoption?

Also, any response to my other posts?

No.

Blackslax;1376584 wrote: No.Is that a response to both questions?

Chloe_88;1376275 wrote: I don't think I ever said that I believed most or all abortions are used as an alternative to using birth control.

I said : I object to woman who have 7 abortions instead of using proper birth control. So what I mean is people who are constantly having abortions because of the lack of proper birth control use.


It was implied rather than stated. If you look at the stats of women having more than one abortion the suggestion it is used as a means of contraception doesn't add up - at least in non catholic countries where contraceptives are freely available. It's one of those logical fallacies beloved of pro life advocates. Some women have more than one abortion therefore they must be using it as a means of contraception.

Obviously not all woman who have serval abortions use it as a kind of birth control. But i do wonder why someone would have serval abortions, and if they do use birth control maybe have it checked out, because then something isn't working properly..

I (personally!) do not want any children.. but if i would get pregnant by accident i would not have an abortion.. for me it would feel wrong.. I would always be wondering what it would have been etc.

K.Snyder;1376140 wrote: That's a mentality of a lesser group gmc, not "Americans" as if everyone feels that way. The fact is that abortion is pro-choice and will remain pro-choice regardless of any extreme group that might rub you the wrong way, as they do I.

I will say that if America isn't careful they will see just how voting in these religious nutcases will strip them of their freedoms faster than any pro government agenda...

I just cannot understand how anyone can vote for these right wing, "moral value", ignorant gorillas...

"How do you say delicious in Cuban"...Did you hear that sh**? My God

Newt Gingrich?

No

Please, no...

America cannot vote these idiots in office, they just can't...If they do, then I will join you in "I just don't get Americans"


Your christian right do seem to have a disproportionate amount of influence. They seem hell bent (no pun intended) on turning america back to god. As the public do not support an outright ban on abortion they will fiddle at the edges on time limits and counselling which is what they try and do here. It sound reasonable until you realise what it means in practice.

Hi Ahso!

I'll have to check your other posts.

I tried to answer all of the post that responded to me.

I wasn't ignoring you...sorry about that.

I'll hunt them down and check it out.

You're right GMC Obama was here and I couldn't believe his insult of "god bless Australia"..what the hell? Our prime minister is an athiest. God even the pope doesn't go that far. and the Queen wouldn't even go that far.

Blackslax;1376584 wrote: No.So we can then say your statement that: "There are soooo many people that would love to adopt the child..." is not accurate in that, even though many would love to adopt these children, it just isn't feasible to say they will be adopted. Correct?

fuzzywuzzy;1376741 wrote: You're right GMC Obama was here and I couldn't believe his insult of "god bless Australia"..what the hell? Our prime minister is an athiest. God even the pope doesn't go that far. and the Queen wouldn't even go that far.


I have a theory, that I can't back up in any way, that in the uk and perhaps by extension to australia there is almost an instinctual memory of the conflicts and horror caused by the notion my god is on my side and he's better than yours so that when we hear anyone expressing sentiments in those terms our instinct is to cringe and find it upsetting.