Are you for or against abortion!?

[sunkarma]

For.
I am for a woman's right to choice....either way. We should have the freedom to choose.

Sticky subject, though.

[inox]

you don't want a baby don't have sex.

This is entirely impractical to the point of absurdity.

[Pull~My~Hair]

This is entirely impractical to the point of absurdity.

I wouldn't say absurdity, I mean, there are many cultures where sex is simply for conception, nothing else, and face it, that's exactly what it is. Of course most cultures have found that it's also a great hobby as well

[mmmcherry]

"bet you $100 my balls
glow in the dark"

um.... ewwww... nightmares.

Anyway, a rather good solution, imho, would be to just nuke the planet.

send all the awesome people to live on the moon... then nuke

[Angel Slayer]

for. for. a thousand times for. my girlfriend throws jelly donuts at abortion protesters.

[vinylkitty]

I know what I feel would be right for me, and I am not presumptuous enough to think I have the right to make that decision for anyone else. I guess that makes me prochoice. It scares me that abortions could be made illeagal. The fact is they will occcur whether or not they are legal. So why force it into the hands of desperate people with no medical training?

[mmmcherry]

yeah , it would at least be safer if they were legal... done at a hospital instead of in someones bathtub or some shit...

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I wouldn't say absurdity, I mean, there are many cultures where sex is simply for conception, nothing else, and face it, that's exactly what it is. Of course most cultures have found that it's also a great hobby as well

And in those cultures there are still unwed mothers, unplanned pregnancies, and what have ya. The only real difference is how people are treated when it get's out that they had sex for fun, not to make babies.

[inox]

I wouldn't say absurdity, I mean, there are many cultures where sex is simply for conception, nothing else, and face it, that's exactly what it is. Of course most cultures have found that it's also a great hobby as well

Yes, and there are plenty of cultures where the standard of living is very low, and women are bearing children just as soon as they are physically capable, often to much older men.

However, at least in parts of the world like ours, we've reached a point of social evolution where we (at least in theory) don't live in a completely animalistic, primitive fashion.

Accordingly, we have the experience to apprehend more abstract concepts. We can understand philosophy and not just animism; we can also see the value in sexual contact independent of the production of offspring.

So, in our context, saying "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is nothing more than a delusional hat tip to cultures of oppression.

[tinstar]

It simply gives two inept political parties a guaranteed voting base.

OEC

Pro-choice... and pro-OEC!!

[Morning Glory]

Yes, and there are plenty of cultures where the standard of living is very low, and women are bearing children just as soon as they are physically capable, often to much older men.

However, at least in parts of the world like ours, we've reached a point of social evolution where we (at least in theory) don't live in a completely animalistic, primitive fashion.

Accordingly, we have the experience to apprehend more abstract concepts. We can understand philosophy and not just animism; we can also see the value in sexual contact independent of the production of offspring.

So, in our context, saying "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is nothing more than a delusional hat tip to cultures of oppression.

I'm going to disagree with you on that one. It's not that those so-called "primitive" cultures don't understand the point of sex other then for reproduction. If such a thing was true then why would they have life-long monogamous relationships? most animals don't because they know that you need to spread your seed around to get the most effective range of reproduction. They understand sexual intimacy, they just don't have the idea "sex sells" beaten into their heads 24/7, so the desire for self gratification versus social responsibility seems like an obvious compromise to them. They also have a sexual freedom in a way that we lack because they have a society that actually takes care of people and it's not everyone for themselves. Having children is not a burden because the responsibility is shared, not just put all on the parents, taking away all their time and individuality. I think that maybe you may want to reconsider just who really is delusional when it comes to reality; the society that lives it, or the society that occupies most of it's time watching TV and reading celebrity fashion magazines and passing laws to ban people from controlling what goes into and comes out of their bodies.

[Empress_Of_Drac]

theres to be powers whom are against the idea,.. there are those whom would argue beethoven would have never been ,.. but then their those whom are pro-choice,..

where do you stand? what is your opinion?

For me it all depends to the reasons why will you commit such kind of evil...i don't really think that all evil can do harm to us...i believe that a little evil can make things more manageable...so I'm a pro BUT it depends upon the case...I'm into abortion if...
1. You know that the life in your womb has this certain ailments that couldn't be treated and it would be a waste of time to bear that life for 9months since it's life is doomed to end
2. The life in your womb is the seed of those bastards who ***** you...(know wot I mean?)
3. The life in your womb can kill you. It will cause you're life since you have an ailments and you are not adequate to bear a child

...and a lot more same cases...

[Pull~My~Hair]

I'm going to disagree with you on that one. It's not that those so-called "primitive" cultures don't understand the point of sex other then for reproduction. If such a thing was true then why would they have life-long monogamous relationships? most animals don't because they know that you need to spread your seed around to get the most effective range of reproduction. They understand sexual intimacy, they just don't have the idea "sex sells" beaten into their heads 24/7, so the desire for self gratification versus social responsibility seems like an obvious compromise to them. They also have a sexual freedom in a way that we lack because they have a society that actually takes care of people and it's not everyone for themselves. Having children is not a burden because the responsibility is shared, not just put all on the parents, taking away all their time and individuality. I think that maybe you may want to reconsider just who really is delusional when it comes to reality; the society that lives it, or the society that occupies most of it's time watching TV and reading celebrity fashion magazines and passing laws to ban people from controlling what goes into and comes out of their bodies.

thats very true..

sometimes I wish my neighbor would take care of my son so I can take a nap...

[endlosmacht]

answer me this question...how can MEN who are 50+ older make a decision for a woman who is anywhere from 16> to 500 yrs old? Im a guy should I make a decision for a woman some one of the oppsite let alone someone else? It should be their own decision. It is their choice to live with the consequences whether good or bad. Im sorry that church groups or anyone feel they have to bash clinics but if you are against abortion DONT GET ONE! The same for gay marriage..you dont like gay marriage..DONT MARRY ONE!

[inox]

I'm going to disagree with you on that one. It's not that those so-called "primitive" cultures don't understand the point of sex other then for reproduction. If such a thing was true then why would they have life-long monogamous relationships? most animals don't because they know that you need to spread your seed around to get the most effective range of reproduction. They understand sexual intimacy, they just don't have the idea "sex sells" beaten into their heads 24/7, so the desire for self gratification versus social responsibility seems like an obvious compromise to them. They also have a sexual freedom in a way that we lack because they have a society that actually takes care of people and it's not everyone for themselves. Having children is not a burden because the responsibility is shared, not just put all on the parents, taking away all their time and individuality. I think that maybe you may want to reconsider just who really is delusional when it comes to reality; the society that lives it, or the society that occupies most of it's time watching TV and reading celebrity fashion magazines and passing laws to ban people from controlling what goes into and comes out of their bodies.

There are a lot of different cultures out there, and it seems like you picked a specific one and responded based on that. Not all backwards cultures have monogamous-for-life relationships, and certainly the village does not always raise the child.

Even in some that display the outwardly pretty picture you paint, though, lifelong monogamy is oftentimes more about the guarantee of lineage in a patriarchal society. Also, the "shared" responsibility of raising children is usually tied to the given society's strong desire for conformity, whether to a holy book's words or merely a set of social expectations.

The reason our culture has so many "Fleshdunce" lures, to quote Biafra, is that the vast majority of any population just wants to get by, and get on with their lives. They want easy answers, and they want the comfort that those easy answers provide.

We've figured out that these cheap fantasies control large populations well, much like lottery tickets and Playstation. That's okay, though, as long as the machinery of society works, and great artists and thinkers emerge as a result of the stability thereby generated. Those people are given the latitude to pursue their interests because of that stability, and each generation can then build on the work of the last.

When you're living at subsistence levels, and everyone has to work the field or starve, you don't get classical composers, or Newton, and a lot of simple diseases end up being fatal.

To steer this back to the topic, when you have a culture that's able to function at a more meta level (at its best, not its least common denominator), you also get the ability to step outside of tribal prejudice and practice. You get to see some customs as what they are: strategies for promoting stability in small social groups. You can hopefully determine when these are no longer necessary, and you do not see them as absolute models of conduct.

So, to stumble backwards into antiquated thinking and assert that sexuality should necessarily and rightly come with the risk of parenthood is not only counter to us developing less inhibited and fearful attitudes toward sex, it's a small move toward one of the most dangerous delusions of all: that the modern era is depraved and/or decadent, and that some halcyon past existed when we had "simpler values".

[Black Spiral Dancer]

I would have to say that if my wife came in one day and said that she was pregnant, and said she wanted to get rid of it, I would not stand in her way. She would have my full support. She is not the mothering type, and the last thing this world needs is me pissing into the "Gene Pool". It's bad enough that my sisters are breeding. The world doesn't need another mouth that it can't afford to feed. The world is over populated, and we are running out of resources, it is time that people realised that Life is a STD! You can catch it from having sex and you will suffer for it for the rest of your life, if you can't cope with it!

[Morning Glory]

you are right Inox. It's really never so simply put, but I don't really want to keep going on along that lines off topic. I do feel that it comes down to personal choice, which is really the main point of this entire discussion. I think that the defintion of advancement is in the eye of the beholder though, and biology and social structure is something that we are still at the whim of. It may be naive to think that people will always consider the consequences of their actions, but it's not out of the question, at least in my mind, to think that they should.

[inox]

It may be naive to think that people will always consider the consequences of their actions, but it's not out of the question, at least in my mind, to think that they should.

Fair enough. I too think that they should consider them, but I think that sex is too useful a tool for psychological liberation to be burdened with any more fear than it already is.

[Amelia G]

There are a lot of different cultures out there, and it seems like you picked a specific one and responded based on that. Not all backwards cultures have monogamous-for-life relationships, and certainly the village does not always raise the child.

Even in some that display the outwardly pretty picture you paint, though, lifelong monogamy is oftentimes more about the guarantee of lineage in a patriarchal society. Also, the "shared" responsibility of raising children is usually tied to the given society's strong desire for conformity, whether to a holy book's words or merely a set of social expectations.

The reason our culture has so many "Fleshdunce" lures, to quote Biafra, is that the vast majority of any population just wants to get by, and get on with their lives. They want easy answers, and they want the comfort that those easy answers provide.

We've figured out that these cheap fantasies control large populations well, much like lottery tickets and Playstation. That's okay, though, as long as the machinery of society works, and great artists and thinkers emerge as a result of the stability thereby generated. Those people are given the latitude to pursue their interests because of that stability, and each generation can then build on the work of the last.

When you're living at subsistence levels, and everyone has to work the field or starve, you don't get classical composers, or Newton, and a lot of simple diseases end up being fatal.

To steer this back to the topic, when you have a culture that's able to function at a more meta level (at its best, not its least common denominator), you also get the ability to step outside of tribal prejudice and practice. You get to see some customs as what they are: strategies for promoting stability in small social groups. You can hopefully determine when these are no longer necessary, and you do not see them as absolute models of conduct.

So, to stumble backwards into antiquated thinking and assert that sexuality should necessarily and rightly come with the risk of parenthood is not only counter to us developing less inhibited and fearful attitudes toward sex, it's a small move toward one of the most dangerous delusions of all: that the modern era is depraved and/or decadent, and that some halcyon past existed when we had "simpler values".

Eloquent and very interesting points

[Mirren]

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- South Dakota's governor on Monday signed into law a bill banning nearly all abortions, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of **** or incest.


Unbelievable.

[Toe Cutter]

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of **** or incest.

fucking bastards!

[bohoki]

i really wish we could link the second ammendment to abotion because if you think of it the analogies are limitless

its two cases of freedom that seem to polarize different groups

if a state is allowed to control a clearly constitutional freedom then why should another state not control another

[Jax]

Im all for it.

Grab the rusty hanger;]

[the_darkness_calls]

that's just messed up that SD's governor signed that law.... whether you agree with it or not, women should have the choice

....i'm all for it, btw

[bohoki]

i'm not against abortion

but i am not for having abortions performed at every walmart

but if we are a nation of states then allow a few states to have a few crazy blue laws there is no law against taking a bus to another state planned parenthood could set up some type of loan to pay transportation costs like a abortion grant or something

the law was meant to bring on a lawsuit

and planned parenthood has to file a lawsuit they are in the rock and a hardplace position if they don't file a lawsuit it would show they dont care

i think its all great entertainment
because it is going nowhere the lowest small claims court will shoot it down it has no chance of making it to the federal supreme court

even if it is banned in a state
i believe in equalibrium

if a state has banned abortions and in time has more unwanted unloved children grow up into angry adults they may vote in people to change the law

you see how the press handles it "its chipping away at the rights"
they dont put up so much as a blurb if a state bans a certain type of rifle how is that not chipping away a right

[One Eyed Cat]

Pro-choice... and pro-OEC!!

How are things up your way? Been awhile.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

actually I kind of agree with this line of thinking, I think we should have a state full of right wing religious assholes, since we have them all over anyway, wouldn't you much rather have them all togther in one place where they don't have to bother anyone else?

[One Eyed Cat]

actually I kind of agree with this line of thinking, I think we should have a state full of right wing religious assholes, since we have them all over anyway, wouldn't you much rather have them all togther in one place where they don't have to bother anyone else?

That would be the actual result of overturning Roe. The laws would revert back to state laws. The only danger would be a Human Life Amendment (or major hypocrisy by the "federalists" on the Supreme Court.) In that case, abortion rights would be curtailed on a national level.

OEC

[Scar]

SoOOOOOoOoOoOO as Brittney Spears is preg-o again why not revisit this issue?

I am pro-abortion. There are ways to use protection and become pregnant. There are children who go unadopted. There are people who resent their children because they had them too young and "didn't get to live" their lives. There are babies who are born with deformities and defects because their parents were not healthy at the time they became preg-o or even during pregnancy.

My cousin and his GF were drug addicts, meth in fact, and he got her preg-o. They decided they were going to get married and have the kid, because they both had religious families who didn't believe in abortion. She used meth during her entire pregnancy, the baby came out totally messed up. At the age of 2, he was still unable to sit up straight on his own, eat for himself, and was far behind where he should be in his mental growth. Basically a little plant. By this time my cousin and his gem of a wife had turned over care of the baby to my uncle, after neglecting it to the point where family members would come to visit them and find both of them zonked out after a drug binge and the baby just lopped over on it's high chair. My Aunt and Uncle spent a ton of money trying to help the child, trying to give it a healthy life, but knowing it would die prematurely regardless. But how, even knowing that, could you not try to help it? You can't give up on the child, but they have no money now from trying to care for it.

A few months ago my mother flew to Washington to attend the baby's funeral. Less than 3, and he died. My loser cousin and his junkie wife are strangely unaffected because they were too high to love the baby in the first place, the rest of the family is embarrassed and heartbroken. The proud parents are, of course, still on drugs.

I am pro abortion.

[funkatron]

I'm thinking some post-natal abortion is in order for those two.

[lhiannan1981]

I am split. I think it should be legal for medical reasons...there was a woman on a board I visited often whose baby had a chromosomal abnormality that would cause suffering until the baby died at about a year old (oldest case). She chose to abort rather than give birth to a child that would suffer. I also personally know someone who used abortion as birth control, which i'm completely against. I don't think that a person should be able to get an abortion because it is inconvenient for them to be pregnant...

[drewblood]

SoOOOOOoOoOoOO as Brittney Spears is preg-o again why not revisit this issue?

I am pro-abortion. There are ways to use protection and become pregnant. There are children who go unadopted. There are people who resent their children because they had them too young and "didn't get to live" their lives. There are babies who are born with deformities and defects because their parents were not healthy at the time they became preg-o or even during pregnancy.

My cousin and his GF were drug addicts, meth in fact, and he got her preg-o. They decided they were going to get married and have the kid, because they both had religious families who didn't believe in abortion. She used meth during her entire pregnancy, the baby came out totally messed up. At the age of 2, he was still unable to sit up straight on his own, eat for himself, and was far behind where he should be in his mental growth. Basically a little plant. By this time my cousin and his gem of a wife had turned over care of the baby to my uncle, after neglecting it to the point where family members would come to visit them and find both of them zonked out after a drug binge and the baby just lopped over on it's high chair. My Aunt and Uncle spent a ton of money trying to help the child, trying to give it a healthy life, but knowing it would die prematurely regardless. But how, even knowing that, could you not try to help it? You can't give up on the child, but they have no money now from trying to care for it.

A few months ago my mother flew to Washington to attend the baby's funeral. Less than 3, and he died. My loser cousin and his junkie wife are strangely unaffected because they were too high to love the baby in the first place, the rest of the family is embarrassed and heartbroken. The proud parents are, of course, still on drugs.

I am pro abortion.

ugh what a horribly sad story.... im sorry

absotively 110% totally for abortion.

[Jax]

I am split. I think it should be legal for medical reasons...there was a woman on a board I visited often whose baby had a chromosomal abnormality that would cause suffering until the baby died at about a year old (oldest case). She chose to abort rather than give birth to a child that would suffer. I also personally know someone who used abortion as birth control, which i'm completely against. I don't think that a person should be able to get an abortion because it is inconvenient for them to be pregnant...

Hopefully all that scarring from aborting will prevent her from getting pregnant anymore.

[Black Spiral Dancer]

All for it! In fact, I think they should be mandatory for all unfit parents.

Here, Here!