I hope this does not make anyone mad

[ferretchucker]

i think he meant, not all raped women would want to abort. What if the woman was pro-life.

[tic]

I think its a highly emotive subject, one to which, having never been in a situation like that, don't have any answers.

My personal view is that abortion can cause as much pain to the 'mother' as it does to the unborn child/feotus, (which ever your feelings go towards) psychologically speaking.

I would like to think I would would be supportive of her wishes, but as I say, I've never had to make that type of decision.

Hopefully I'll never have to.

[ferretchucker]

there's never going to be a right or wrong answer to this question. Everyone just has their own views on the subject.

[Despare]

Originally Posted by ferretchucker

i think he meant, not all raped women would want to abort. What if the woman was pro-life.

What I meant is that it's estimated that under 5% of rape cases result in pregnancy and if you take into account rape AND incest cases the fraction is even smaller (close to 1) so the same old rape and or incest arguments shouldn't be an issue. I have my opinion and everybody else can have theirs but don't try to shove yours down my throat. It's easy to make generalizations and say that all pro-choicers are bible thumping rednecks or that pro-lifers are liberal atheists so I'm hoping everybody stays away from that (too late for some?). Anyway, the poem was ok and now the thread itself sucks. I'm heading off to watch Imprint.

[PR3SSUR3]

That is not what the post is saying - it suggests that using rape as a valid reason for abortion is a trite and dismissable excuse trying to justify the acceptance of abortion.

The tone of the post considering it was made as a response to a pro-choice comment seems pretty clear: that the few raped women who conceive should consider a pro-life poem instead of an abortion.

But apparently that's not what he meant, so there you go.

EDIT:-

The small amount of pregnant rapes nontheless addresses a huge ethical dilemma, which is should a woman be forced to feed and birth the child of an evil man, conceived through an act of premeditated evil.

Anyone with half a brain cell would say, no - therefore abortion should be legal and accepted. Or should it only be allowed in clear cases of rape?

But the real question surely is, why do threads become labelled as 'sucky' when people ask questions and try to discuss serious issues?

[Despare]

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3

That is not what the post is saying - it suggests that using rape as a valid reason for abortion is a trite and dismissable excuse trying to justify the acceptance of abortion.

The tone of the post considering it was made as a response to a pro-choice comment seems pretty clear: that the few raped women who conceive should consider a pro-life poem instead of an abortion.

But apparently that's not what he meant, so there you go.

EDIT:-

The small amount of pregnant rapes nontheless addresses a huge ethical dilemma, which is should a woman be forced to feed and birth the child of an evil man, conceived through an act of premeditated evil.

Anyone with half a brain cell would say, no - therefore abortion should be legal and accepted. Or should it only be allowed in clear cases of rape?

But the real question surely is, why do threads become labelled as 'sucky' when people ask questions and try to discuss serious issues?

A: That's not what I meant, as I described, and a poem is not a viable alternative to an abortion.

B: The few people who ask questions and actually discuss a serious issue quickly get outnumbered and overshadowed by narrow-minded people who do nothing but perpetuate stereotypes. I stated my opinion, and read other people's views... again. We've had this discussion before, more than once, and frankly this thread hasn't brought anything new to the table except for the poem that started this off.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

this is one of the better threads we've had in awhile

[Despare]

Originally Posted by X¤MurderDoll¤X

this is one of the better threads we've had in awhile

Since the last one eh? Remember that one? It's all the same stuff, and even back then it had already been discussed before. It's all just retreads of the same conversations.

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3

I don't think an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, and its fate is quite literally in the hands (or womb) of its creator until it is born. As has been said, people can't really go around telling women what to do with what they have growing inside them - who are they to appoint themselves spokespersons for foetuses? ('Foetusii?')

However I think the way things are generally accepted now is about right - there should be a cutoff point for abortion, from when the 'baby' becomes significantly formed enough to be recognised as a human being, and not just a load of expanding cells. Usually this will give the potential mother plenty of time to decide whether it is right to bring it into the world or not.

There was stereotyping too...

Originally Posted by chaibill

Its so funny that most Pro Lifers are also war suporters. .

Originally Posted by Despare

And all Mexicans are landscapers, all blacks steal, all Jews are cheap, all the Irish are drunks...

Ah well... you get the point.

[Dark Party]

Originally Posted by pinkfloyd45769

My uncle sent me this and i have just been crying my eyes out. I hate this world we live in!

Ironically, the band Pink Floyd is pro-abortion.

But perhaps if you want a kinder, gentler world -- you should hang out at a forum NOT named Horror.com.

[missmacabre]

Nothing personal but I think that if I was raped and became pregnant I would want to have the baby and raise them so they wouldn't become a rapist or any manner of bad person.