fluffyrat Posted February 17, 2003 Report Share Posted February 17, 2003 I know that many people aren't comfortable with this topic, but it IS a classic conflict between right and wrong. Post your feelings on it and talk with others about it. Look FROM the moral and/or religious angle. DON'T be rude or slanderous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 17, 2003 Report Share Posted February 17, 2003 Maybe we should abort this topic. (slight humor) I'm withholding my views, bein my position on this board and all. But this is a good topic to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmukiki Posted February 18, 2003 Report Share Posted February 18, 2003 Let me state that first and foremost I believe that any couple that is sexually active should take the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy if they are not attempting to become pregnant. Going off of that, I feel that it's each person/couple's choice on whether or not they should have an abortion. While I feel that those that are reckless should be responsible for their actions, there are also those that are careful, but become pregnant anyway. I know that many people think "Abstinence is the way to go" for those people that are not ready to have children, but there is practically no way that we will ever get the majority of people out there to really believe that. The main reason that I think abortion can be "acceptable" in some cases relates more to incidents in which the pregnancy was/is totally incontrollable and/or the pregnancy presents a danger to the woman. In other words, in the case of rape or if a woman is too weak/sickly to carry a child without endangering her life. Anyway, that's my 2 cents for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffyrat Posted February 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2003 I'm guessing I have to reply to this, considering it's my topic and I started it and all that. Okie doke, let's see: I agree that in extreme circumstances such as rape, or extreme illness, abortion at least deserves some consideration. It wouldn't be right to let a child live knowing their father did that to their mother. As for extreme illness, while both lives are sacred, I believe the life already known to us is the one to be saved. I know that sounds horrible but that's just how I feel. I appreciate you being so honest. Please keep the conversation going. If you are uncomfortable with this topic, give me an idea for a new one, and up it'll go. fluffyrat sits patiently knowing the fluffing is coming no matter how hard she fights it :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 18, 2003 Report Share Posted February 18, 2003 Admin runs in, fluffs the rat, then flees hehehehe ok not commenting on the abortion topic, but taking something you said a step further - be it an unborn or born child, depending on the age, when it comes down to a choice of risking your life to save your childs life, I think that it is best to save your own. Thats only if it has to be one or the other. Of course, each situation has different circumstances, but considering things, the 'already known one' is already educated and able to help produce and raise more 'unknown ones' Don't get me wrong, this is not to say that the young one is not important, or should be sacraficed at the first chance. Just that if to save its (his/her) life, someone must sacrafice their own - then that is the smarter alternative. And for those who wish to argue with this about how the child (even if born) is unable to decide and defend itself, consider this - how do you think that child would feel if they grew up knowing that they are the reason that their mom/dad is dead? But FROM another perspective, in a family of (let's say) 3 kids - and you are the only parent, if you sacrafice yourself to save one kid, who is going to help raise the 3 of them? You just destroyed 3 lives to save 1 life. Also, again, this is not to say to just give up at the first chance - if there is a good chance to save his/her life, especially without sacraficing your own - then by all means, do it. Let's see how much trouble this causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffyrat Posted February 19, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2003 Yay. This is just what I'd hoped for. Real intellectual conversation...without a fight. :-D Ok, I was reading what I'd written before. And I think that part of it came out wrong. The part about saving the known life over the unborn life. That wasn't what I meant, exactly. What I was saying was that you should wait as long as possible, if it's a health risk I mean, and if ABSOLUTELY necessary, sacrifice the child's life. Either way someone is going to have to live knowing that they're alive because the other one died. The adult though, has already had their childhood, so this can't haunt them the same way it can haunt a child. I hope I cleared myself up, not that I was every unclear. :confoozled: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmukiki Posted February 19, 2003 Report Share Posted February 19, 2003 So...I was reading my new "ELLE" and there is a little box with a blurb about abortion...it's interesting... "Over the past few years, the number of abortions in the U.S. has actually declined, FROM about 1.4 million in 1994 to 1.3 million in 2000. In a recent study, the pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute attributed the decrease in part to the use of so-called "emergency contraception" (EC). Sometimes called the "morning-after pill," EC is used soon after unprotected sex and basically consists of two large doses of birth-control pills. You'd think fewer abortions would make pro-life forces jump for joy, but, alas, groups such as the Family Research Council argue that EC use is no different FROM abortion. They believe that pregnancy begins the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. Most medical experts-such as those at the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists-say it starts after a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall, which begins five-to-seven days after fertilization. But back to the dropping abortion rates: The Family Research Council hypothesizes they're due not to EC but to increased abstinence and "society's growing revulsion toward abortion." Reader, what do you think?" "ELLE" magazine, March 2003, p. 272. I must say that I have to agree with the medical experts on this one. I know a couple that took EC over the summer, because their form of birth control failed on them. I don't believe that we should accuse them of being "baby killers" because they turned to EC. In fact, it is possible that although their form of birth control failed, the egg wasn't fertilized...which means there wasn't a need for EC...but they didn't know that. They turned to EC as a precaution. If they were intentionally careless, then I would fuss at them for not being careful and for HAVING to turn to ECs...but sometimes stuff happens and you have to take preventative measures. And that's enough rambling FROM me on that for now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 19, 2003 Report Share Posted February 19, 2003 Ever tried reading the Emme or Inne or Oh magazine? style_emoticons/default/smile.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmukiki Posted February 19, 2003 Report Share Posted February 19, 2003 No :E-o: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts