I don't think anyone was saying abortion is the only answer. Just a choice that should not be taken away from women.

How about life not taken away from the Baby.

You all preach about Life and safety for Humans, against the Death penalty and ***** about the war, but when it comes to babies, you are all for Death.

It's the institutionalized brainwashing...like how come abortion is better than women putting their children up for adoption? Oh noooo...that's more aweful than abortion...to many women. Anything that even suggests giving preborn babies a chance at life are looked down upon.

Guess what? THAT'S NOT CHOICE!!!!

Do you support the war and death penalty?

Oh I see...? Abortion stops children from being beaten,deserted and unloved. Now there's some logic right there. The fetus was sucked out and torn from limb to limb. You're such a humanitarian.

That's really the issue here. You seem very satisfied to throw around these moral judgments and assertions about human life and the quality there of. But when we really get down to it, will you sir be adopting one of these unwanted children born of a mother who was forced to carry this baby to term by Christian fundamentalists and (if you get your way) the government? Even if you are in a position to adopt one baby, or more, what about the thousands of unwanted infants that you will now embark on creating a surplus of in the US? Hmmm?

Or, perhaps he just wants the babies to be born, but not worry about them after that?

Bingo!

I been reading about this election in the bible codes

I do believe you need to step back and go over these posts again when you are nto so worked up. if you would do so, you would notice that I have never once said anything to the effect of men not having to step up to meet their part of the responsibility. in fact, I have decried it every time I am challanged on that issue as it seems to be the very first thing a "woman" shouts when she is told that she needs to choose PRIOR t becoming pregnant: That a man shoudl choose prior as well.

As I satated in my last response to you, the decision is something that eneds to be decided by both sides of the relationship, not just one, and definitely not assuemd by one that the other is taking care of it. Andno matter which side wants what, if one of you does not want to have a child, then you shuold be doing eveything in your power to prevent the conception of one in the first place, and if one DOES evolve then you need to be willing to step up to the plate and deliver that baby, or help deliver as the case may be, andif you still dont want responsibility, then have it adopted. I garuntee you there will be tons of families lining up the street to adopt a ewborn baby straight out of the nursery.

I'm not sure why you think I'm worked up. I was just responding to what you had said. Someone told you to get a vasectomy and you told her to close her legs. As I said, many women do make sure things are taken care of prior to having sex, by taking birth control. However, it's not 100% effective. So, if the man also is not ready to have a baby, shouldn't he be doing everything in his power as well?

Daniel under what circumstances would you consent to having a vasectomy just curious? Im trying to find out where you are coming from here exactly.

Sorry, my laptop screwed the page up when i read it the first time and it showed the picture of the lady who said to get a vesectomy, not yours; I thought I wasa responding to her.

However, As I stated thugh, I had in fact already answered exactly what you asked mroe than once. Yes Ibelive men shuold in fact be just as responsible as the woman. both of them agree to drop their pants, both of them agree to having sex, then both of them should be equally responsible insofar as making sure there is no conception if one of them does not want a child, and not asume the other person is taking care of it.

I would go in and have oen right now if I could afford it, or when my medicaid gets approved they would pay for it. It is a fully reversible procedure now, and seeing as i do not want to have kids again until I am happily married, if even then, I would be mroe than willing to get one.

This does not mean that I defintiely do NOt want to ever have more children, but until I am financially capable of raising more children, and emotionally and spiritually ready, I do not want to take the chance. Also, as I have stated, I believe no woman has the right to choose for the man wether or not he can have the opportunity to be a father, although law dictates that she does. So, for the sake of peace and happiness, i will probably get one as soon as it is feasible (and considering as to how picky I am about whom I sleep with, it may never be an issue anyway, lol though I hope not).

Well that's good that its at least a possibility for you. I know some men wont even consider it which is silly. I feel it absolutely should be a covered procedure for either, vasectomy or tubal ligation. The vasectomy is far less evasive from my understanding.

from what I understand its not so much that it is less invasive, it's more that it is quicker to recover from.

dependingon how you look at the term invasive though, I can see why a lot of KIDS are scared to have a vasectomy done, cause as silly as it sounds they literally equate it as losing part of their "manhood". now as far as i am concerned, you are more of a man if yuo are willing to at least c onsier a vasectomy, than if you outright refuse to without good cause.

For examlpe, I have to clarify soemthign a bit better. No, I probably would not go in tomorrow and get one if I had te money, and that is simpy because I am not sexually active at this point, and am no tlookin gat being sexually active in the near future. So I dont see the need to get it done. however, in the case that I do become active, or think I might, yes I would most definitely consider it if I had the option to do so.

but keep in mind too, that for women, most states now, it is illegal to have your tubes tied before a certain age (mid to late 20's), or until you have had so many children, unless your doctor can stand there and state that basically you will die unless you have it done. This does nto make sense either, but thats how it is anymore. My sister fell into that issue as well as several of my friends cross the United States.

As far as I am concerned it is nonsense, but again, its the law.

Yeah thats disgusting but I would lump it in with not allowing a woman the right of choice as it pertains to her body. I don't think we will lose the right to a safe and sanitary abortion any time soon, even if McCain gets in there. There will still be a tremendous amount of opposition to the entire premise. If it were to happen, chances are we will see women trying to desperately to receive abortions by going into Canada or Mexico. Or the dreaded late term or underground abortion.

I'm sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree here, because as far as I am concerned it is not an issue of it being the ladys body, but the issue of a conception having the right to life.

In the end, if a lady does nto want to give borht to a child, then she can always say no to having sex if nothing else. This does nto make her less of a lady (personally it makes her more of one, just as it would make more of a man to say no). And in the case of where the woman did say no, and it happens anyway, it is one more thign to go after the somunabeach who did it for. But still, not a reason to choose to take the conceptions life away.


And on a side note, no I do not happen to agree with the morning after pill, lol. Sorry but thats how i stand. Preventing conception is not the same thign as ending it.

First off. My belief system has nothing to do with religion. My beliefs are founded on experience and a universal right and wrong. It seems sad that the solution for people not raising their kids right anymore is to abort something they didn't have the will power to stop in the first place. What gets me is that you and your kind will not admit that it is taking a life when you abort. It is common sense. Why is it that pregnant women who are hit by their spouse or shot in a drive bye and they lose the baby that the person responsible is held for murder or manslaughter. People like yourself always try to link abortion to a health issue or woman's right. You do have the right to decide. Try birth control pills,condoms or how about abstinence?! Lets try to be responsible for our actions and not look for excuses or quick fixes.

So it is right to force a woman to carry an infant to term? Even in the case of rape or incest? I'm sorry sir but I cant see the "universal righteousness" of your belief system as it relates to women on this planet. Half of humanity. I posed to you a simple question. How many of these unwanted infants will you now be adopting or taking personal responsibility for? Remember it is you and "your kind" that will now be demanding that ALL woman regardless of circumstance carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Its sure a lot easier to throw around your moral judgments of others but a LOT more difficult when confronted with the actual results of these deplorable actions. If abortion is to remain safe and legal (which most likely it will) then most women will continue to have the procedure during first trimester when it is less evasive. During the first trimester the fetus is attached by the umbilical cord and is held within the mother's placenta. It is totally dependent on her health and well being. It CAN NOT live outside of her body.