SHOULD FATHERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABORT?.

[User-E]

Whether people want to have a physical or 'legal' abortion, it's just another example of society wanting to escape from the consequences of their actions. If you choose to have sex, both partners choose to take the risk of getting pregnant, even if you use birth control.

In the case of a woman getting pregnant from being raped, it's a horrible situation to deal with, but carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption is the humane way to deal with it.

I believe abortion is murder and it's no different than picking up a gun and deciding to end someone's life by shooting them in the head. It's the most selfish decision a woman can make. When you have an unwanted pregnancy, carrying the baby for nine months and giving it up for adoption is a much better choice than killing another human being for the sake of convenience.

I know many will disagree with me, but I worked at a pro-life clinic many years ago and probably know a lot more about the realities of abortion, how the fetus develops and feels pain at a very early stage, how mid - late term aborted babies suffer horrendous deaths during the process, than the average person knows. I also know a lot about the physical and emotional harm women do to themselves by having an abortion.

Modern medicine allows us to save babies that are born prematurely at increasingly early stages - so how can you say it's not a 'real person' when you decide to abort a baby at the same stage of development?

 

[CharloteEdwards]

Because anytime The Right to Choice is mentioned it means the right to abort.

It is the nature of the beast..........

No you said "Cristy when the right to choose is discussed the only option it to abort...."

The ONLY option is to abort? That's why I was asking. A choice does not mean 1 option.

 

[papasmerf]

No you said "Cristy when the right to choose is discussed the only option it to abort...."

The ONLY option is to abort? That's why I was asking. A choice does not mean 1 option.

Glad to hear that.......Fact is we adopted my Baby as a newborn. That was almost 3 decades ago.
I understand the options better than most.

 

[cristycurves]

I would think it obvious that I don't include rape when I say that two people choose to have sex.As for the vasectomy......do women need anyone's approval to have their tubes tied? Not the same thing.I'm saying that when two people choose to have sex, both willingly, they are taking a chance of a pregnancy. Right now, if the child is carried to term, then both parents have certain responsibilities for the child's care, right? The man may not want to be involved but he will still be required to provide financial support for the child. But if you reverse the situation and say that the man wants the child but the woman does not, then she get's to choose but he never does. How do you consider that just or fair?I'll ask it again.....If person A and person B have sex completely willingly. Both use birth control methods (none of which are 100% effective). But that slim chance that a pregnancy can occur actually happens. Person A wants the child but Person B doesn't.....who get's to decide? If they differ in choice, should A get to choose or B? If only one want the child, should they be solely responsible for that child's care? Still tough to say if you don't know which is the male and which is the female.Another thing Cristy.......you fight for pets rights. Where do you stand on euthanasia in regards to unwanted pets?

If you're not including rape, then it would appear that you're pro choice, since if you were solely pro life, the raped would have to have the baby,since pro lifers expect all babies to live, foolishly enough. Unfortunately nature has given more rights to the one who carries the baby, fair or not, that's nature. I find it funny how some sanctimonious humans think it alright to kill everything and anything except for one another, even when that one another isn't even yet a human....and too, it's funny how we think we have a right to populate this planet with as many as we please, yet as soon as another species starts to "over populate" by our standards, we enact a cull...yes, humans certainly are funny and entitled!! As far as animal rights, lol, I was waiting for someone to bring that up, just as they do when I speak to animal cruelty, it's certain someone will ask if I eat meat, lol. So, to answer your question, I accept the fact that euthanasia is necessary. What else can we do with so many homeless and unwanted pets? I'd prefer we started severely penalizing irresponsible and cruel owners, but that's a pipe dream. It is better for them to be put down quickly then thrown onto the streets to starve to death, or worse.

 

[User-E]

As far as animal rights, lol, I was waiting for someone to bring that up, just as they do when I speak to animal cruelty, it's certain someone will ask if I eat meat, lol. So, to answer your question, I accept the fact that euthanasia is necessary. What else can we do with so many homeless and unwanted pets? I'd prefer we started severely penalizing irresponsible and cruel owners, but that's a pipe dream. It is better for them to be put down quickly then thrown onto the streets to starve to death, or worse.

How do you feel about animal abortions? What if an owner didn't want their dog to have puppies? How would you feel if that owner took their dog to a vet, and the vet inserted sharp surgical instruments inside the dog's womb and cut the puppies (at what point do they become puppies and not just fetuses - one week? one month?) into little pieces, then vacuumed them out? That's one method used in aborting babies. I think you'd agree that it's much more humane to let the dog carry the puppies to term and put them up for adoption.

 

[cristycurves]

How do you feel about animal abortions? What if an owner didn't want their dog to have puppies? How would you feel if that owner took their dog to a vet, and the vet inserted sharp surgical instruments inside the dog's womb and cut the puppies (at what point do they become puppies and not just fetuses - one week? one month?) into little pieces, then vacuumed them out? That's one method used in aborting babies. I think you'd agree that it's much more humane to let the dog carry the puppies to term and put them up for adoption.

Puppies are aborted and quite often, under sedation they aren't aware Escape, just as humans aren't aware. It's called pain medication and sedation and both human and other beings heal nicely....I'd rather puppies be aborted instead of being dumped in a field, the side of a road, drowned, or left a shelter, only to starve, be euthanized, or homed with a wrong owner. If you want to know how an abortion truly feels, ask me, I've had one and until you are in a circumstance that points to having one as the best option, you shouldn't criticize nor condemn the act. For most who choose abortion it's not an easy choice, and it's not made lightly, but it should and needs to remain a choice and those who are uninvolved need to mind their business.

 

[User-E]

Sofia Vergara: US actress faces lawsuit 'from own embryos'

Modern Family star Sofia Vergara is being, in effect, sued by two frozen embryos she conceived with the partner she split from, US media report. The embryos, named Emma and Isabella, are listed in Louisiana court documents obtained by the New York Post.

She and Nick Loeb separated in 2014 and he has already tried unsuccessfully to sue for the embryos' custody.

The new lawsuit argues that the embryos are being deprived of their inheritance from a trust by not being born. The trust is reported to have been created for them in Louisiana, although the embryos are located in California.

Louisiana is considered a "pro-life" state and under its law a fertilised egg is seen as a "juridical person". The Louisiana case names a trustee as plaintiff, but not Mr Loeb himself. The suit asks that the embryos be transferred to Mr Loeb so that they can be born and receive their inheritance.

A contract signed at the time is reported to have stipulated that neither partner could do anything with the embryos without the other's consent. Ms Vergara, according the suit, is alleged to be refusing to allow them to be implanted in a surrogate mother.

Mr Loeb's legal team allege that both Ms Vergara and Mr Loeb went into the IVF process on the understanding that the embryos would be brought to term.

The IVF process initially produced several embryos, prompting the following text message exchange, according to the plaintiff's documents.

Mr Loeb: "Now what. You can't keep 4 frozen lives forever or kill them, we will go to hell."
Ms Vergara: "We r going to hell regardless".

Ms Vergara's lawyer, Fred Silberberg, told US weekly the case against his client would fail. "That genetic material was created pursuant to a written agreement that required both parties' written consent to attempt to create a pregnancy."

The case has again thrown the spotlight in the United States on the issue of when a fertilised egg should be considered a human being. In the state of Ohio, Republican lawmakers have approved a bill which would ban abortions once a heartbeat has been detected in an embryo. The measure, which has yet to be signed into law by Governor John Kasich, could mean no abortions six weeks after conception. It would be one of the strictest abortion laws in the US if approved.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38252457