Pro life or Pro choice

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That will depend on what one wants in life, what one's goals are.


:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To a moron, everybody looks cookie-cutter, off the assembly line, similar, so it's easy for them to see the answer as "whip them all into line".

They can't see the strata.

A moron hasn't enough brain cells to rub together to notice that not every woman is a slut, and should not be bunched into cattle gates.

And, there are higher intellects that should not be treated that old way, as to be lectured by morons, or, as to be forced to be lead by morons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whom are you aiming this at?

 

Not to you. To those who can't distinguish, and insist on a pat solution to this matter. To those who insist on waving the flags of, "all women must wear chastity belt locks, ordered by the state" or the flags of, "all woman should spread their legs and produce wunderkind for the state".
One can ruin the very essence of a thing with over-edicts and over-governing.

Regardless of later having second thoughts, it is best to have a sad lament of a birth that did not occur, than a life unwanted, an unsecured by the strength of welcoming arms of ancestry and heraldry.

 

I see the unitive and procreative aspects of sex to be two side of the same coin. The natural consequence of normal sexual activity (between a man and a woman) is procreation. The unitive aspect of sex is designed to embellish the bond of man and women to create a stable environment to raise the fruits of marriage - children. Sex between a man and a woman outside of the bonds of marriage violate the principle of unity, because if a child is conceived, it will be raised in a disordered environment. Sex between two member of the same sex is a violation of the principle of procreativity. Nothing fruitful can be born out of this union. It is a dead relationship.

 

whatever you want, baby. cos at the end of the day that baby gunna get whisked if she doesnt want it.

 

I see it as being pretty simple. Even the Bible counts the beginning of "personhood" as birth and a person(man or woman)has absolute dominion over their own body. So, until the feotus becomes able to live outside the body of a woman she maintains a right to terminate the pregnancy. I would hope that the woman would not terminate in the third trimester baring extreme circumstances(third term abortions are rare)but the principle remains. And, unless you think it just fine to keep a "baby making slave", that won't change.

Contraceptives are the best way of reducing abortions and should be covered by all health care plans, period. If the Catholic Church doesn't like that then they should stay out of the health care insurance business, altogether(same goes for gay adoptions or any other social question). The church has every right to refuse to participate, but they do not have a right to make those decisions for everyone in society. I will respect a religion's right to hold different opinions only as long as they respect my right to disagree and live my life according to my own opinions on the matter(within the constraints of the Constitution, which is the governing document of our country). Religious objections are only opinions, not law. You have every right to try to persuade(short of coersion), but no right to impose your view on all others.

Should fathers of the child have a say? If marriage is a partnership he certainly should be involved in the decision, but since each person has the final say over their own body, he should not have a veto.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!