So you just contradicted yourself. If you agree about the abstaining bit, then you should have to have the baby if you get pregnant due to faulty birth control. Yes, contraceptives work 99% of the time, but abstinence works 100% of the time. If you really don't want a baby, don't have sex. 99% is still a risk, even if it's a small one. If you take that risk and fail, that's your problem, no babies should be killed over it.

 

I think this really takes it too far. Everything you do in life involves a certain risk. I don't think it's a good idea if the government forces people to keep an unwanted child. Do you think it's good for a kid to grow up with a mum that REALLY doesn't want them?

 

I think people should be well informed before they are taking such a decision. I personally wouldn't do it but I do think everyone should have the choice.

I don't care, I'm not a woman

 

:laugh3:

But being serious... I am pro choice just before a certain month limit... most doctors agree that before 4 months most babies haven't developed their brain well, they don't have much nerves either. But after that term I think the decision of aborting is highly reprehensible.

is it a debate about abortion or about euthanasia?

 

don't is the same? the difference is very small, the fact is to decide ourselves if someone lives or dies.

 

 

about euthanasia, i think each one is free to decide themselves if they'd like it be applied on them or not. (if it'll be a decition taken by an adult who is plenty conscious of what is doing)

 

 

 

about the other, i'm pro-life. there are plenty a lot of means to not get pregnant. plus there is not the first woman that made that decition and when she was older and wanted to have a kid she can't. :\

 

there's a big controversy in my country now about new law.

my personal opinion is that thanks that is given as a right for woman (since is her body and their life), it lost the responsability the man have on it, (in my opinion a kid is a responsability of two people, not just one person) at least that is what i see in the current law and previous ones we had. what law sure is that woman can choose that option if they were raped, or if her life is in risk, but on the other hand, there's not a list of unresponsable males.

 

what proofs what i'm saying is the fact that here have answered more females than males, as if males think themselves.. "well kid is not a duty i should take care of, that's woman business", so don't that is yet an old fashioned attitude that we were suppoused to have changed on the last century? (people should be responsable of what they do, no matter if we are male or female, don't you think?)

 

anyways i agree with what sally has said, i don't think it'll be good that an unwanted child feels unloved by his/her parents, but is hard not to like a baby. ;)

 

^^ Point well made.

 

^ Niiice. :p

But being serious... I am pro choice just before a certain month limit... most doctors agree that before 4 months most babies haven't developed their brain well, they don't have much nerves either. But after that term I think the decision of aborting is highly reprehensible.

 

I completely agree with you

I want to see the poll for 'Pro-Rohypnol'

Unless it's a case of rape, incest, endangering the health of the mother, or (by some sort of freak accident) the contraception you're using is defective (which is quite rare, but possible), I'm completely pro-life.

 

I mean, it's not the baby's fault that you made bad choices and got yourself pregnant, so why take it out on the fetus and kill it? That's stupid.

 

I completly agree with you.I've always wanted to have a baby but due to my sexual orientation it's not as clear cut for me, I can't understand how so many people would want to give something as special as that up.