Martina1991 wrote: » No it is not. That's how YOU label a pregnancy. An inconvenience to bear until the child is born. No person with compassion or empathy would call a pregnancy an inconvenience no matter what side people are on.
end of the road wrote: » so what is a pregnancy that isn't wanted then if it's not an inconvenience? cards on the table i don't like pregnancy being described as an inconvenience myself as, it's nature, however going on the poster's point, he is just talking in terms of how part of the pro-choice/abortion movement try to make pregnancy out to be as such in the aim of trying to get abortion on demand legislated for.
WhiteRoses wrote: » So yeah. It’s clear now that you hate women.
WhiteRoses wrote: » What you replied was a cop out. Your original post was completely targeted at and focused on how it’s tough sh*t on the woman and she should know better and she should suffer the consequences. I wanted to know what you feel should happen to the man and you basically replied with a cop out. I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that a man can walk away from a pregnancy far easier than a woman can. You know, cos the baby is actually inside her. The man can just sail of into the sunset and there isn’t a whole lot the woman can do bar chase him for maintenance. So yeah. It’s clear now that you hate women.
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » And still, still we get the pro-life crew pointing to reports about Savita's death and claiming that the 8th is not to blame, that the staff missed A or B and didn't do X and Y and that it would all have been grand if they had. Entirely missing the point that A, B, X and Y should have been irrelevant - as soon as staff decided that the pregnancy was ending in miscarriage and the fetus could not be saved, their focus should shift entirely to the mother's health. While here, even now, even today, they must play Russian Roulette with the woman's health until her life is demonstrably at risk. The stuff in the reports, X and Y and so forth, is about how they might have decided her life was at risk earlier than they did which is entirely beside the point that without the 8th, they would not have to wait for that condition in the first place.
end of the road wrote: » so what is a pregnancy that isn't wanted then if it's not an inconvenience?cards on the table i don't like pregnancy being described as an inconvenience myself as, it's nature, however going on the poster's point, he is just talking in terms of how part of the pro-choice/abortion movement try to make pregnancy out to be as such in the aim of trying to get abortion on demand legislated for.
end of the road wrote: » ...being pregnant while it may be inconvenient...
end of the road wrote: » they are doing it because the pregnancy is inconvenient to them.
end of the road wrote: » ...said right outweighs someone's non-existant/imaginary right to kill it just because it's inconvenient...
eviltwin wrote: » An inconvenience is getting a flat tyre, missing the bus, forgetting your wallet..... A pregnancy you don't want is far more than an inconvenience, as January said it's a crisis.
Da Boss wrote: I don’t see your point, if a woman is willing to consent to sex she must be aware of risk of pregnancy and be willing to take risk. If a pregnancy occurs it would be unfortunate for the woman should she not plan it but it’s the risk she takes, it’s not a punishment and the man doesn’t need to recieivr a punishment, nor the woman. However I’d hope a man wouldn’t just walk away on the woman, if he does it gives us men a bad name I think
Martina1991 wrote: » Do you think people should only have sex for the purpose of procreation? A woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy is a life changing distress. It's a decision I'm sure no women takes lightly without serious consideration. An unwanted unplanned pregnancy is a no win situation and I would not judge anyone for having an abortion or continuing the pregnancy.
end of the road wrote: » not one requireing abortion as the solution in itself however.
Martina1991 wrote: » Do you think people should only have sex for the purpose of procreation?
Martina1991 wrote: » A woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy is a life changing distress. It's a decision I'm sure no women takes lightly without serious consideration. An unwanted unplanned pregnancy is a no win situation and I would not judge anyone for having an abortion or continuing the pregnancy.
Da Boss wrote: » Well id judge someone differently if I knew they’d intentionally end the life of another, maybe that’s just me though
Da Boss wrote: » When a couple or whoever have protected sex, risk of pregnancy is always there. It’s made clear on a box of condoms, and the getting pregnant,as unlikely as it is, is the risk you take.therefore if you take the risk you have to be willing to accept the resulting child should it happen. No doubt pregnancy may be an inconvenience but that’s the case with every pregnancy, planned or not, that’s nature and nobody can change that. Regards the inconvenience, the life of the unborn child is much more important than avoiding a bit of inconvenience on the woman. Sure it’s unfortunate, but it’s a risk you take having sex.
NuMarvel wrote: » Siri, find me examples of when EOTR referred to pregnancy or having a baby as an inconvenience in this thread. A look through the thread finds that inconvenience is most often used by anti-repealers, not pro choicers. Presumably in an attempt to portray a woman who chooses an abortion as being lazy or selfish, which is once again basically saying, you don't trust women.
NuMarvel wrote: » Maybe EOTR and DB think the Crisis Pregnancy service should be renamed the Inconvenient Pregnancy Service?
NuMarvel wrote: » Incorrect. A crisis pregnancy is any pregnancy "which is neither planned nor desired by the woman concerned, and which represents a personal crisis for her". And abortion is one of the choices that can be discussed during crisis pregnancy counseling.
eviltwin wrote: » And who are you to say that? Do you know what's right for every pregnant woman? Myself and January have both spoken about our experience with abortion and how it was the right one for us. Now I know you don't agree with those choices and that's fair enough, but don't presume you have the authority to tell either of us it wasn't the best solution for our unique circumstances.
end of the road wrote: » killing the unborn is never the right solution unless in extreme circumstances. those who really want an abortion as i said can avail of it in the uk, so it's not needed here when the state is struggling to fund necessary services. not legislating for it would insure the 8th being repealed as most people agree the 8th as a whole has a lot of problems that need to be eradicated. abortion on demand isn't one of those problems however, the fact the 8th prohibits it within the state meaning it's not provided is a good thing for society and the unborn. the fact it is however provided in extreme circumstances is also a good thing.
eviltwin wrote: » "just get it in England" Well done on making yourself look even more clueless than you already have.
end of the road wrote: » killing the unborn is never the right solution unless in extreme circumstances. those who really want an abortion as i said can avail of it in the uk
end of the road wrote: and if she really wants it she can get it in england.
end of the road wrote: » and if she really wants it she can get it in england.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/80e9a6343fda9bcab0fa728a3336d1dc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dcc54fc0153c491ede3e66aef098573d.svg)
