I may not have explained why I have my stand on the subject better because, I've never been pregnant, I've never had to make the decison one way or the other. People have their own personal reasons for having the procedure. I just think the option should not be taken away and most certainly not by a man.

For the record though, I do not support an abortion late in the pregnancy.

NEW FAVORITE THREAD!

And now for some more indepth insight...

The year after I graduated high school, a friend of mine (her senior year) got pregnant by some dude in a band. She didn't want to keep it, and he agreed to help her pay for it and to drive her to the clinic to have it done. She called him daily for months to find out when they were going to go. When she was 20 weeks along (that's 5 months for the slow mathers), he showed up at her doorstep and they left for the clinic. I remember watching them walk to the car after I hugged her goodbye. I'm not sure how many of you know what "5 months along" looks like, but at that point, the child is no longer the same entity, but someone surviving off of you.

There will always be the pro-life/pro-choice battle. Is there any chance that we (or whoever is really making all the decisions, regardless of how we vote) can come to a compromise? Like, keep it legal, but if you haven't done it by the 6th or 7th week, tough shit?

I'm pro-choice. Always have been. Now would I go through with it myself if it were to happen? 10 years ago up until about 3 years ago, I would've said, "Yup". But now I don't know. I guess it all depends on the circumstances and whatever long discussions I've had with whomever helped in fertilizing my egg. But I most certainly wouldn't do it without the other party's knowledge. Yeah, it's my body. Yeah, I don't want stretch marks or saggy tits, but that would NEVER be my reasoning behind getting an abortion. And any woman who would use that as a reason should probably get sterilized while she was getting the procedure done just to make sure she didn't have the option to do it again.

I'd like to know the guy's opinion on the matter if the roles were reversed. Would you discuss with the other party? Would you keep the baby? Adoption? And I'm talking in terms of men carrying the babies to term, not just being in a situation where they got someone else pregnant.

My opinion on abortion is as follows:
I am incapable of carrying a fetus since I have no uteris, so I am not entitled to such an opinion. But I do think that the only person qualified to make that decision is the woman who is pregnant. I would go as far as to say that that person has the right to do with their body whatever the fuck they want. Just like a leech sucking the life blood out of your' body, a pregnant woman has every right to pluck out of her own womb the fetus/emrio/child or whatever you want to call it that is going make her sick for the next 0-9 months and has the possibility of making the rest of her life a sacrifice.
How would you like it if the local sheriff put a gun to your' head, handed you a cue ball, and commanded you to insert anally? That's about how I feel about criminalizing abortion.
But really, all of this doesn't even matter. There are about 100 different herbs that can safely abort a fetus. ie, drink some penny royal tea (thank you Nirvana) and call it a miscarriage.

We really should return to the original subject though. Ron Paul is anti-abortion, but he doesn't want to criminalize it. He wants to return the right to the states to do such things. And like I said before if you must have an abortion and you happen to live in a state that bans them, all you have to do is find some herbs or travel to another state.

back to ron paul, et al.

libertarians have great domestic policy.
however, they seem to know dick about international relations. considering the state of globalization, the complete devaluation of the dollar because of decisions made (i'll say back to removing the dollar in line with international currency standards a la gold), etc etc. I will not vote for ron paul... even though i agree with damned near everything he says about the US.




I'm pro choice... fight the children.

i won't vote ron paul because he'll have absolutely no idea what he's doing as president.

talk vs. walk.

That's basically how it has been for most presidents. What stipulations are required for you to say a person will "know what they're doing as President"? Experience with foreign policy? Previous experience in the position as/of Governor/Senate/Etc.? Time served in the military? Finance experience? Just curious. I don't really even know myself. Specifically, at least.

a combination of perceived competence, previous experience, and not taking money from lobbyists.

he gets one out of 3 here, maybe 1 and a half because of his voting record.

i'll probably vote obama if i even decide voting is worth it at all this year. i'm definitely torn on this right now.

Knowledge of government
Knowledge of other governments
The ability to compromise wisely
The ability to know when not to compromise

There are many others, but I think at this point putting Pamela Anderson in the Oval Office would be an improvement.

The one thing that makes Paul a shining star as a presidential candidate for me is that he can't be bought. This means most importantly that he won't be a puppet to the military industrial complex. This also means he is immune to banking organizations that are draining every dollar out of the economy that they can. This means that he is immune to the health care industry that wants every citizen on perpetual "treatment" rather than a cure.
And on and on and on. It seems that our corporations have more rights than living breathing citizens and this guy's not having it.

this thread needs more angry pregnant sluts.

thanks to that picture i'm now in favor of abortion.

glad i could be of assistance.

You should be able to end a child's life without consequence until it's old enough to vote.

Abstinence-only programs have recieved millions of dollars in federal funding. Bush is a supporter of abstinence-only programs. I would consider him to be a christian fundamentalist. There is a difference between a christian and their radical counterparts.

Abstinence only works 100% if people don't have sex. Good luck with that. It's ridiculous that it's even taught, same as it's ridiculous 'Just say no to drugs' is taught. People aren't going to just say no. Kids should learn how to handle the situation safely so they don't overdose on drugs or get knocked up. I just think too much emphasis is placed on chastity. A method that obviously doesn't work. Kids are still having as much sex as they did in the 50s.

And I was misinformed about the adoption issue. Giving a newborn up for adoption is ok because couples very rarely want to adopt a child that is over 3 years old. The older children are among the thousands that age out of the foster care system, not the newborns.

I don't recall having a representative from Planned Parenthood talk about my contraceptive options when I was in high school. I do remember having a pageant winner talk to my class about her remaining abstinent. I guess times have changed over the past five years. That's good to hear. Are contraceptives anonymously available to minors through Planned Parenthood?

yes. they have been for quite some time.

correct me if i'm wrong, but having sex is not abstinence.

Ditto.


I was informed of contraceptive methods when I went to highschool from 96-00. Not sure what lesser privvy school you attended. But yes, contraceptives (condoms) and day after pills are both offered "free" from Planned Parenthood. There a couple locations here in Austin.

I know what abstinence is. Teaching abstinence is not going to prevent horny teenagers from having sex. It hasn't and it won't.

5 MOTHERFUCKING MONTHS??? Why the hell did she wait for 5 months. I would have borrowed the money, gotten a job, sold crack before I would wait 5 months to have a baby. At 5 months they have to crack the skull and pull the limbs apart to get the baby out. plus you're already fat...may as well go the distance. ...sorry bad joke

on a side note. wanna get high when you're off?? you gotta come this way though. i left my keys in scotts car.again,

it does work, i've seen it work. will it work with everybody? of course not, some people are just idiots. that doesn't mean it should be given up completely.

i'm just saying that these idiots shouldn't be getting abortions. if you're a stupid teenager that gets knocked up, you need to deal with the consequences. i don't think holding people responsible for their actions is taking away any rights. IMHO "it's my body and i can do what i want" shouldn't be an excuse to get away with irresponsible behavior. but hey, if you think that, more power to ya.

when it comes to rights, everybody has a right to be educated. teaching abstinence only is retarded (as would be teaching [any subject] only), but i can at least understand where they're coming from. it isn't the fact that people are teaching abstinence only that's causing teenagers to have more sex. what's causing teenagers to have more sex is the fact that sex is no longer taboo. we all watch american pie etc. now and learn that if you aren't having sex, you just aren't cool. that's what i think they're trying to fight against. they're just trying to reinforce the fact that sex comes with responsibility. even though their attempts at social engineering are poor at best, at least their intentions are good.

i say kill the fetus rather than set it up for a fucked up life.

then again my mom was a teen when i was born and i turned out alright.

(this fact will either make you for or against abortions, depending on your opinion of me )