The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[S]Well the closest figure I found is from 2004 which was 185,400 but its been going up every year before then.[/S]
Babies/fetuses same thing, you say potato I say potato (umm that didnt work).
Let me just say I do think abortion should be legal, but I'm having a tough time finding an excuse as to why so many abortions are done each year. I won't go into detail about how many times I've had sexual relations (it's probably a 5 figure number ;P) but I've managed to avoid getting any of my girlfriends pregnant. Why are the rest of you (not you lot) having such a hard time pulling out?
I can udnerstand the 14 year old girl who obviously isn't in a position to have a child, but a career woman who just doesnt have the time to have a baby? Or the women who have already had two, three, four or even five abortions (one of my exes mum had 5). Seriously, try using contraception for a change.
I think there needs to be more education, both in and out of school and no I don't think primary school kids need to know, I certainly didnt start thinking about sex until high school.
Babies/fetuses same thing, you say potato I say potato (umm that didnt work).
Let me just say I do think abortion should be legal, but I'm having a tough time finding an excuse as to why so many abortions are done each year. I won't go into detail about how many times I've had sexual relations (it's probably a 5 figure number ;P) but I've managed to avoid getting any of my girlfriends pregnant. Why are the rest of you (not you lot) having such a hard time pulling out?
I can udnerstand the 14 year old girl who obviously isn't in a position to have a child, but a career woman who just doesnt have the time to have a baby? Or the women who have already had two, three, four or even five abortions (one of my exes mum had 5). Seriously, try using contraception for a change.
I think there needs to be more education, both in and out of school and no I don't think primary school kids need to know, I certainly didnt start thinking about sex until high school.
Page:
Alfonse the Turtle wrote:
> If she didn't want to have a baby then she shouldn't have had
> sex.
So what you're saying is no-one should have sex unless they want kids? Are you catholic by any chance?
> You run the risk of pregnancy when you have sex and people
> should understand that before they engage in such an adult
> situation.
I think the majority do understand that. Other issues come up though and accidents happen.
> I also honestly don't think anyone should have the choice to
> murder something created at their own hand. Everyone deserves a
> chance at life.
I think you've already covered this with the breaking eggs comment.
> There may be consequences and responsibilities but these don't
> seem to matter to some people i.e. wealthy business women who
> have several abortions instead of using contraceptive
> effectively, and do any of the consequences or responsibilities
> equal bringing up a child?
"Some people" Exactly, some people, not all people, not even most people. I think it's a small majority who would be so careless the 2nd time around.
As for responsibility. Well you've made my case for me. Its the lesser responsibility which is exactly why it's the right choice when the child is unwanted. The mother is going to pay the price whichever choice but the child doesnt.
> If she didn't want to have a baby then she shouldn't have had
> sex.
So what you're saying is no-one should have sex unless they want kids? Are you catholic by any chance?
> You run the risk of pregnancy when you have sex and people
> should understand that before they engage in such an adult
> situation.
I think the majority do understand that. Other issues come up though and accidents happen.
> I also honestly don't think anyone should have the choice to
> murder something created at their own hand. Everyone deserves a
> chance at life.
I think you've already covered this with the breaking eggs comment.
> There may be consequences and responsibilities but these don't
> seem to matter to some people i.e. wealthy business women who
> have several abortions instead of using contraceptive
> effectively, and do any of the consequences or responsibilities
> equal bringing up a child?
"Some people" Exactly, some people, not all people, not even most people. I think it's a small majority who would be so careless the 2nd time around.
As for responsibility. Well you've made my case for me. Its the lesser responsibility which is exactly why it's the right choice when the child is unwanted. The mother is going to pay the price whichever choice but the child doesnt.
My stance is probably fairly offensive to some but something that many leave as a sticky mess in a Kleenex isn't something I suddenly consider to be a miracle. Catholic opposition is based around the sanctity of life, as we're "formed in God's image" and so every sp*rm comes from God etc but if, like many, you adopt that stance and still m*sturbate then you're ignoring it. All sp*rm are considered to be sacred. A collection of cells after adding these sp*rm to an egg shouldn't suddenly become an ontic evil to have aborted
In a more humanistic approach, those that 'have' to seek IVF treatments because they cannot have a baby themselves trying for years to make one while some people just get rid of something they created because it's an inconvenience seems unfair. People should be held accountable for their actions, and nowhere is this more true than having a baby. However, rather than just situations of rape etc I'd say young girls having babies could ruin their chances to get a degree and a good job in life, so they should at least have the option of abortion. The argument that they should have the baby and put it up for adoption seems flawed in that there would be a huge imbalance on the amount of babies people wanted to put up for adoption and those looking to adopt
I'm not theistic in any way. I'm a fairly strong Atheist, so religious concerns of sanctity of life don't feature in my argument or beliefs even slightly. It's more a matter of responsibility and also morality not stemming from God. You don't need to be religious to see murder is "wrong" and in the same way it is hard to determine when a collection of cells becomes a child and thus a human being murdered
For me there's a difference between accepting someone's belief and religion, and complying with the hard line view on abortion. In that matter I think the mother's right to choose is still more important, whether or not they "should" be using contraception. Because to follow the hard line view on abortion is to be intolerant by denying the right to choose, whether or not accountability for your actions is important, we can all make mistakes. Why those not trying for a baby don't (without beliefs to the effect it's "wrong") don't is beyond me, but even if a woman is a career woman or whatever the example used was they should still have an equal choice to whether or not they want to devote the next few decades bringing up a kid. Obviously if people have abortions several times they should be using contraception, but I can't say I'd like to see them denied the abortion procedure, as it goes against the right to choice principal, and an unwanted baby is worse off than one down the line. Though having the baby and putting it up for abortion would persuade them to use contraception..
Apparently medical terms don't make it through the filter?
In a more humanistic approach, those that 'have' to seek IVF treatments because they cannot have a baby themselves trying for years to make one while some people just get rid of something they created because it's an inconvenience seems unfair. People should be held accountable for their actions, and nowhere is this more true than having a baby. However, rather than just situations of rape etc I'd say young girls having babies could ruin their chances to get a degree and a good job in life, so they should at least have the option of abortion. The argument that they should have the baby and put it up for adoption seems flawed in that there would be a huge imbalance on the amount of babies people wanted to put up for adoption and those looking to adopt
I'm not theistic in any way. I'm a fairly strong Atheist, so religious concerns of sanctity of life don't feature in my argument or beliefs even slightly. It's more a matter of responsibility and also morality not stemming from God. You don't need to be religious to see murder is "wrong" and in the same way it is hard to determine when a collection of cells becomes a child and thus a human being murdered
For me there's a difference between accepting someone's belief and religion, and complying with the hard line view on abortion. In that matter I think the mother's right to choose is still more important, whether or not they "should" be using contraception. Because to follow the hard line view on abortion is to be intolerant by denying the right to choose, whether or not accountability for your actions is important, we can all make mistakes. Why those not trying for a baby don't (without beliefs to the effect it's "wrong") don't is beyond me, but even if a woman is a career woman or whatever the example used was they should still have an equal choice to whether or not they want to devote the next few decades bringing up a kid. Obviously if people have abortions several times they should be using contraception, but I can't say I'd like to see them denied the abortion procedure, as it goes against the right to choice principal, and an unwanted baby is worse off than one down the line. Though having the baby and putting it up for abortion would persuade them to use contraception..
Apparently medical terms don't make it through the filter?
tnc wrote:
> Apparently medical terms don't make it through the
> filter?
Science is a deadly sin, didn't you know that?
> Apparently medical terms don't make it through the
> filter?
Science is a deadly sin, didn't you know that?
I wonder if animals can get through the filter.
C**k and Rooster
* Posts *
Tsk, these people!
I wonder if Cockerel will get through. Bah you guys are no fun at all.
C**k and Rooster
* Posts *
Tsk, these people!
I wonder if Cockerel will get through. Bah you guys are no fun at all.
Cockerel can, so the animals get through.. :P
But I assumed it only banned offensive/slang terms
But I assumed it only banned offensive/slang terms
You cant have an abreviated c**k then?
I'm rude
I'm rude
Machie wrote:
Why are the rest of you (not you lot) having such a hard time pulling out?
From what I remember I don't think this is such a great contraceptive method
Unless you mean pulling out in a different way, which well, is an excellent contraceptive measure
Why are the rest of you (not you lot) having such a hard time pulling out?
From what I remember I don't think this is such a great contraceptive method
Unless you mean pulling out in a different way, which well, is an excellent contraceptive measure
Nin wrote:
> You cant have an abreviated c**k then?
>
> I'm rude
You can't even say D*** Van D*** star of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. :/
> You cant have an abreviated c**k then?
>
> I'm rude
You can't even say D*** Van D*** star of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. :/
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Machie wrote:
> Why are the rest of you (not you lot) having such a hard
> time pulling out?
It's much like America in Iraq. Once you're in, you cant leave until the job is done or things are too f**ked to continue.
> From what I remember I don't think this is such a great
> contraceptive method
Better than the crisp packet method (i'm not joking)
> Unless you mean pulling out in a different way, which well, is
> an excellent contraceptive measure
I laff
> Machie wrote:
> Why are the rest of you (not you lot) having such a hard
> time pulling out?
It's much like America in Iraq. Once you're in, you cant leave until the job is done or things are too f**ked to continue.
> From what I remember I don't think this is such a great
> contraceptive method
Better than the crisp packet method (i'm not joking)
> Unless you mean pulling out in a different way, which well, is
> an excellent contraceptive measure
I laff
tnc wrote:
>
> In a more humanistic approach, those that 'have' to seek IVF
> treatments because they cannot have a baby themselves trying for
> years to make one while some people just get rid of something
> they created because it's an inconvenience seems unfair. People
> should be held accountable for their actions, and nowhere is this
> more true than having a baby. However, rather than just
> situations of rape etc I'd say young girls having babies could
> ruin their chances to get a degree and a good job in life, so
> they should at least have the option of abortion. The argument
> that they should have the baby and put it up for adoption seems
> flawed in that there would be a huge imbalance on the amount of
> babies people wanted to put up for adoption and those looking to
> adopt
>
While being a self-confessed Catholic myself, I mostly agree with this. However, the one thing I have an issue with is the way you suggest that a young girl would get rid of a foetus because the baby might ruin chances of them getting a good job. Biologically, even from a humanistic point of view, we're on this earth to have kids and raise them, everything else comes as a way to do this. We work as a necessity to live and once you have children then you work to finance them.
However, there is an alternative arguement which is similar; if the girl can't find a way to look after the baby, including financing it, then this can be an issue in itself. Of course, this is something I think should be sorted out at Government level as there are plenty of good mothers who want to be at home looking after their kids but can't because there is just no financial support for them. Then the Government wonder why a bunch of kids who hardly see their parents and are raised by a stranger turn out bad...
> I'm not theistic in any way. I'm a fairly strong Atheist, so
> religious concerns of sanctity of life don't feature in my
> argument or beliefs even slightly. It's more a matter of
> responsibility and also morality not stemming from God. You don't
> need to be religious to see murder is "wrong" and in
> the same way it is hard to determine when a collection of cells
> becomes a child and thus a human being murdered
>
Indeed, but then the big question is: when does science say that a foetus becomes 'alive' or sentient.
> Obviously
> if people have abortions several times they should be using
> contraception, but I can't say I'd like to see them denied the
> abortion procedure, as it goes against the right to choice
> principal, and an unwanted baby is worse off than one down the
> line. Though having the baby and putting it up for abortion would
> persuade them to use contraception..
It's all about trying to stop it at the source, as in my first post. Cut down the number of unplanned pregancies somehow and you cut the number of abortions naturally.
>
> Apparently medical terms don't make it through the
> filter?
>
> In a more humanistic approach, those that 'have' to seek IVF
> treatments because they cannot have a baby themselves trying for
> years to make one while some people just get rid of something
> they created because it's an inconvenience seems unfair. People
> should be held accountable for their actions, and nowhere is this
> more true than having a baby. However, rather than just
> situations of rape etc I'd say young girls having babies could
> ruin their chances to get a degree and a good job in life, so
> they should at least have the option of abortion. The argument
> that they should have the baby and put it up for adoption seems
> flawed in that there would be a huge imbalance on the amount of
> babies people wanted to put up for adoption and those looking to
> adopt
>
While being a self-confessed Catholic myself, I mostly agree with this. However, the one thing I have an issue with is the way you suggest that a young girl would get rid of a foetus because the baby might ruin chances of them getting a good job. Biologically, even from a humanistic point of view, we're on this earth to have kids and raise them, everything else comes as a way to do this. We work as a necessity to live and once you have children then you work to finance them.
However, there is an alternative arguement which is similar; if the girl can't find a way to look after the baby, including financing it, then this can be an issue in itself. Of course, this is something I think should be sorted out at Government level as there are plenty of good mothers who want to be at home looking after their kids but can't because there is just no financial support for them. Then the Government wonder why a bunch of kids who hardly see their parents and are raised by a stranger turn out bad...
> I'm not theistic in any way. I'm a fairly strong Atheist, so
> religious concerns of sanctity of life don't feature in my
> argument or beliefs even slightly. It's more a matter of
> responsibility and also morality not stemming from God. You don't
> need to be religious to see murder is "wrong" and in
> the same way it is hard to determine when a collection of cells
> becomes a child and thus a human being murdered
>
Indeed, but then the big question is: when does science say that a foetus becomes 'alive' or sentient.
> Obviously
> if people have abortions several times they should be using
> contraception, but I can't say I'd like to see them denied the
> abortion procedure, as it goes against the right to choice
> principal, and an unwanted baby is worse off than one down the
> line. Though having the baby and putting it up for abortion would
> persuade them to use contraception..
It's all about trying to stop it at the source, as in my first post. Cut down the number of unplanned pregancies somehow and you cut the number of abortions naturally.
>
> Apparently medical terms don't make it through the
> filter?
Page: