But, it's my body, therefore it should be my decision.

---

Quote: from AshritaPk0791 at 4:37 pm on July 28, 2008

---

Quote: from miimii at 2:35 pm on July 27, 2008

---

Quote: from AshritaPk0791 at 7:53 pm on July 26, 2008

---

personally believe that marriage has no meaning without kids therefore if you're not willing to accept a baby if a pregnancy occurs then you shouldn't be married. unless of course you have some medical problems. sex is meant for married people. children are too.

---

 

  Wow... You're an idiot.  

  Being married doesn't mean you want to have a kid. It doesn't mean you can feed it and take care of it.  

 

---

the purpose of sex staring from the beginning of mankind was to reproduce.

---

 

  So what? Things change. Idiot.

---

then you shouldn't get married. marriage is a commitment and so is a child. if you have enough money to support each other you should have enough to support a child.

---

Marrige has nothing to do with children.

And just cause you can support yourself doesn't mean you can support a kid.

---

---

the purpose of marriage is unity and reproduction according to religion and science

---

According to your religion, just remember that not everyone shares your religion or any religion.

Proof of the science claim. Marriage was designed for economic reasons and proof of paternity back when that mattered more.

-------
Holly.
Mama to Hunter Kai

---

I think the only time I'm against abortion is when someone is giving it up because they're not "financially stable" or they don't "want it". There's a lot of people who can't have kids and want them. But, if the pregnancy poses a health concern, or the women was raped, etc, then I'm all for it.

---

but they can always give the baby up for adoption if they couldn't support it financially, but then again the world already have a lot of kids that are up for adoption so why bring more into the world  

 

-------
Holly.
Mama to Hunter Kai

---

Quote: from AshritaPk0791 at 3:44 pm on July 29, 2008

---

the purpose of marriage is unity and reproduction according to religion and science

---

According to your religion, just remember that not everyone shares your religion or any religion.  

Proof of the science claim. Marriage was designed for economic reasons and proof of paternity back when that mattered more.

---

---

in your religion too. read the bible.

---

Why are you assuming that I'm Christian? I'm Atheist. I have read the Bible, it can be a fun and interesting read as a story.

Don't reply if you're not going to read my post, you obviously didn't this time. Re-read and then again since you seem incapable of comprehending the fact that not everyone shares your religion and your religious views don't make you more right, just, humane or perfect than a non-religious or differing-religious person.

-------
Holly.
Mama to Hunter Kai

---

Quote: from AshritaPk0791 at 9:29 am on Aug. 3, 2008

---

in your religion too. read the bible.

---

Why are you assuming that I'm Christian? I'm Atheist. I have read the Bible, it can be a fun and interesting read as a story.  

Don't reply if you're not going to read my post, you obviously didn't this time. Re-read and then again since you seem incapable of comprehending the fact that not everyone shares your religion and your religious views don't make you more right, just, humane or perfect than a non-religious or differing-religious person.

---

---

do you believe in science, though. cuz its there even if you don't. and i can remember a time when you used science as an excuse to justify abortion. "a baby is not living because it is dependant on his mother therefore abortion is not murder."

---

I believe in science and I asked you to back up your claim that there is scientific proof that marriage is for making babies, which you so far have failed to do. Instead, you continually spout off your religious views.

I would also like a link to that post because I can't remember ever claiming that a fetus isn't a living being and it doesn't sound at all like something I would say. A fetus is obviously a living being but so are ants, cancer and syphilis.

Abortion isn't murder because it falls under bodily integrity, the woman has the right to choose what's in her body. If abortion becomes murder because the fetus is alive, then chemotherapy also falls under murder because cancer cells are alive too. As would antibiotics, which kill living cells.

Consistency.

Post edited at 5:27 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 by dunebug

-------
Holly.
Mama to Hunter Kai

---

I'm pro-choice. I'd rather people not have abortitions, but if it's outlawed people will try to do it themeselves or have it done illegaly. I also wouldn't like to have a child born into an abuse environment in which I/we couldn't escape.  If the mother is a young girl the prenancy could kill her, so abortion wouldn't bother me. For me there has to be a good reason.It's a womans body, but please people, birth control.

(Edited by Music of the Night at 7:49 pm on Oct. 19, 2005)

---

---

I'm pro-choice. I'd rather people not have abortitions, but if it's outlawed people will try to do it themeselves or have it done illegaly. I also wouldn't like to have a child born into an abuse environment in which I/we couldn't escape.  If the mother is a young girl the prenancy could kill her, so abortion wouldn't bother me. For me there has to be a good reason.It's a womans body, but please people, birth control.

(Edited by Music of the Night at 7:49 pm on Oct. 19, 2005)

---

if it is a young girl, she should have kept her legs closed

---

Quote: from Music of the Night at 4:47 pm on Oct. 19, 2005

---

I'm pro-choice. I'd rather people not have abortitions, but if it's outlawed people will try to do it themeselves or have it done illegaly. I also wouldn't like to have a child born into an abuse environment in which I/we couldn't escape.  If the mother is a young girl the prenancy could kill her, so abortion wouldn't bother me. For me there has to be a good reason.It's a womans body, but please people, birth control.

(Edited by Music of the Night at 7:49 pm on Oct. 19, 2005)

---

if it is a young girl, she should have kept her legs closed

---