Matthew Sullivan32 said:A woman isn't some biological factory—if she doesn't want more kids, that’s the end of it. And it's not just a simple lack of desire; try having a child yourself before you lecture others on the subject...
When you bring up "conscience," how can you claim yours is clear after forcing a pregnancy on someone who didn't want it? Is your conscience spotless because you didn't practice enough caution? A woman isn't the sole party responsible for a pregnancy, yet she's the only one facing the physical fallout—a man can walk away at any moment, while a pregnant woman is stuck with the reality.
That’s exactly what I’m getting at. You admitted you supported your ex through an abortion—how did you manage to live with that? Personally, I don't think I could handle being in that position, though I suppose I'd have to respect her decision regardless. But I still struggle with the idea of a restless conscience—the feeling that I should have done more to prevent the situation. Would I have had to propose marriage or offer full custody just to balance the scales?
If I were the woman, I might not choose abortion, but I would certainly utilize every possible contraceptive measure, no matter how extreme.
Regarding the "biological factory" comment—I agree there—but I haven't looked deeply into the psychological toll an abortion takes on a woman.
Consider this: if a man pulls out but fails, or if birth control simply malfunctions—where does the responsibility lie then? In those cases, neither side is truly in control.
Hannah Davis18 said:Why would it be too easy? You don't have the energy for another kid—period. Money, livestock, and a stable situation won't change the fact that you aren't becoming a mother again; end of story. Not everyone dreams of a massive brood and a white picket fence.
That’s precisely why it clashes with one's conscience. There is an innate awareness deep within the body—a sort of internal compass—that recognizes abortion as an unnatural act. If a woman chooses that path, she carries that knowledge forever; it could manifest as psychological distress later in life, or perhaps even lead to mental health struggles down the road.
In my view, a woman can't live with a clear conscience after doing that—it’s too much weight to carry. It seems easier for those who lack any real stability in life—take teenagers or women living in extreme poverty, for example.
Peter Myers29 said:The reality is simple—a woman's body doesn't end where her own physical boundaries stop; it extends to include the child. Sadly, most people fail to grasp this because they can't see what isn't visible.
That’s just a male perspective—plain and simple. Women have told me that if you were actually a woman, your entire outlook would likely shift.
Hannah Davis18 said:She probably doesn't even understand her own conscience. But I’m sticking to my guns—pregnancy should be a choice you actually want; there's no point in going through labor just because you can or because you have the means. Maybe her previous kids wore her out, or she wants to get back to her career—maybe she's simply done having children.
Everyone has their reasons, and if those reasons feel valid enough to seek an abortion, then they are. Someone who truly can't live with their conscience won't go through with it—period.
What you wrote was way too soft. I find it hard to believe any reason is sufficient justification for an abortion. Look, I’m not a woman and I don't claim to understand them—but I've drawn my line. I won't sit here judging women; instead, I’ll support them regardless of the circumstances...
Hannah Davis18 said:I think it's best to put it this way—just because the circumstances allow for another child doesn't mean a woman is ready to bring one into the world. Besides, kids are massive energy drains; maybe she’s simply reached her limit.
But how does one reconcile that with their conscience? Most teenage girls look back on that moment with regret—some complain about what they did, while others seem strangely nonchalant and move on too easily—though perhaps I'm wrong about there being so few of the latter. We even had a forum member here who was once a teenager and broke down in tears over the memory. It’s easy to empathize with people like her, those who got caught in life's whirlpool without a clear way out. On the other hand, married mothers are mature and have established lives—even if some lack stability—and regardless of whether they use contraception, they still opt for an abortion. It’s easy to say, "I've had enough children," and treat it like a routine dental extraction. And we all know, pregnancy is a serious matter.
Let's be clear—I am strictly against abortion, yet simultaneously, I am fully in favor of a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Matthew Sullivan32 said:What’s there to think about? They have the right to decide what they want... my take is that no child should ever be born unwanted—that isn't some quick fix for anyone's happiness. Besides, there are far too many hollow marriages out there acting as mere facades.😉
But what about conscience? It’s one thing to empathize with a teenager backed into a corner by an unplanned pregnancy—it’s quite another to stomach married women choosing abortion simply because they don't want more kids, even when they have everything they need. If you look at the actual data, abortions happen much more frequently among married women than teenagers.
How should we view parents who have two or three kids—or maybe just one—and decide they’re done, only for contraception to fail? They have the resources to support another child, yet the woman has made her choice and is opting for an abortion. What's your take on them?
It’s as if she feels her family is already complete. Thoughts? And keep in mind, they are in a stable marriage...
I’m a JPMorgan Chase customer and I’m quite satisfied—though since I haven't tested other banks, my perspective is limited. Regardless, I've never experienced a connection drop; perhaps I'm just lucky.
TheMagicQuill said:An idea that's been rattling around my brain for the last... well, a few months: Stay in the States but work for "outsiders"—following the latest trend. I'm not talking about some foreign branch registered here in America, but rather working directly for a specific firm—say, in places like Germany or perhaps even the UK—on a project basis. In other words, you live at home (staying right here in the US), but you work abroad (a business trip of a few days isn't much of an issue for me). That way, you dodge the massive cost of living you'd face if you lived and worked overseas permanently; you stay local, and through sheer grit, you can actually prosper if you're willing to put in the work. Besides, I'm one of those workaholics—so why not leverage that financially?
👋
I don't think you're alone in this thinking—but the catch is that most talented, driven Americans are having the exact same thought. The result? A massive influx of workaholics and high-level thinkers all vying for the same thing, while the number of foreign firms looking to hire remotely from the US remains limited... eventually, someone has to deal with that surplus—perhaps by revisiting the idea of moving abroad?
I’m trying to draw a parallel between locals and expats. If foreigners move to a new country to start from scratch, they aren't out spending money on nightlife—they’d rather save up for a decent trip back home. I get why you and your wife spend more when visiting the US—it’s natural—but I wonder if you actually have as much fun in the UK as Americans do.
I’ve heard people talking about the trend in Sweden—young people want to see the world, so they seek out partners who can travel, essentially treating friendship like a social selection based on wealth within the Western lifestyle. If you're broke, you hang out with people in the same boat; if you have money, you go global with me. That explains the similarity with the UK. Young people travel everywhere to meet others, and that isn't free. They live by the mantra: "Live it up while you're young!"
It’s entirely possible that you and your wife just have different priorities—focusing on keeping your capital rather than blowing it. I understand that logic, and I’d act the same way in your shoes, but some people argue that life isn't just about the bank account, so they head out to spend it all...
A former colleague of mine bought a video camera back when they were incredibly expensive—one of those high-end purchases. He told me he wanted to actually experience life instead of just hoarding cash for decades. A year later, he moved abroad. Naturally, he spent so much that he had nothing left to show for it. But he actually lived—whereas I felt like I missed out... though I ended up more satisfied, while he was left chasing a bigger paycheck in the West...
Ronald Castillo5 said:Everyone thought it was impossible—who’s going to grant the loans, etc., etc. Look at this: Americans and other Europeans don't pay tuition because they're in the US... plus, they borrow money from the bank just to have something to live on during their studies. I had to pay for school and work simultaneously just to survive. Generally, after graduation, Americans come out with debts ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 that they spend years paying back. Meanwhile, I finished school with enough cash to buy a house with a 15% down payment. Americans lose their minds when I tell them that.
[/B]
Just to jump in regarding that comment—I think there's a more fundamental difference in mindset. Americans, for instance, want to experience life—traveling, exploring unknown places, soaking up unique experiences—and that's why they spend so much and rack up debt.
You and your wife, however, are always home while making money—I assume you're thinking logically and looking for the next investment opportunity, and your wife surely works to bring in extra income. You're focused on building wealth; Americans are simply built differently.
The question remains: is it worth indulging in the unknown while you're young, or is it better to constantly earn and save for your own home?
Personally, it's a bit grim seeing retirees along the Atlantic coast looking aged and frail, filming and photographing our landscapes as if they're squeezing out their last moments of enjoyment. It would have been better if they'd done that while they were young.
Sorry for the tangent—I couldn't help myself.
To stay on topic, back when I was younger and working under the old flag, I often thought about moving to the States—some university offered me a way in, and maybe I could have stayed there after my studies—but I have an emotional tie to my country. After the war, something shifted; despite our minor economic struggles, it never crosses my mind to leave again. I want to ensure my boys have everything they need—education and a solid career path—because I want them to stay here. That's why I struggle to provide everything possible so they feel good being home.!!!!
There’s also a slightly different issue at play—people don't actually want to do the work required to level up. That specific grind is supposed to be a catapult to a higher tier, but since the process drags on indefinitely, they just settle into the status quo. It isn't necessarily laziness—it's more of a calculation. They aren't passionate about the role, but they stick with it just to get the job done. There’s no real fulfillment there, yet when you're pulling in a massive paycheck from a firm like Goldman Sachs, you start convincing yourself that being comfortable is better than chasing some "dream job" with a meager salary. So, people stay exactly where they are, calling it satisfaction.
It’s been common knowledge for ages—it makes zero sense to go through the headache of securing loans with collateral or guarantors, especially when we’re talking smaller amounts under $5,500. For that kind of cash, a credit card is the smarter play. You grab a decent line of credit and you're done in minutes—no paperwork, no guarantors, no drama. Sure, the interest rates are higher than a standard loan, but you aren't wasting your life running between offices, making photocopies, or hunting down people to sign off on your debt. It saves the nerves.
Stick to a credit card from your primary bank if you can manage it...
I appreciate your line of reasoning—it’s quite logical. Life becomes much easier to navigate once you accept the reality that we are nothing more than a collection of biological cells. Honestly, I’m ready to call it quits myself—I don't see much point in this whole existence.
Jacob Wilson50 said:Opinions are split—when exactly does pregnancy actually begin. Either an upload—or an implant. It’s like choosing between a software patch and a hardware upgrade. One's a quick fix, the other's permanent. I assume you’re aware that a significant number of "natural" miscarriages occur in women—cases where a fertilized egg simply fails to implant and is expelled instead. It’s basic biology—nature’s own way of filtering out what won't work.
I’m honestly baffled—they’re calling the entire period starting from implantation "pregnancy." It's just illogical.
I agree with you—in my view, pregnancy only truly begins when implantation occurs within the uterine wall. While we talk about "seeds of life," a fertilized egg is really just a cluster of biological matter that hasn't taken shape yet—unlike a fetus, which actually looks like a living being. It’s more like representing massive potential for life rather than being the life itself.
Think of it like this—there’s a distinction between de facto pregnancy, which is just fertilization, and de jure pregnancy, which requires implantation in the uterus. But that raises a massive question—how can such immense biological potential be treated like any other cellular process? Whether it's through natural factors—like selective pressures, an unreceptive uterus, or environmental interference during implantation—or artificial means—like emergency contraception or even early intervention before the embryo reaches the uterus—why is it categorized alongside things like tumors, moles, or basic lactation?
Many women view intentional abortions or unwanted miscarriages through entirely different lenses—each woman’s relationship with a fertilized egg or fetus is unique. Some will argue that these entities don't even possess a soul until the three-month mark, while others will break down in tears over the loss of a life. It makes me wonder how one is actually supposed to process this. Through a microscope, it looks like nothing more than a biological cluster of cells—waiting to develop nerve endings, then blood cells, and so on—yet when it's terminated, people act as if nothing happened.
In my view, the fetus should develop until the third month—only then should God plant a soul into that child, preparing it for its debut in the world six months later...
Go ahead—spit on me if that’s how you want to play it. It's become a predictable routine by now.
So you're against abortion? Under Islamic law, preventing an embryo from implanting in the uterus isn't even considered an abortion—quite interesting. BTW, I'm not Muslim—just a stubborn Catholic with a wildly, sexually excessive dossier.
Here is a specific update after four months on Diane 35—Sladjije has started feeling pain just below her armpit, and some tenderness halfway down her right breast when touched or when wearing a bra for too long.
Her GP suggested she stop taking the birth control pills immediately and go get a breast ultrasound. She had an initial exam first, and while the specialist said it’s likely nothing, he wants to be certain and ordered the scan. Now she’s stuck waiting two months for the appointment—all while being off the pill.
And just imagine my situation here... since the doctors wouldn't clear me for a vasectomy either, so what am I supposed to do now?
Anyway, has anyone else dealt with something similar?!
Maybe it isn't breast cancer or some kind of tumor; perhaps it's just a fluid-filled cyst? I know those usually show up in ovaries, but can they happen in breasts? Who knows—please share your experiences.
Well, dear Kenneth Hernandez67, what you’ve discovered isn't exactly great news—but since you were the one to mention it was an abortifacient, there's really no reason to worry. Sure, you’re ovulating, but you know where a fertilized egg ends up—down that reproductive river where the Pope resides for five days while you lay in the hospital. I truly hope you actually listened to his messages and realized you should start using Diane35, which is actually among those pills designed to prevent ovulation.
placidjackal97 said:Look, please stop acting out—it’s not that you're being particularly profound (you spend most of your time trolling this forum anyway), it’s just that someone might actually take your nonsense seriously if you don't shut it.🙄
So, as a side effect of your "successful" contraceptive method, you have three unwanted children—those were your words.
Three?! Where did I ever say I had three.
I only have two unwanted kids—they hold the biggest spots in my heart and basically fight each other for more real estate in there.
Yesterday, right as we were getting intimate, my wife mentioned she forgot her pill the night before and had to take it this morning—so, yeah, 😠 after reading all your "expert" advice and instructions, I had to play it safe and pull out this cycle.
Honestly, I think a vasectomy is probably the best option for me—rather than these hormones that supposedly mess with your wonderful female bodies!!!!!!
Is such extreme attention really necessary for a single cycle? Wouldn't the hormones just handle things on their own? I know a woman who started her pills a day early—basically triggering an earlier cycle. She had been taking them for 21 days straight without any issues and was supposed to have a seven-day break, but she couldn't remember exactly when the new pack should start. She miscounted, so she just started a day ahead—and everything went fine. The hormone levels are quite strong—and presumably, if someone misses a day, they just need to be careful during that specific window (maybe just for about seven days?). Since the hormone levels dip slightly during that break before spiking back up after seven days of continuous use, preventing pregnancy should still be effective.