Abortion as a general topic - Page 6 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 161Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #76 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-07-2016, 01:58 PM
Member
 
Hope1964's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 8,825
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Personally, I wouldn't have an abortion even if it was the result of a rape. It's a moot point for me now, though, since I'm past childbearing age and have never been raped, but I have thought long and hard about it. I took an 'Ethics of Health Care' course in uni, and it stimulated years of ethical pondering for me. Also, I don't believe in having ultrasounds for no reason, so unless there was another problem I'd never find out if my baby had a brain outside it's body or something. So I wouldn't abort because of that. Again, moot though. I'm not religious, I just believe that there's a reason things happen the way they do and am content not to try to 'play god' if you will. I believe babies are alive from the moment of conception.

Which brings me back to the point about deciding when they are alive. I think that's something everyone needs to figure out for themselves. I do not think a fetus is part of a womans body. I think it's a separate entity and therefore does have rights of it's own. Again, MY belief. It makes me sad when I hear about women using abortions as birth control, or fathers wanting unborn babies but mothers aborting them anyways. But I do not believe I have the right to impose those beliefs on anyone else. I do believe I have the right to try and educate them about the biological processes and hopefully change their minds, but to force them? No. That's why I do not think abortion should be illegal or even hard to get, but I DO think that the government should be directing more of it's money toward education rather than legislation.


People don't get a free pass to cheat just because their marriage sucks.

Our R
Hope1964 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #77 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-07-2016, 02:32 PM
Member
 
Yeswecan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,568
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post
God "said so" when he designed a world in which woman are the sole options of bringing a new life into this world. I couldn't really care less what the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Bible say, those are man made creations that have no bearing on God. You are confusing religion and God. I am always amazed at how so many ignore reality to worship a fiction created by man.
Oh brother.... I just don't know what to say.... But...I can understand your thought/logic behind that statement.

“You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.”
― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

Last edited by Yeswecan; 12-07-2016 at 02:39 PM.
Yeswecan is offline  
post #78 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-07-2016, 02:38 PM
Member
 
katiecrna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,585
Re: Abortion as a general topic

What about freezing embryos? I am 100% against this practice and I am pro choice. To me this opens you up to such ethical dilemmas. I'm surprised it's allowed to be honest.
katiecrna is offline  
 
post #79 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-07-2016, 07:16 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,455
Re: Abortion as a general topic

I saw this and thought of this thread:-

Modern Family star Sofia Vergara reportedly being sued by her frozen IVF embryos

Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.
Cosmos is offline  
post #80 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-07-2016, 08:43 PM
Moderator
 
EleGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 32,968
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmos View Post
Oh my, life is stranger than fiction. What a brave new world.
EleGirl is offline  
post #81 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-07-2016, 08:53 PM
Member
 
MJJEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: MI
Posts: 2,281
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post
Yes, Roe v Wade was the result of attempts to restrict abortions. Apparently studying history has been replaced by listening to hyperbole spouted by fanatics. Another thing people don't understand is that through out human history abortions have been accepted as a part of life. Most governments and most societies (except for the most retrograde ones - think Saudi Arabia) have properly stayed away from attempting to criminalize abortion. Even the catholic church sanctioned abortions up to the ensoulment or quickening.
It is my understanding that the Church stopped approving abortion before the quickening because they Church realized that they don't actually know when the ensoulment occurs. Some argued that the ensoulment occurs at conception and others that it happens at quickening. Since there is no way to know one way or the other, the Church decided to err on the side of caution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katiecrna View Post
What about freezing embryos? I am 100% against this practice and I am pro choice. To me this opens you up to such ethical dilemmas. I'm surprised it's allowed to be honest.
According to the Catholic Church, frozen embryos are trapped souls until they are either destroyed or implanted.

I never had a problem with freezing embryos, especially for people with medical conditions that will effect their fertility, but the thought of being trapped, never allowed to live or die, the soul not being able to move on...*shudder*

Follow the evidence where it leads and question everything.

Last edited by MJJEAN; 12-07-2016 at 08:59 PM.
MJJEAN is offline  
post #82 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-08-2016, 06:59 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJEAN View Post
It is my understanding that the Church stopped approving abortion before the quickening because they Church realized that they don't actually know when the ensoulment occurs. Some argued that the ensoulment occurs at conception and others that it happens at quickening. Since there is no way to know one way or the other, the Church decided to err on the side of caution.
I don't think the catholic church ever actually approved of any abortions, so my use of the term "sanction" may be a little over the top. But they definitely allowed them, making certain exceptions of up to 40 days for a male and 90 days for a female fetus (which were the time periods within which the "ensoulment" or "animation" took place)
The fact is that most cultures allowed abortions to happen. And in Today's world it is often only the most retrograde cultures that don't.

At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!
Ynot is offline  
post #83 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-08-2016, 08:59 AM
Member
 
katiecrna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,585
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Freezing embryos rubs me the wrong way. And there are too many ethical issues that can arise. Freeze your sperm, freeze your eggs but not embryos.
The reason I'm for early abortions is bc everyone makes mistakes and slips up sometimes. We have all been in a situation where we didn't have protected sex, or the condom broke or whatever. But to make a pre meditated plan to freeze embryos is weird, than what are you going to do if you don't want them? That's not fair to me. What if spouses break up?
In regards to Sofia Vergara... the embryos are just as much her exes than they are hers. Now they have to agree on what to do with them even though they are not together it's so weird. It's better to just freeze eggs and sperm.
katiecrna is offline  
post #84 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-08-2016, 10:08 AM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 3,088
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by EleGirl View Post
I agree.



I think that self-defense doctrine does apply here.

There is a problem with the idea of only allowing abortion for rape and when a woman's life is at risk.

What would be the test for allowing rape as one of the few reasons a woman can have an abortion? Would she have to only say she'd been raped? Would she have to report the crime? Would it require a conviction of a rapist? Few rape charges ever lead to even an arrest, much less a trial. Convictions for rape are very rare. It can take months, even years, before a rapist goes to trial. Usually a baby resulting from rape is born long before any trial is even held, if it even goes that far.

If a woman had to prove rape, even if she was raped, few if any woman would be able to get an abortion based on rape because of the reasons I gave above. So, allowing abortion based on rape would only help the woman who suffer the worst, most violent rapes where it's evident that some guy beat her almost to death.

When I comes to the life of the mother, I can tell you from experience (as I tried to do in a post above this one) that often doctors are clueless and have little idea of what is really going on with the woman. There were complications in my pregnancy that the doctor ignored. Plus, knowing his religious convictions, I doubt that he would have agreed to an abortion no matter what I was going through.

In both of these cases, a many woman would be at the mercy of either a police/legal system that could not prove the rape and/or doctors who are clueless. (And yes many doctors are clueless.)
Thanks for the response Ele, another great and thoughtful post.

Therein lies the rub, it's easy philosophically to say this is how it ought to be, but implementing it into law is quite another matter. I think before we get to law though, we have to start with the philosophical and ethical arguments. If we come to the conclusion that a fetus is not human, and abortion is not murder, then we can dispense with the legal discussion altogether.

If I were implementing such a law... I'd probably put in something about a woman having to actually file rape charges / report to the police. The problem here is that rape charges (both true and false) would almost assuredly skyrocket... nothing is without consequence.

The doctor complaint is a real problem, but I would think you could get a second opinion. Which brings us to the issue of doctor shopping for an abortion, much like people shop for doctors to get pills today...

However, we don't ask such questions about murder in general do we? Murder laws are bound to have unintended consequences, however, we, as a society, do not want people running around killing each other without just cause.

Quote:
If human sex were only for the purpose of procreation, I would agree with you. But it's not. For humans, sex has a lot more to do with bonding people. We are driven to have sex for that purpose.

Plus, your statement assumes that the woman was not trying to prevent a pregnancy. Birth control fails all the time. It's far from 100%. Condoms rip or slide off.
regarding bonding... why do you think it is that this happens? I would wager--as do most in the evolutionary psychology field--that this is because a pregnant woman, as well as a woman who is rearing young children, historically has been relatively helpless, and needs someone to provide for her and the young. The pair bonding effect seems to last roughly 7 years--just when kids would be able to take care of themselves to a significant degree. With that in mind, I would argue that sex actually is about reproduction. We have just turned it into a hobby with the advent of things like birth control. (Which I'm not judging btw, I enjoy it as much as anyone)

Regarding prevention of pregnancy, I'm actually not assuming anything on the part of the woman. Birth control fails. She knows she's taking a risk. You hold men to this standard, why are women somehow above it?

Quote:
Plus, often a woman does not realize that there is a problem until after she is pregnant.

What would you tell a young woman who is homeless and gets pregnant? She is unable to take care of herself, much less a child. Would you really tell her "tough cookies, you invited that baby by having sex. So now go back to live on the street while pregnant. Then once you have that baby, you and your baby can live on the street. ???????????????????????
Would I tell a person that their actions have consequences, and that I wouldn't let them murder someone for their convenience? Yes. Being homeless doesn't give you permission to kill people. And it doesn't exempt you for the consequences of your actions. Would I have empathy for this person? Yes. Would I want to try to help them find a way to take care of themselves and their (potential) child? Yes. This is what charity is for.

Interestingly, I would wager that most people would have a problem with this situation. Most folks don't want abortions funded by their government. And a homeless person almost assuredly doesn't have the money for one...

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
post #85 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-08-2016, 10:31 AM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 3,088
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post

The childish argument is the one YOU are making. No one said anything about some one being proximate to you. A fetus is NOT proximate to a woman. It is WITHIN the woman and in HER body. Not yours or anybody else's. YOU have no say over what anyone else does to their body. You also confuse a fetus with life. The fetus can NOT survive without the woman's consent. So please stop making childish arguments.
I wasn't aware that sharing the same space as someone isn't proximate to their location. Would you like to elucidate on that very strange notion?

An infant cannot survive without the woman's active participation and consent. So you're not really making a very strong case here. Children under age ~7 need their parents for food, shelter, etc. They will die otherwise. So, what is the ethical difference? Proximity. Not much of an ethics case you're making so far.

Quote:
Yes, I do have a right to complain, because me explaining to you that you have no right to foist your ethics on some one else does not violate yours. OTOH, you would attempt to use your ethics to control some one else's body, to which YOU have no right to do.
If ethics are subjective--which was the case you were making--then mine are equally as valid as yours. If you think ethics are subjective, then mine can't be wrong. They're just different from yours. And if it's just a matter of taste, well "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum."

You're not arguing in good faith Ynot. You don't believe ethics are subjective. No one does. This is sophistry used by people losing an argument. Let's test this: Is slavery unethical? By your previous statement:
"You can speak of ethics, all you want, but your ethics are your own. They are not all or some women's. We are all bound by our own code of ethics regardless. Each of us ultimately acts in what we consider our own best interests." Slavery must be fine, so long as it's your ethics.

So, are ethics subjective? Is this a matter of taste to you? Or is this a matter of right and wrong, and you think I'm wrong? Which is it? It can't be both?

Quote:
The very obvious difference in your absurd argument, is that those children were not dependent upon the consent of your neighbor for their continued existence. But I guess that is another FACT you choose to ignore in favor of your feeling or belief that abortion is murder.
Suppose my neighbor engages in a behavior that would draw children to his property, and then kills them for trespass? This would be murder, yes? And equivalent to what we are discussing. The woman engages in a behavior that she knows can/will result in children and then "oh my stars! I never expected this! Kill it! Trespass!" The woman is not an innocent victim, or at least does not appear to be, when you look at this dispassionately. In both cases, the fate of the child rests in the hands of their murderer.

At least the child, in my neighbor example, had a choice, and could have avoided his/her fate. The case of the child in abortion is one where they have no choice. You can't even try to argue that they are trespassing.

Quote:
You are correct which is exactly why abortions are legal, because your feelings are not hte basis of law.
So, you admit you're not arguing in good faith, because you have no good, factual arguments? And yet you think that the law is based on facts? How do you reconcile this in your brain? Does it cause you headaches?


Quote:
Nice try, but you aren't speaking of facts, you are the the one speaking of feelings. You feel that a fetus is life and because you feel that way, everyone else should act accordingly. But the FACT is that the fetus cannot survive without the consent of the woman. Whether you like it or not that is the FACT of how nature has made it.
And yet it's still infanticide if you kill the child after birth... how does that cognitive dissonance feel again?


Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
post #86 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-08-2016, 11:04 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
I wasn't aware that sharing the same space as someone isn't proximate to their location. Would you like to elucidate on that very strange notion?

There is a very real difference between being NEAR somebody (aka proximate) and being IN somebody. You are attempting to obfuscate here. It is whole basis of your so-called argument

An infant cannot survive without the woman's active participation and consent. So you're not really making a very strong case here. Children under age ~7 need their parents for food, shelter, etc. They will die otherwise. So, what is the ethical difference? Proximity. Not much of an ethics case you're making so far.

Wow, double obfuscation here. An INFANT is not the same thing as FETUS. Nor is proximity the same as being within (see above)

If ethics are subjective--which was the case you were making--then mine are equally as valid as yours. If you think ethics are subjective, then mine can't be wrong. They're just different from yours. And if it's just a matter of taste, well "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum."

No one has said your ethics are right or wrong, that is for you to decide. If ethically you cannot or will not do something - you don't have to do it! So why are you are attempting to say otherwise? Oh, yeah, because your argument falls apart otherwise, that is why

You're not arguing in good faith Ynot. You don't believe ethics are subjective. No one does. This is sophistry used by people losing an argument. Let's test this: Is slavery unethical? By your previous statement:
"You can speak of ethics, all you want, but your ethics are your own. They are not all or some women's. We are all bound by our own code of ethics regardless. Each of us ultimately acts in what we consider our own best interests." Slavery must be fine, so long as it's your ethics.

Slavery in fact was fine, for vast periods of human history (even in your Bible). Note I am not saying it is fine with me, but according to your view it is fine. Because YOU would enslave a woman for at least nine months to raise a fetus, based on YOUR ethics.

So, are ethics subjective? Is this a matter of taste to you? Or is this a matter of right and wrong, and you think I'm wrong? Which is it? It can't be both?

Actually, it can. Which is why we all have free will. Until and unless you or someone violates the rights of another, whatever works best for you or them is what is "right" for you or them.

Suppose my neighbor engages in a behavior that would draw children to his property, and then kills them for trespass? This would be murder, yes? And equivalent to what we are discussing. The woman engages in a behavior that she knows can/will result in children and then "oh my stars! I never expected this! Kill it! Trespass!" The woman is not an innocent victim, or at least does not appear to be, when you look at this dispassionately. In both cases, the fate of the child rests in the hands of their murderer.

It is NOT equivalent in the least bit. It is an absurd argument that has no basis in reality.It is only equivalent if one confuses a fetus with an an infant or child in this case. It is also predicated on confounding the action and intent of the neighbor with the actions of a woman, who often does not set out or intend to become pregnant

At least the child, in my neighbor example, had a choice, and could have avoided his/her fate. The case of the child in abortion is one where they have no choice. You can't even try to argue that they are trespassing.

Yes, you are correct, the child in your example had a choice. Because that child is not solely dependent upon the neighbor for his or her continued existence

So, you admit you're not arguing in good faith, because you have no good, factual arguments? And yet you think that the law is based on facts? How do you reconcile this in your brain? Does it cause you headaches?

Everything I have presented to you is a fact. It is also a fact that you are purposefully trying to twist two completely different scenarios to be the same on the basis of your faith and nothing more


And yet it's still infanticide if you kill the child after birth... how does that cognitive dissonance feel again?
What cognitive dissonance? Again, an infant is NOT a fetus. An infant is NOT completely and solely dependent upon the good will of its mother for its continued existence. Please stop attempting to render two very different scenarios into being the same.

At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!

Last edited by Ynot; 12-08-2016 at 11:10 AM.
Ynot is offline  
post #87 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-08-2016, 11:22 AM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 3,088
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post
What cognitive dissonance? Again, an infant is NOT a fetus. An infant is NOT completely and solely dependent upon the good will of its mother for its continued existence. Please stop attempting to render two very different scenarios into being the same.
Nature is calling. It wants your brain back.

That is patently false. Even the most rabid of feminists couldn't hope to make this case. You might want to stick to the "It's my body I'll do what I want!" argument. It's at least understandable. At least with a fetus the woman is passively involved--she need do nothing other than keep healthy. With infants, you are actively involved. You must actually care for them. It's even more of an imposition on the "sovereignty" of your body.

Sharing the same space as someone is indeed proximity. You're saying that they're too close. Then when it's pointed out, you freak. Chill dude. Hold on to your arguments, so we can break them down and examine them. It's okay for either or both of us to be wrong. That's the whole point of my inquiry here.

You didn't answer me. Is it fair to state that you believe that ethics are subjective? If so, and my ethics call for the execution of murderers... and my ethics name abortion murder... then it's not wrong... It's just a matter of what's popular? Is that your case here?

Outside of rape, the woman is engaging in a behavior that can and will result in pregnancy. And she knows it. Which is why I revised the neighbor to the same. If I entice someone into coming onto my property, and then use the trespassing as justification, it is often still considered murder. We have laws against "mantraps".

And finally... we get to the real meat. This is about Religion for you. It's not for me. I'm not religious. I've never, in all my life, made an argument against abortion "From God". You can't treat this with actual logic and good faith because you assume that your opponent is an [evil Christian].

You are wrong.

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
post #88 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-08-2016, 11:48 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
Nature is calling. It wants your brain back.

That is patently false. Even the most rabid of feminists couldn't hope to make this case. You might want to stick to the "It's my body I'll do what I want!" argument. It's at least understandable. At least with a fetus the woman is passively involved--she need do nothing other than keep healthy. With infants, you are actively involved. You must actually care for them. It's even more of an imposition on the "sovereignty" of your body.

Sharing the same space as someone is indeed proximity. You're saying that they're too close. Then when it's pointed out, you freak. Chill dude. Hold on to your arguments, so we can break them down and examine them. It's okay for either or both of us to be wrong. That's the whole point of my inquiry here.

You didn't answer me. Is it fair to state that you believe that ethics are subjective? If so, and my ethics call for the execution of murderers... and my ethics name abortion murder... then it's not wrong... It's just a matter of what's popular? Is that your case here?

Outside of rape, the woman is engaging in a behavior that can and will result in pregnancy. And she knows it. Which is why I revised the neighbor to the same. If I entice someone into coming onto my property, and then use the trespassing as justification, it is often still considered murder. We have laws against "mantraps".

And finally... we get to the real meat. This is about Religion for you. It's not for me. I'm not religious. I've never, in all my life, made an argument against abortion "From God". You can't treat this with actual logic and good faith because you assume that your opponent is an [evil Christian].

You are wrong.
Actually I am absolutely correct.

Personally I couldn't care any less what you choose to believe. I don't think you are evil (although I do think organized religion is) I don't even know you. But having said that, the fact is that you are attempting to twist two distinctly different scenarios to be the same in order to fit your world view (or religious beliefs). The problem is you won't admit it.

As for ethics I most assuredly answered you. You just didn't hear the answer you were looking for. Ethics are relative because they are born of our experiences (which would include religious upbringing). Different people have different ethics because different people have experienced different things. This is why laws change, it is why society evolves and it is why people change.

As for sovereignty, you are (again) confused. You are confusing making a choice with having a choice When a woman chooses to carry a fetus to birth, she has exercised her sovereignty every bit as much as the woman who chose to abort has. See? Each has acted in what they consider to be their own best interest. It is not your choice to make, as it is not your sovereignty that is affected.

The rest of your post is just more of the same old same old we have rehashed over and over. It is based on your beliefs, which I have no control over but strongly disagree with. Each of us is sovereign and each of us is free to exercise said sovereignty up to the point that we impose on another's sovereignty. In your mind a fetus is sovereign because you ignore the obvious fact that it cannot exist without the consent of the woman who will carry it and nurture it. I recognize that reality and therefore do not feel a fetus is sovereign.

At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!
Ynot is offline  
post #89 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-08-2016, 12:18 PM Thread Starter
jld
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 20,121
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post
I don't think the catholic church ever actually approved of any abortions, so my use of the term "sanction" may be a little over the top. But they definitely allowed them, making certain exceptions of up to 40 days for a male and 90 days for a female fetus (which were the time periods within which the "ensoulment" or "animation" took place)
The fact is that most cultures allowed abortions to happen. And in Today's world it is often only the most retrograde cultures that don't.
How could the sex be known so early?

One of the deepest feminine pleasures is when a man stands full, present, and unreactive in the midst of his woman's emotional storms. When he stays present with her, and loves her through the layers of wildness and closure, then she feels his trustability, and she can relax. -- David Deida, The Way of the Superior Man
jld is offline  
post #90 of 93 (permalink) Old 12-08-2016, 01:11 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: Abortion as a general topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by jld View Post
How could the sex be known so early?
It couldn't. But as with most things with the Catholic church I am sure it relates to their general disdain for the rights of a woman. IOW if a woman aborted a male fetus after 40 days (even though she didn't realize it was male) she could be excommunicated or otherwise shunned. But it was ok if it was female. Because sadly, the Catholic Church was a product of an age and culture where female rights were considered somewhat inferior to those of the males. Even more sadly, there are some males today who still think that is the case.

At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!
Ynot is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has there been a general shift in counseling / therapy? NextTimeAround Experiences in Counseling 10 01-12-2017 09:17 PM
General question about acromyms Cream2sugarsplz General Relationship Discussion 1 03-30-2016 08:00 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome