Abortion in the US

[Yossarian]

I'm a man and this is not my choice to make. I feel it is not right for me to decide on this issue. That in turn means it is the woman's right to decide. Therefore I am Pro-Choice.

[james2mart]

My logic is not skewed. And comparing Meth to abortion is apples and oranges.

 

My point is is that abortion is already legal. If we made it illegal, we would have women leaving the country to have questionable "procedures" done.

[gwprod12]

The supreme court found it's justification for the legalization of abortion in section 1 of the 14th amendment, more specifically the due process clause.

 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (The due process clause is emphasized)

 

Justice Stewart referred to the Fourteen Amendment when he issued a concurring statement in Roe v. Wade. He wrote, in part: "Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas."

 

EDIT: I would like to point out that a great many people feel that drug use should also be covered by the 14th amendment. Drug use directly affects only the people who use it. Depriving people of the ability to use drugs is putting limits on their liberty. (The same holds for seat-belt laws and anti-smoking laws)

 

The murder justification always comes up at this point, so I'll smack it down. There can be a right to do drugs, since drugs directly affect only the user. While drugs have indirect affects on children, spouses, parents, neighbours, etc, these affects are not dissimilar to gambling, alcoholism or psychological disorders.

The state has an obligation to protect your children, your spouse can pack up and go, your parents can disown you, and your neighbours can call the police if you're causing them trouble.

However, there can be no right to murder, because your right to personal liberty stops at another person's nose. There can be no right to deprive others of rights.

[wildcat69410]

I'm a man and this is not my choice to make. I feel it is not right for me to decide on this issue. That in turn means it is the woman's right to decide. Therefore I am Pro-Choice.

 

I disagree. When you have sex with a woman, you literally enter a consenual contract, basically stating that both parties are responsible for whatever comes out of the endeavour. By law, if the woman can get the man, he must pay child support payments (if the child is born). So therefore, Sex is virtually a contract.

 

At that point, a man has every right to decide how this is all going to be taken out. The man has just as much responsibility for a child as a woman does, and has just as much of a job in the conception of the child.

 

Plus, I don't like your logic as well. Simply because you're a man doesn't mean you have to default to Pro-Choice.

 

My point is is that abortion is already legal. If we made it illegal, we would have women leaving the country to have questionable "procedures" done.

 

If women have become that dependent on Abortions, then there is a serious problem in America. If Abortions actually come to the point where there are backalley abortions, and out of country abortions, then it's fairly obvious we have a problem. Simply keeping Abortion legal isn't solving anything, its just feeding the addiction so to speak.

 

My comparison wasn't that skewed. I have a valid point. Simply keeping something legal to prevent others from bringing it in out of Country, doing so illegally, is just ludicrous.

 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (The due process clause is emphasized)

 

Since when was killing an unborn child a privilege? Although the decision may have been drawn from the 14th amendment, it was primarily activist judges stretching their definition book as thin as it would go to barely cover around Abortion. Sorta funny too, if you consider a fetus to be living (at least in part), that that very same quote also mentions the state unlawfully removing the life a person without a trial, the very center of Abortion.

 

Although, logically, giving a fetus a trial would be hard (but yet really funny).

 

EDIT: I would like to point out that a great many people feel that drug use should also be covered by the 14th amendment. Drug use directly affects only the people who use it. Depriving people of the ability to use drugs is putting limits on their liberty. (The same holds for seat-belt laws and anti-smoking laws)

 

Reasons for keeping drugs illegal are too numerous to mention, and I hope I never live to see the day where an Activist judge will be able to include drug use under the already thin umbrella of the 14th amendment. The Government's primary job, its goal, is to protect its citizens. How exactly can it do that if they're all stoned/dead/mentally defective due to drug abuse.

 

Plus, imagine if the US became a center for the drug industry, with drug lords and everything. Eventually, trade like that could create a much larger Columbia, whereas the Government would have an incredibly difficult time controlling all of that.

 

The murder justification always comes up at this point, so I'll smack it down. There can be a right to do drugs, since drugs directly affect only the user. While drugs have indirect affects on children, spouses, parents, neighbours, etc, these affects are not dissimilar to gambling, alcoholism or psychological disorders.

The state has an obligation to protect your children, your spouse can pack up and go, your parents can disown you, and your neighbours can call the police if you're causing them trouble.

However, there can be no right to murder, because your right to personal liberty stops at another person's nose. There can be no right to deprive others of rights.

 

At this point, we reach yet another controversial issue, self-inflicted homocide, also known as suicide. Does a person have a right to endanger their own lives with drugs? At what level to we stop a person's liberty in order to save that person's life? Is killing oneself, either by accident or on purpose a homicide, or a person exercising their rights?

[killbot1000]

Reasons for keeping drugs illegal are too numerous to mention, and I hope I never live to see the day where an Activist judge will be able to include drug use under the already thin umbrella of the 14th amendment. The Government's primary job, its goal, is to protect its citizens. How exactly can it do that if they're all stoned/dead/mentally defective due to drug abuse.

 

 

What I find funny here is that you disregard history, drugs have always been legal in the US, in fact there were many cases in the supreme court (to ban drugs) that got shot down because it interfered with peoples rights. The only way we FINALLY got them banned was with the stamp act, which was a loophole in the legal system, anybody wanting to smoke or sell marijuana would have to obtain a stamp from the government, or face jail time, except....the government just decided not to make the stamps. So one had to be in posession of marjuana to get the stamp but if one was in possesion of marijuana without the stamp they were breaking the law, tidy little arrangement, many other drugs became illegal at first in this fasion. I believe it was the work of activist judges that banned drugs, not tried to keep them legal, think about that for a while.

[wildcat69410]

What I find funny here is that you disregard history, drugs have always been legal in the US, in fact there were many cases in the supreme court (to ban drugs) that got shot down because it interfered with peoples rights. The only way we FINALLY got them banned was with the stamp act, which was a loophole in the legal system, anybody wanting to smoke or sell marijuana would have to obtain a stamp from the government, or face jail time, except....the government just decided not to make the stamps. So one had to be in posession of marjuana to get the stamp but if one was in possesion of marijuana without the stamp they were breaking the law, tidy little arrangement, many other drugs became illegal at first in this fasion. I believe it was the work of activist judges that banned drugs, not tried to keep them legal, think about that for a while.

 

A lot of drugs were originally legal, simply because it takes time to understand the medical consequences of using the drugs. But you still failed to answer my question. Where is the right for a person to do harm to themselves? Heck, what societal good do drugs do? At a certain point you have to realize that a person's "right" to do drugs isn't as important as the damage to the society that those drugs cause.

[killbot1000]

A lot of drugs were originally legal, simply because it takes time to understand the medical consequences of using the drugs. But you still failed to answer my question. Where is the right for a person to do harm to themselves? Heck, what societal good do drugs do? At a certain point you have to realize that a person's "right" to do drugs isn't as important as the damage to the society that those drugs cause.

 

First of all, you just completely disregarded my last statement about the stamp act, with some tired rhetoric of "alot of drugs were legal because it takes time to understand the medical..." no, thats just not true, and its not the reasoning behind why drugs were illegalized, they were made illegal by propaganda and misinformation (ever hear of reefer madness?) I find it funny that marijuana was illegal before cocaine, obviously they didnt get their science right.

 

But to answer your question though:

 

 

See, I disagree, I feel that if we focused more teaching people how to control their drug use to make it recreational instead of a habit/addiction, we could use all that money from drug busting cops and put it into something useful like education or healthcare.

 

Drugs are fun, the key is balance, learning when to use them and when not to use them, and I am confident most people can be taught this boundry. Alcohol and cigarettes are the same thing, and alcohol is even worse than marijuana, so why isnt that illegal? Honestly, I feel that very little about our society would change if most drugs were legal, The majority of the people would still be like they are now, there wouldnt be a HUGE URGE to buy drugs. I know that my habits wouldnt change, and I know im only speaking from myself, but I dont feel like it hurts the society.

 

Also secondly, I dont agree with the harm to yourself or others, I feel its perfectly ok for somebody to harm themselves if they want to, and if they yknow...arent crazy, if they want to cut themselves, let them cut themselves, if they want to smoke, let them smoke. Its the harm to others part that gets me, and I dont feel like drug use harms others on a massive scale, offense afterall doesnt count as harm.

 

Abortion is essensially the same thing, you dont tell people NOT TO HAVE SEX, you teach them how to do it in the safest possible way, that way they wont need an abortion at all, countries that practice this policy have a much lower instance of abortion than countries that preach abstinence only. It seems like you want it both ways, you want people to not have premarital sex but you also dont want abortions, you cant have it both ways, choose one or the other. This polar logic is giving me a headache

[wildcat69410]

First of all, you just completely disregarded my last statement about the stamp act, with some tired rhetoric of "alot of drugs were legal because it takes time to understand the medical..." no, thats just not true, and its not the reasoning behind why drugs were illegalized, they were made illegal by propaganda and misinformation (ever hear of reefer madness?) I find it funny that marijuana was illegal before cocaine, obviously they didnt get their science right.

 

It may have been illegalized due to a legal loophole, but for good reasons, whether medical or simply legal. When considering the legalization of Marijuana, a lot of other questions arise that can create a large amount of problems. Questions such as who will support and pay for the many drug addicts that will be created under this new legalization. Who will support their habits? Who will pay for the social, criminal, and other costs of legalization? The simple cost of legalizing it is huge, and would in turn create even further problems for society.

 

See, I disagree, I feel that if we focused more teaching people how to control their drug use to make it recreational instead of a habit/addiction, we could use all that money from drug busting cops and put it into something useful like education or healthcare.

 

Oh yeah, lets make drugs a National Industry. They've tried that in Columbia, and it hasn't worked very well. Plus, all this money that we'd make, would just be put right back into helping the addicts and then some. We'd end up losing money.

 

Drugs are fun, the key is balance, learning when to use them and when not to use them, and I am confident most people can be taught this boundry. Alcohol and cigarettes are the same thing, and alcohol is even worse than marijuana, so why isnt that illegal? Honestly, I feel that very little about our society would change if most drugs were legal, The majority of the people would still be like they are now, there wouldnt be a HUGE URGE to buy drugs. I know that my habits wouldnt change, and I know im only speaking from myself, but I dont feel like it hurts the society.

 

If you are so confident that most people can be taught this boundry, then explain to me why we have so many drug addicts out there? People are taught all throughout their childhood (most of them at least), that drugs can do so many harmful affects to you, yet so many of them become addicts. As for alcohol, it is not nearly as dangerous as Marijuana. For example, Alcohol only directly affects the person using it, while Marijuana secondary smoke can make other nearby people high.

 

I'm not saying that there would suddenly be a drug rush to purchase drugs, but once they're legalized, it is going to become more rampant, and more and more people are going to try drugs and they're going to get addicted to them. It's insane to believe that legalizing the drug will actually lower its use.

 

Also secondly, I dont agree with the harm to yourself or others, I feel its perfectly ok for somebody to harm themselves if they want to, and if they yknow...arent crazy, if they want to cut themselves, let them cut themselves, if they want to smoke, let them smoke. Its the harm to others part that gets me, and I dont feel like drug use harms others on a massive scale, offense afterall doesnt count as harm.

 

That's just sick... The fact that they harm themselves is bad enough, but when you look at the reason they harm themselves, you get real problems. To simply say that as long as they don't harm me they're okay, is just irresponsible. As for the "massive scale affect of drug use", why don't you ask parents, friends, and siblings of drug users who have overdosed and died from it. It affects a lot of people, whether indirectly or not, so its not like drug use is someone else's problem.

 

Abortion is essensially the same thing, you dont tell people NOT TO HAVE SEX, you teach them how to do it in the safest possible way, that way they wont need an abortion at all, countries that practice this policy have a much lower instance of abortion than countries that preach abstinence only. It seems like you want it both ways, you want people to not have premarital sex but you also dont want abortions, you cant have it both ways, choose one or the other. This polar logic is giving me a headache

 

Actually, I beleve that you DO tell people not to have sex as that is the ONLY way not to get pregnant or have STD's. You preach about teaching kids the "safest" way to have sex, and there really isn't one. You can throw in all the condoms, Birth Control Pills, everything. The only 100% way to prevent STD's and Pregnancies is to not have sex.

 

The reason Abortions are less prevalent in other countries is simply because they have more sex, and they THINK about it before they do it. Over there, they know the risks involved, and they have all of the preventative means provided for them, so if they have sex and get pregnant, there's no excuses. However, there's no way, no matter how much you educate someone, that you'll guarantee that they won't make a stupid decision and get pregnant.

 

But seriously, your logic is starting to sound a lot like Brave New World, which is just plain creepy. The endgame scenario for your theory is literally a world where children are simply manufactured, and sex is something purely for enjoyment. There are no morals, nothing. If that's what you want, go for it, but that's a society I would never want to live in.

 

And, I can have it both ways, simply because one *generally* breeds the other. If you have no sex, then there won't be a need for abortion. If you don't have abortion as an incidental pregnancy standby, then less people are likely to have sex.

[killbot1000]

It may have been illegalized due to a legal loophole, but for good reasons, whether medical or simply legal. When considering the legalization of Marijuana, a lot of other questions arise that can create a large amount of problems. Questions such as who will support and pay for the many drug addicts that will be created under this new legalization. Who will support their habits? Who will pay for the social, criminal, and other costs of legalization? The simple cost of legalizing it is huge, and would in turn create even further problems for society.

Oh yeah, lets make drugs a National Industry. They've tried that in Columbia, and it hasn't worked very well. Plus, all this money that we'd make, would just be put right back into helping the addicts and then some. We'd end up losing money.

If you are so confident that most people can be taught this boundry, then explain to me why we have so many drug addicts out there? People are taught all throughout their childhood (most of them at least), that drugs can do so many harmful affects to you, yet so many of them become addicts. As for alcohol, it is not nearly as dangerous as Marijuana. For example, Alcohol only directly affects the person using it, while Marijuana secondary smoke can make other nearby people high.

 

I'm not saying that there would suddenly be a drug rush to purchase drugs, but once they're legalized, it is going to become more rampant, and more and more people are going to try drugs and they're going to get addicted to them. It's insane to believe that legalizing the drug will actually lower its use.

That's just sick... The fact that they harm themselves is bad enough, but when you look at the reason they harm themselves, you get real problems. To simply say that as long as they don't harm me they're okay, is just irresponsible. As for the "massive scale affect of drug use", why don't you ask parents, friends, and siblings of drug users who have overdosed and died from it. It affects a lot of people, whether indirectly or not, so its not like drug use is someone else's problem.

Actually, I beleve that you DO tell people not to have sex as that is the ONLY way not to get pregnant or have STD's. You preach about teaching kids the "safest" way to have sex, and there really isn't one. You can throw in all the condoms, Birth Control Pills, everything. The only 100% way to prevent STD's and Pregnancies is to not have sex.

 

The reason Abortions are less prevalent in other countries is simply because they have more sex, and they THINK about it before they do it. Over there, they know the risks involved, and they have all of the preventative means provided for them, so if they have sex and get pregnant, there's no excuses. However, there's no way, no matter how much you educate someone, that you'll guarantee that they won't make a stupid decision and get pregnant.

 

But seriously, your logic is starting to sound a lot like Brave New World, which is just plain creepy. The endgame scenario for your theory is literally a world where children are simply manufactured, and sex is something purely for enjoyment. There are no morals, nothing. If that's what you want, go for it, but that's a society I would never want to live in.

 

And, I can have it both ways, simply because one *generally* breeds the other. If you have no sex, then there won't be a need for abortion. If you don't have abortion as an incidental pregnancy standby, then less people are likely to have sex.

 

Hey, thanks for putting words into my mouth...I totally did not say that we should have sex ONLY for pleasure, and that children should me manufactured. All im saying is that sex isnt purely for procreation, theres other things to it as well, thats all I was trying to say.

 

Im just saying that the data speaks for itself, countries that give people contraceptives and tell people how to use them have a much lower rate of abortion than countries that try to sweep sex under the rug and yell out "no sex before marriage, abstinence only" You wouldnt think it would work that way but it does.

 

Also I think you were miseducated on contraceptives, pretty much the only reason why they fail is pilot error (the person misuses them). Also, if you are wearing a condom and the woman is taking birth control pills, the odds of success climb to about the %99.99 mark. I think you have the illusion in your head that these things fail all the time, and if they are used properly...they dont.

 

Theres nothing wrong with sex, its not dirty, its not shameful, its something to be celebrated, all we need to do is give people the tools to have sex without any of the negative reprocussions. And theres nothing wrong with that, nothing at all.

 

And another thing, its not like everybody is desperate to have sex but their religion or their education holds them back. Theres all different kinds of people, some who are very timid by nature about sex, and others who whore themselves out to anybody, there have always been these two groups, but I argue that atleast 70% of everybody is about the same (wont have sex unless its with somebody they care about). And what the hell is wrong with that? Afterall, marriage is just on paper. It means nothing without the foundation below it. its just funny that marriage is about sex and children instead of loving eachother.

 

Also, marriage itself is overated, for example, do you know why the woman takes on the mans name? because throughout history, marriage was almost literally parents selling their daughter to a man, and the marriage contract was a contract stating that the man owns the woman. I dont know if I want anything to do with a custom with those roots. Even the word family has its roots in words like slavery. So really, the logic im going by is that my views are more updated according to our society, and more valid. Modern solutions for modern problems...

[wildcat69410]

Hey, thanks for putting words into my mouth...I totally did not say that we should have sex ONLY for pleasure, and that children should me manufactured. All im saying is that sex isnt purely for procreation, theres other things to it as well, thats all I was trying to say.

 

The only one putting words into anyone's mouth is you putting words into mine. I never said that your logic was exactly like Brave New World's, I just said that it was sounding like it. In your opinion, Sex is more for pleasure rather than for procreation, at least as far as I can tell. The most extreme form of that opinion is Brave New World, and I'm just pointing out the end-game scenario for that logic.

 

Im just saying that the data speaks for itself, countries that give people contraceptives and tell people how to use them have a much lower rate of abortion than countries that try to sweep sex under the rug and yell out "no sex before marriage, abstinence only" You wouldnt think it would work that way but it does.

 

My point is that the two aren't necessarily connected. It could simply be a societal issue, where if a woman gets pregnant, you simply have to deal with it rather than seek another way out. The reason less abortions are present may be because Abortions are looked down upon rather than the large abundance of contraceptives.

 

Also I think you were miseducated on contraceptives, pretty much the only reason why they fail is pilot error (the person misuses them). Also, if you are wearing a condom and the woman is taking birth control pills, the odds of success climb to about the %99.99 mark. I think you have the illusion in your head that these things fail all the time, and if they are used properly...they dont.

 

Your percentage of error there is a little too low. I've heard (not sure where), that approximately one in four/five condoms fail. Even if applied with Birth Control, which has a little higher success rate, a pregnancy is still a valid and possible outcome. If it wasn't, then why are there still abortions being performed in these contraceptive focused countries? Abstinence is the only way to 100% prevent pregnancies, and certainly the only way to prevent STD's (which is another topic entirely).

 

Theres nothing wrong with sex, its not dirty, its not shameful, its something to be celebrated, all we need to do is give people the tools to have sex without any of the negative reprocussions. And theres nothing wrong with that, nothing at all.

 

Wait, there's nothing wrong about doing something WITHOUT getting the consequences? I guess I understand now why you oppose the Death Penalty... When someone makes an educated decision, they sure as hell better be willing to accept the consequences. Very simple.

 

And another thing, its not like everybody is desperate to have sex but their religion or their education holds them back. Theres all different kinds of people, some who are very timid by nature about sex, and others who whore themselves out to anybody, there have always been these two groups, but I argue that atleast 70% of everybody is about the same (wont have sex unless its with somebody they care about). And what the hell is wrong with that? Afterall, marriage is just on paper. It means nothing without the foundation below it. its just funny that marriage is about sex and children instead of loving eachother.

 

The problem is, people that we "care" about, change about once every few months. And after that, somebody else takes their place. By simply saying that we have sex with somebody we care about is simply saying we have sex with a lot of people, which is where I have an issue. Sure, a Marriage License may just be on paper, but the actual Marriage itself is a lot more. Why don't you attend a wedding every once in a while, and see how much the bride and groom love eachother. I just attended one myself, and it was amazing. To say that marriage is simply about sex and children is ignorant.

 

Also, marriage itself is overated, for example, do you know why the woman takes on the mans name? because throughout history, marriage was almost literally parents selling their daughter to a man, and the marriage contract was a contract stating that the man owns the woman. I dont know if I want anything to do with a custom with those roots. Even the word family has its roots in words like slavery. So really, the logic im going by is that my views are more updated according to our society, and more valid. Modern solutions for modern problems...

 

Actually, your history lesson is a little off. Marriage was primarily used to advance a certain family's ranking in society, by marrying into other, more powerful families. Back during the Renaissance for example, it was mostly a political move to further a families political ties for the future. However, to simply say that Marriage hasn't changed over the last 500 years is just stupid. In the same way, to judge a custom by how it was performed 500 years ago is just as stupid. Everything we do, every day, has deep rooted customs, some favorable, and some not favorable. To simply say, "I'm not doing this because in 1472, it was a really horrible thing," is just plain retarded.

 

Your views aren't "updated", they're more archaic. To say that killing off an unborn child to prevent discomfort is a "modern solution" is the most illogical and hypocritical statement I've ever heard, especially from a guy who criticizes me on my view of executing Criminals and its archaity.

[killbot1000]

The only one putting words into anyone's mouth is you putting words into mine. I never said that your logic was exactly like Brave New World's, I just said that it was sounding like it. In your opinion, Sex is more for pleasure rather than for procreation, at least as far as I can tell. The most extreme form of that opinion is Brave New World, and I'm just pointing out the end-game scenario for that logic.

My point is that the two aren't necessarily connected. It could simply be a societal issue, where if a woman gets pregnant, you simply have to deal with it rather than seek another way out. The reason less abortions are present may be because Abortions are looked down upon rather than the large abundance of contraceptives.

Your percentage of error there is a little too low. I've heard (not sure where), that approximately one in four/five condoms fail. Even if applied with Birth Control, which has a little higher success rate, a pregnancy is still a valid and possible outcome. If it wasn't, then why are there still abortions being performed in these contraceptive focused countries? Abstinence is the only way to 100% prevent pregnancies, and certainly the only way to prevent STD's (which is another topic entirely).

Wait, there's nothing wrong about doing something WITHOUT getting the consequences? I guess I understand now why you oppose the Death Penalty... When someone makes an educated decision, they sure as hell better be willing to accept the consequences. Very simple.

The problem is, people that we "care" about, change about once every few months. And after that, somebody else takes their place. By simply saying that we have sex with somebody we care about is simply saying we have sex with a lot of people, which is where I have an issue. Sure, a Marriage License may just be on paper, but the actual Marriage itself is a lot more. Why don't you attend a wedding every once in a while, and see how much the bride and groom love eachother. I just attended one myself, and it was amazing. To say that marriage is simply about sex and children is ignorant.

Actually, your history lesson is a little off. Marriage was primarily used to advance a certain family's ranking in society, by marrying into other, more powerful families. Back during the Renaissance for example, it was mostly a political move to further a families political ties for the future. However, to simply say that Marriage hasn't changed over the last 500 years is just stupid. In the same way, to judge a custom by how it was performed 500 years ago is just as stupid. Everything we do, every day, has deep rooted customs, some favorable, and some not favorable. To simply say, "I'm not doing this because in 1472, it was a really horrible thing," is just plain retarded.

 

Your views aren't "updated", they're more archaic. To say that killing off an unborn child to prevent discomfort is a "modern solution" is the most illogical and hypocritical statement I've ever heard, especially from a guy who criticizes me on my view of executing Criminals and its archaity.

 

I never said I would never marry, I just take it with a grain of salt is all im saying, I just dont think its as sacred as other people think it is. I just think its a document representing something, nothing more.

 

I am against the death penalty not because of consequences, but because I feel that killing a person is wrong, even if they had once killed, its just kind of hypocritical, you teach somebody that killing is wrong by killing them its just kind of circular to me, thats all.

 

The reason why I am pro choice is because I dont see a fetus as a person.

 

again, the only reason why one in five condoms fail is because of misuse. Birth control pills have a much lower rate of failure, again, when taken properly, end of story, im not going to argue science here.

 

The only STD we really need to worry about is HIV, and thats actually pretty hard to get (unless you live in africa) every other std can be cured, except herpes, which is just gross, but atleast it doesnt kill you. So the only worry left is pregnancy, which can totally be prevented with the proper education. Im not forcing people to have sex, im just giving them more options. Abstinence isnt for everybody, its not for me, but it works for many people so give them that option, and give people the option of birth control if they want to have sex, and teach them how to use it, thats all im saying. And if somebody isnt being a dumbf*** and theyre doing everything to prevent pregnancy and they just get dealt a bad hand, then why shouldnt they be able to get an abortion? Also, when should a child ever be a punishment? because thats how im seeing it "you had sex and now the child youre going to have is going to be your punishment" its absolutely ridiculous.

 

im all for accepting the consequences of ones actions, but with sex...WE DONT HAVE TO. And the fact that youre comparing sex to the death penalty only hightens my suspicion that you are intimidated by sex and that its seen as a negative in your brain.

[james2mart]

wow. I *kind of* agree with killbot1000 on the factual stuff. I think abortion should be legal, but definitely not encouraged. Like wildcat said, the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy, stds, etc. is abstinence, and that is why our country has pushed it, not to mention the Christian background.

 

I am an advocate for abstinence first, and safe sex second. Why?

 

Because not everyone is religious, and not everyone has the same moral guidelines. Sex feels good, that's a non-issue. That means that people are going to do it, regardless of the circumstances. People are going to make lousy decisions and have sex with people they have no business being with. Whoever made the statement about 70% of people caring about the people they have sex with is really off the mark. It's definitely way less. Look at college campuses, the porn industry, and the "escort" industry. I will say, however, that guys are much more horny than girls, and its guys that are going to screw everything with {censored} and a {censored} (especially kids in college). We may be the most cognative mammals on this planet, but we're still animals. Our sex drive is strong enough to throw our inhibitions out the window. That cannot be undermined, and that is why I also advocate safe sex.

 

But just because you can have an abortion isnt an excuse for disregarding your responsibilities. If you have sex, you should deal with the consequences, whether you have a baby or get HIV.

 

And wildcat, abortion was a back-alley, out-of-country thing before it was legal, and still is, ESPECIALLY for minors. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Condoms + birth control is the way to go. After you're married. If you arent married, but want to have sex, condoms + birth control is the way to go. If our schools supplied proper education, we could learn that the middle of the menstrual cycle is the highest likelihood of getting pregnant. Combining this knowledge with contraceptives and birth control, it is EXTREMELY rare, but slightly possible, to get pregnant.

 

** THE FOLLOWING IS INSENSITIVE TO WOMEN; THIS IS A DISCLAIMER **

 

If you don't want kids, get busy when your chick is done bleeding, and/or right before. And WHILE your chick is bleeding, it eases the pain of the cramps if you give her a finger-favor, FYI.

[Soündless]

i say that it is fine to abort, it should not have age restrictions, the parents dont have to know, the father has no choice

[apowerr]

Abortion should be legal, but the window for having one should be shrunk by a lot, so that you have a 2 week or so period to get one or it's too late. You need to due it as early as possible to ensure that there is no way that the baby is conscious or alive. Also, just use morning after....

[Hagar]

This has to be some kind of record for resurrecting an ancient debate.. :/ Dead topic for well over a year..

[socal swimmer]

ok well thanks for not closing it Hagar.

 

I think it should stay as it is.

 

If something cannot live on its own, then it cannot possibly be a human being. Therefore, it has no rights.

[apowerr]

If something cannot live on its own, then it cannot possibly be a human being. Therefore, it has no rights.

I know you didn't mean that, it makes you sound incredibly inhumane. What about MS victims that are paralyzed and need care to survive, they are not human? Or someone who is involved in a land mine explosion, and is reduced to a state that requires care: they are no longer human? In fact, a baby cannot live on it's on, nor a toddler. Hell, I doubt a 6 year old could live fully on his or her own. So, at what age do people become 'human'? 10? 12?

[socal swimmer]

I know you didn't mean that, it makes you sound incredibly inhumane. What about MS victims that are paralyzed and need care to survive, they are not human? Or someone who is involved in a land mine explosion, and is reduced to a state that requires care: they are no longer human? In fact, a baby cannot live on it's on, nor a toddler. Hell, I doubt a 6 year old could live fully on his or her own. So, at what age do people become 'human'? 10? 12?

 

I meant on a biological level. the baby, and the MS victim etc can breathe for themselves, and digest their own food, and regulate their own bodies.

[wildcat69410]

I meant on a biological level. the baby, and the MS victim etc can breathe for themselves, and digest their own food, and regulate their own bodies.

 

Okay, what about those who require an iron lung to live? What about those who experience kidney failure, and have to be hooked up to machines to filter their blood? On a biological level, they cannot live on their own. They physically cannot breathe, and they chemically cannot filter their blood. Are these people "inhuman" and do they lose their rights as well?

[PSPHax0r9]

If something cannot live on its own, then it cannot possibly be a human being. Therefore, it has no rights.

 

You're right - people on life support aren't human beings.

 

EDIT: guy above already posted the same thing, oh well.

[Soündless]

i say if it hasnt been born yet, it has no rights

[PSPHax0r9]

So you think third trimester abortions should be legal?

[socal swimmer]

ok so maybe my argument has flaws...

 

Actually it does.

 

This is more what I meant:

 

Before the fetus reaches viability, it is completely biologically dependent on the mother. Though it is genetically distinct, it recieves 100% of its food, nutrients, water, oxygen, etc from the mother. At this point, it is essentially an organ. Organs don't have rights. I'm pretty sure its not illegal to remove your kidney, nor is it "murder".

[Embio]

Soundless, I mean no disrespect, but you are an idiot. Abortion, past a certain point, is indistinguishable from murder - morally speaking. Its a horrible, horrible thing, and I wouldn't want to be the doctors that do it, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. It shouldn't be done as a matter of course, and society as a whole should see it as A Bad Thing. It should be treated as what it is, legalized and often-necessary murder.

[apowerr]

Soundless, I mean no disrespect, but you are an idiot. Abortion, past a certain point, is indistinguishable from murder - morally speaking. Its a horrible, horrible thing, and I wouldn't want to be the doctors that do it, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. It shouldn't be done as a matter of course, and society as a whole should see it as A Bad Thing. It should be treated as what it is, legalized and often-necessary murder.

QFE. Abortion should be legal, but it is evil and most of the time murder. Third trimester abortions are just sickening.