Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If girls would learn to control their legs and not part them the problem might also go away.
Sure, it's ALWAYS been the responsibility of the woman. Men got off scott-free. Only, now that women have much more control over their bodies, it's scaring men to death!
HA HA!
NOW men want to control women again; trying to pass laws to restrict abortion, to restrict the use of birth control, trying to restrict sex education...on and on.
Adoption of an infant is next to impossible in the US as there are even long waiting lists for babies with special needs. Many individuals/couples adopt children from foreign nations for this reason. For babies with Down syndrome, there is a waiting list of families and we were fortunate enough, some 25 years ago, to be blessed with our son whose young mother placed him for adoption versus the horrible alternative. It has probably been 50 years or more since it was at all difficult to place an infant. Also, it is not the poor who are aborting at astounding rates so it is not "economics" but "convenience".
I don't understand the idea of "insurance" unless it is to cover the rights of the human being (fetus per Webster's is the unborn young of any animal especially human beings) to pay for court costs associated to stop them from being murdered but you would think that would be a human right anyway. Seriously, "unborn young" and as the sign on the highway into town says "Abortion stops a heartbeat", chilling.
If the child is white yes, if the child is a minority the rates of adoption are much lower Adoption USA: Race, ethnicity, and gender. And that's the first i have ever heard that there is a wait list for special needs children, as i have always read they have a hard time placing them.
That makes no sense. You would need to stop a woman from ovulating and having a period since each egg has the potential to become a baby. It is not a baby until conception where the egg and sperm unite. And, men are not the only ones that masturbate. Would it be illegal for women also? The monitoring of this legal requirement would be interesting. My gosh, were you the one that mentioned gluing "it" to their leg? I see "choice" as before the sexual act and a "choice" as to whether you take personal responsibility for your actions. OK, surely everyone had biology?
You got that right . And women having an abortion ARE choosing personal responsibility for their actions.
I tell you what, all of the pro-lifers out there, since life begins at conception, how about taking responsibility for them after they are born. That way, they won't be neglected, or tortured, or abused by a parent or parents who do not want them, or are unequipped to handle being a parent. Or those who are born with disabilities so devistating that their lives would be nothing but pain.
And, as a bonus, you won't have to b**** and moan about TANF or contraceptives costing you money.
Now THAT's insurance. Otherwise, find a short pier and take a long walk off of it.
It is a human life and I have a responsibility to protect the baby - whether it is "mine" or not.
When does it become "human"? When it's an egg? When it's a sperm? When the two come together? What qualifications do you have to determine your answer? Why should your opinion count more than the mother's?
The majority of women who seek abortions already have at least one child. They know how wonderful a child is, and they know about the responsibility to a child. They also know, better than you, what impact having another child will have on their lives and on their family. They want the children they have to have the best possible life. They want to protect the child they have from harm. Unless you can figure out a way to make sure that the children these women already have aren't hurt financially, aren't placed at any risk, are well taken care of, then you are going to continue to have women who will seek abortions. Not because they are irresponsible or stupid or immoral, but because the opposite is true. They understand their particular situation so much better than anyone else, they understand the responsibility they have to take of themselves and to take care of the children they have, and they want desperately to live up to that responsibility.
No, the "whole different debate" I was referring to was the medical need for some abortions... and trust me, there ARE cases where a mother has no choice. As for insurance covering their special needs ONCE BORN, that would be the same as insurance for any child with a disability. So I'm not sure how that relates to the OP, although I'm not even sure how reality is related to the original question. This whole discussion is quite silly, in fact.
Of course there is always a choice.
NFN...where do you get this idea that late term abortions are not being performed for just about any reason?
This baby survived and, except for the attempt on her life, child and mother are quite healthy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. And women having an abortion ARE choosing personal responsibility for their actions.