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.
Yes, silly. It's not that "as a man" you can't sell your organs. Women aren't allowed either. The law is perfectly equal. If you could get pregnant, you could legally have an abortion, whether you're a man or a woman. It's just that physically, it's extremely unlikely that a man would get pregnant.
No its equal protection under the law. A woman says it's her body and her control. Yet when a man wants the control over his body, it is denied. It has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do who can tell you what you can or can't do with one's own body.
I have made my case for selling body parts. It's only because some freeking puritan in DC says it is wrong. The law has created a kidney, and other organ shortages, and people die because of it. Why can't people sell their organs when they die? Those who want to donate them could go on and do it, but to sell them, would appeal to others and would increase the supply to solve the shortage the government has created through a silly law. The dead could leave their organ's profit for their heirs to do what they decide to do.
The prohibition of organ sales creates a shortage that kills people, plain and simple.
Once selling body parts became the norm, the shortage would disappear and less and less people would die for want of an organ.
The bums I refer to chose to be bums by chosing NOT to do what the rest of us chose to do, i.e. be responsible human beings who take care of their affiars, get up in the morning, go to work, pay their bills, and get through life and its bumps and bruises. Bums, by and large, can't be bothered.
While I agree that for some women, having an abortion performed on their unborn children is a hard choice, I think for the vast majority, it is as "normal" an event, with as little anguish as gettring up in the morning and taking their ablution. Their convenience, ubber alles, the life of the child, be damned.
It is the ultimate "having your cake and eating it too", inasmuch as they want the freedom to engage in "relations" without restriction or precaution, while, at the same time, having the freedom of being immune from the consequences.
If i were "God", the penalty for a "convenience" abortion would be a stint in purgatory, or worse. The arrogance of slaughtering the unborn and then following it up with the mendacity to deny that it is a human being.
And you think this, because?
Because it suits your argument. Not because it's validated in any way by any facts.
Abortion is not convenient. Abortion is not easy. Taking a birth control pill is easy. Anyone who's had an abortion would tell you that.
No its equal protection under the law. A woman says it's her body and her control. Yet when a man wants the control over his body, it is denied. It has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do who can tell you what you can or can't do with one's own body.
I have made my case for selling body parts. It's only because some freeking puritan in DC says it is wrong. The law has created a kidney, and other organ shortages, and people die because of it. Why can't people sell their organs when they die? Those who want to donate them could go on and do it, but to sell them, would appeal to others and would increase the supply to solve the shortage the government has created through a silly law. The dead could leave their organ's profit for their heirs to do what they decide to do.
The prohibition of organ sales creates a shortage that kills people, plain and simple.
Once selling body parts became the norm, the shortage would disappear and less and less people would die for want of an organ.
You obviously don't get it.
A woman doesn't have control over her body if she decides to sell her body organs.
Your complaint isn't that you can't sell your body organs and a woman can, because she cannot.
Your complaint is that you can't get pregnant, and so you cannot get an abortion.
It's not equality under the law that's your problem. Your issue is with nature. Women can get pregnant. Men can't. And since you can't get pregnant, and that evidently frustrates you, you've decided that instead, you'll control what pregnant women do. Which is not your right.
And, if you want to sell your body parts - go for it
I hear you can make a lot of money on the black market -
even though you might find yourself dead in a bath tub
as a result
Silly comments aside, the only reason I can't sell my kidney is because some silly law made by Puritans in DC say so. I am not saying I would sell my kidney, I am writing I should have the option if I so choose to do so.
Selling body parts would solve the shortage, save lives, and really give people control over their own bodies, like those who support abortions claim about a woman.
The government has created the shortage of organs and is just fine with people dying because of it. If you think you really have control of your own body you live in candyland. The government controls your body and merely makes an exception for abortion. This is a double standard and as hypocrtical as it comes.
Selling body organs would only save the lives of people with enough money to buy one.
If you were allowed to sell your kidney, then ALL donors would want money for their organs also, dead or alive. This would create a bidding war among people who need transplants, and only the wealthy would be alble to buy life.
Until an organism can live on its own, it's a parasite.
So that's around age five or so? Oh, under Obama I think its age 26. I knew a lot of people who had a parasitic relationship with their parents until their mid-20's.
Note: Didn't read the 10+ pages of debate, as it's all been said before and no one's opinion is going to be changed. I just wanted to respond to the one person I quoted.
If parents can't care for their children, then the state needs to protect the children from the irresponsibility of the partents make them wards of the state unless and until the parents can care for them again.
My attutudes are NOT towards people falling upon temporariy misfortune, but the life-long bums of the country. If I failed to make that clear, it is clear now.
Your version of "compassion" is what is referred to as enabling. You are no different, really, that the person who gives drugs to his or her drug-addicted friend. It really is NOT compassion, but false compassion. I offer "tough love" compassion. A kick in the ass. sink-or-swim type of assistance. I don't feed the bums, cause that just gets them to the next day of bumness, and it goes on and on forever.
I'd rather give a buck to a rich man than to a bum. The rich man deserves it, the bum doesn't.
But you have to understand, the statistics of women who have abortion: 52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.
If they clearly can not provide for themselves, let alone a child, and let's say abortion was illegal, and they all had the babies they could not care for (whether it be medical or financial or simply unwanted) - who do you think would take care of them? Certainly no state would remove children from their parent simply because they were poor. I think being pro life under all circumstance is enabling exactly what you despise - a welfare mentality/State.
Because if one is not prepared to have a child, for whatever the reason, but especially financially; having that child does not make them more prepared - simply more dependent on someone else - and that usually means you and I, with our tax dollars and other forms of generosity we individually choose. That is a given - no way
around it.
That's why I always say birth control, birth control,
birth control....but if you have a pregnancy you are not
prepared for financially, emotionally, physically, whatever - abortion is the responsible thing to do, for EVERY ONE -
including the fetus. Ideally, only have a child if you can
afford to care for it YOURSELF.
Oh, and quit going on about the bums - I get it. Just hope
you never, let's say, become a homeless Vet after War, or
develop a serious mental illness, or perhaps loose your
job, or ....I think you get the picture - compassionate one
Abortion disgusts me, people who abort their babies disgust me. It's wrong to me, and it'll always be wrong to me. But in reality, it is the mothers choice if she wants to keep her kid or not.
30 pages of nonsense. If you have a pregnant dog do you have puppies? If you have tadpoles in a pond are they frogs? If you see a caterpillar does it look like or is it a butterfly?
Children are born, a fetus, especially at early stages, simply is not a person. Theres enough problems in this country without worrying about other peoples unborn babies. I'm surprised some of you guys dont want to outlaw the waste of male ejaculate.
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.
