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.
States being run by religious conservatives are doing everything they can to make it virtually impossible for poor women to have access to the morning-after pill, to sex-education in school, and to have safe abortions. It's not just abortion that they want to control, they want full control over whether a woman can have safe sex without getting pregnant and then if she does get pregnant she then has an incredibly difficult time terminating the pregnancy.
It's not just abortion they want to control. It's women they want to control, women's sexuality and women's control over their bodies. They want things back to the olden days when men made all the decisions and women had the babies and cooked and cleaned. Men could have as many affairs as possible and paid little price even when a pregnancy happened because that was HER problem. They want women to pay the price for promiscuity but men don't.
And yes it's POOR women that pay the price because women with money can fly to the nearest friendly state and have access to facilities without running a gauntlet both inside and outside the doctors office.
Most of the women who have had abortions have no regret about it.
There are currently over 300,000 children in the foster care system and many of those need a permanent, loving forever home. Over 20,000 kid age out of the foster system every year and many of them end up homeless and on the street, using prostitution and selling drugs to support themselves.
Before you talk about how many people want to adopt babies in the US, ask those same people if they're willing to take in an older, a disabled, or a dark-skinned child. Because those are the ones who don't get adopted. All the newborn white babies can find a home. That's why these other children are left over. People don't support abortion, but they're not willing to give these children a home.
Truth, and thank you for saying that!
Come on, all you righteous right-to-lifers! Each of you adopt AT LEAST ONE special needs child in the foster care system, and raise them to adulthood, with NO government assistance...are you up to it??
I would not want to see abortion made ILLEGAL. I do believe that the ONLY time an abortion should be performed is IF the life of the Mother is in imminent danger but making it ILLEGAL is not the answer. I do not believe in MANDATORY motorcycle HELMET LAWS even though I usually wear one when I ride. Some things just should not be made into LAWS. I don't know who said it first but "you cannot legislate morality.".
You're saying that abortion is immoral but should not be made illegal. I could be wrong but you might be saying this because you value liberty.
And let's admit it, this is actually one of the hardest moral debates.
Here are my two cents.
If we are going to value personal liberty above all, i.e. the true definition of liberty, we have to give women the liberty of their own personal body. We can't have it two ways.
Now if we say that personal liberty stops when it harms the personal liberty of another individual, and yeah, we need this rule to coexist in society in a non-violent manner. Fair enough. So we all agree that a parent for example should not, say, kill or seriously injure their child or starve their child for that matter.
But we also want to respect other aspects of liberty such as being able to homeschool our kid or teach them to handle a gun or have a drink at the age that we feel is good, not based on what someone else tells us to.
The point I am making is that the line that we draw for liberty is a fairly ambiguous one. For example, what if a parent never educates a child. Have they not caused serious harm to their child? Now what about educating them but doing it really poorly?
But bottom-line is this, in my humble opinion. There is a real difference between a fetus and a child. One is completely dependent (biologically) on its womb, and the other is a completely independent individual.
And for whatever reason, the biological burden has been thrust on women. So it is an impossible choice.
But if we value liberty, then when confronted with an impossible choice, we should always choose liberty over lack of liberty. Especially when the "lack of liberty" option is mandated and thrust upon by others with their own agenda. Religious or otherwise.
And morally speaking, I feel that there is no great answer either. It falls in the grey. And we make plenty of choices and plenty of mistakes - with ourselves, with our kids, that all fall in the grey. If you want to be so self-righteous about the difficult decisions someone makes, then that just means you are a weak individual to begin with - weak because you lack the honesty and courage to admit that you have been in the grey many times yourselves. And have not always come out smelling of roses.
Edit: Obviously, by my reference to "you", I don't mean you, the previous poster to whom I am replying. I mean anyone who wants to get judgmental.
Come on, all you righteous right-to-lifers! Each of you adopt AT LEAST ONE special needs child in the foster care system, and raise them to adulthood, with NO government assistance...are you up to it??
It is illegal to kill a human baby that has taken a breath; therefore it should be illegal to kill a fetus that is capable of breathing if not for the fact that is still inside the mother.
If you will alter your statement to "it should be illegal to kill a fetus that can breathe on its own, without life support equipment", then you might have a case.
The horrendous cost spent on keeping very pre-term (and often defective) fetuses alive is something our country cannot afford financially, in my opinion.
Let's spend health dollars on living, breathing people.
1. Would you yourself consider adopting one? Or two or three? Or leave it all up to theoretical saviors?
My parents will get a good laugh out of that comment when I tell them that you think they're "theoretical saviors." They adopted my sister and I.
Of course I have considered adopting, but as a single man working 70 hours per week on the night shift, I'm unable to give a child the amount and quality of time he or she would need and deserve. So for now, I donate money to adoption agencies, and I will begin mentoring or fostering once I retire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurquoiseOne
No one wants a wire coat hanger in their uterus.
Or in other parts of their still-developing bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
it's always the same "Pro-Life" people who are demanding others live the way they do.
No, we just demand that they be allowed to live, period. How they choose to live is their business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
It is interesting to me that so many Christians are unaware of "the breath if life" since it is referenced so many times in the Bible.
It's interesting to me that, while attempting to use Scripture to justify abortion, Pennies4Penny ignores that fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is plainly stated TWICE in the Bible (Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17).
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeHa
As for the argument that a fetus is a living person, if that's true then take it out of uterus and let it breath and live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
It is interesting to me that so many Christians are unaware of "the breath if life" since it is referenced so many times in the Bible. I'll start with the creation of Adam. Notice that Adam has a body, is a fully formed man, but he is not ALIVE until he us breathing.
This may be the worst FAIL in the history of C-D, both in terms of biology and in terms of understanding Scripture. "The breath of life" is a metaphor for the living soul that God placed into Adam; the phrase is not to be taken literally.
Citing Adam as the example for determining the origin of life is to ignore the fact that Adam came into this world by a different process than almost every other human being. Because God created Adam as an adult, he had to begin breathing gaseous oxygen at the same time that cellular respiration began. Breathing via the lungs is only one part of respiration.
Babies developing in utero are exhibiting cellular respiration, just as Adam began doing the instant his life began. Due to the surrounding amniotic fluid babies cannot get oxygen into their lungs, thus, oxygen is transferred into the baby's bloodstream via the placenta instead of via the alveoli, until such time as the baby is able to inhale gaseous oxygen into the lungs. But while the baby is receiving oxygen from the placenta, oxygen is transported to the cells and cellular respiration occurs just the same as it does in a human that has already been born and is exchanging oxygen and CO2 with the atmosphere via the lungs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Something that has no brain function or self awareness can not think. Do people have discussions with their appendixes or wisdom teeth before removal to see if they are okay with it first? Don't think so.
Appendices and wisdom teeth are parts of an organism, they are not entire organisms unto themselves. The cells of the appendix and the wisdom teeth will contain the DNA of the person to whom they are attached, or from whom they have been extracted. By contrast, a baby will have her own unique genome that is not identical to that of her mother or her father.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellwood
I believe in a woman's choice to choose. Not the politicians (mostly male) or male dominated Supreme Court. Her body, her choice.
What about the women growing in their mothers' wombs, why don't they get to choose? What makes one woman more important than another? (hint: the one old enough to vote gets to choose, the one who isn't old enough to vote is completely at the mercy of the other)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
People appear to have forgotten (some never knew) why abortion was made legal in the first place.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, pushed for the legalization of abortion because she believes that "we need to do something about the N***o problem in America." Legalized abortion was the means by which she wanted to advance her white supremacist agenda of eugenics, which included eliminating the African American population by abortion and attrition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagardener
States being run by religious conservatives are doing everything they can to make it virtually impossible for poor women to have access to the morning-after pill, to sex-education in school, and to have safe abortions.
If a woman can't afford birth control, then she certainly can't afford to raise a child.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, pushed for the legalization of abortion because she believes that "we need to do something about the N***o problem in America." Legalized abortion was the means by which she wanted to advance her white supremacist agenda of eugenics, which included eliminating the African American population by abortion and attrition.
It's still a problem. One that is solved mainly by redlining, the Prison Industrial Complex, and the Military Industrial Complex. And still, young black women are huge consumers of abortion services. Imagine if they could not obtain them. At least another million black young people for the streets, where they kill each other, or the military, where they kill other conscripts (and civilians), and redlined indigence where they kill their spirits with drugs, alcohol and riotus living. I KNOW that an abortion as a senseless fetus would be preferable to life as a C5 quadriplegic after an IED goes off under the Humvee that you are driving across a desert in Iraq. Or a slow bleed out, after another inmate shanks you in your cell because you got the last slice of bread in the prison mess, earlier that day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
If a woman can't afford birth control, then she certainly can't afford to raise a child.
There is no excuse for birth control pills still costing $130/mo. in 2015. They were invented in 1965 and have not been improved an iota since then. IUD's are $1K. An IUD is a Cracker Jack prize with some artificial estrogen on it. They probably cost $0.50 to make per batch of 100. So you just made the perfect case for safe, legal abortion. Thank you very much.
It's interesting to me that, while attempting to use Scripture to justify abortion, Pennies4Penny ignores that fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is plainly stated TWICE in the Bible (Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17).
I guess all the righteous Christians supporting wars and the death penalty, and murdering various people they disagree with, are going to hell then. Or is the "though shalt not kill" negated by "an eye for an eye"? Apparently, killing infants and pregnant women is also just fine: Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up." Lovely book.
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.
