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.
Lib or not, in a free country, you cannot force a pregnant woman to take on the complications of pregnancy and childbirth if she chooses not to. Why would she risk her own life just to have a child she doesn't want? Her chances of dying are more than ten times higher with childbirth than if she went with the far safer abortion. That is why she can choose. That is why her choice must be always protected.
10 times higher? Wow, complications and death from childbirth are really high? I wonder how many pregnant women died in 1960? What about 1940? It must have been 75% death rate?
And, while abortions are "safe", the emotional scars are there forever. Not to mention the hormonal complications.
If they are having sex in the sixth grade.....yes.
As DontH8Me pointed out earlier.....pregnancy carries a lot of health risks for the mother....why should we allow young girls to face those risks when it can be prevented?
Wait, I know why, so the adoption industry has enough product to meet demand.
So, lets recap where we stand on this issue
1. Sex for 6th graders
2. Abortion as a form of birth control
3. Free birth control courtesy of US taxpayers
4. anti-adoption (what a horrible business to be involved in. How do those people sleep at night)
5. welfare assistance for (parents of) underprivileged children
If you think that people will stop having sex you are not being realistic. Even so called high moral Christian like the Palin family do it. Ethically is better to have women on bc than kids without families.
I agree with educating people about the consequences of having sex, and getting pregnant, but I totally disagree that providing free birth control will result in an explosion of sexual promiscuity...and I totally disagree with the way you say more sex=more rapes...really?...that's like saying that the rapist is just waiting for women to get birth control so they can start raping?.(rape is rape, pure and simple)...you're assuming a lot, you for some reason feel that a woman wants birth control simply so she can fool around....don't you think it's better to provide control, than for her to (accidentally) have a child she can not care for?
It goes back to the educating part. We have already seen where schools are handing out condoms and other birth control in 5th or 6th grade. Don't you think this is promoting, or condoning sex? Our government (school systems, etc.) have a lot of power and influence in our society. Why don't they give out free beer at high school dances? Kids are drinking anyway?
And, the principles (i.e. bad habits/behavior) that kids learn are extremely difficult to change when they get older. Girls who sleep around will get themselves into more trouble than girls who don't (birth control will not change this)
A study came out where they found when birth control was free the abortion rates dropped.
So the right doesn't like entitlements and they claim charities are great...so why don;'t they open clinics and give out free birth control and eliminate all abortions? Seems a far better use of their protest time.
As someone who considers himself pro-life, anything that reduces abortion is fine with me. I think it's wiser to wait till you're married to have sex for a lot of reasons, but I also understand that a lot of people don't do that. So free birth control it is.
So....what do we do with the children of these people? Let them starve? Confiscate them and adopt them out?
We need to look at things that can actually be done....like providing free contraception.
Yes, we shouldn't have to provide free contraception, but we also shouldn't have to provide for their children either. I prefer the cheaper option.
In this country....we can't let the children starve.....so free BC is a VIABLE solution.
Free BC will cut down on the amount of children on welfare and lessen the burden on the taxpayers.
What is so bad about that?
here's another free handout that we should be providing.
Since we have too many DUI's, I think it's time we provide free cab rides home to any drunk person.
Shouldn't we assume that those people are going to drink anyway? Why should we risk a fatal accident when we can just pay for them not to drive? I'm sure the taxi companies will cut Uncle Sam a nice "gov't discount". How's this sound Annie?
That is a band aid. I believe we need to concentrate on what caused the wound in the first place.
I'm all 100% for allowing gay marriage and opening up adoption for gay couples. I would not continue to pay for poor people to have kid after kid and I would insist they work for the money they get. If they refuse, yeah, I would suggest we take their kids from them when they refuse to provide for them and make these kids available to gay couples that wish to take care of them. (or any couple or person for that matter that can afford to care for them)
It teaches people that they do not have to be responsible for themselves.
So you're going to take a poor (possibly black) baby and give them to a gay couple? This sounds like a seriously bad idea.
10 times higher? Wow, complications and death from childbirth are really high? I wonder how many pregnant women died in 1960? What about 1940? It must have been 75% death rate?
And, while abortions are "safe", the emotional scars are there forever. Not to mention the hormonal complications.
I for once authorize all my taxes to pay for bc. Put it in the drinking water.
Great idea! Lets make it optional? I'm not kidding...
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.