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.
It's a right, not a privilige, because removing it would cause nothing but harm for society in a totally pointless way. It's a right in the same sense that not having laws that we are legally mandated to kick ourselves in the face every Thursday is a right. This is the only sensible way of looking at this. Plenty of people don't understand that. Some of them just haven't thought about it enough. Other people just, plain, don't understand how proper reasoning processes work and I'm sure this haunts them in their daily lives all the time, any time they're dealing with abstract moral conundrums. They probably just do what everybody else does in those situations or something.
That assumes that not preventing births would cause society more harm than good. Maybe. There's probably a list of other unethical things we could do that would arguably benefit society overall as a whole though.
Exactly. An example I already mentioned hypothetically: killing those who are a net drain on society and therefore harming all. Does that prevention of harm to society make killing net drain on society individuals a right? According to the logic being presented by some in this thread, it should.
Are you aware that cannot be guaranteed with any method of birth control?
Of course but when used properly birth control methods are very effective. Since there is no guarantee though if a woman does't want to become pregnant then don't engage in sex. Same goes for males.
That's exactly what would happen if Roe were overturned. The issue would return to the states, where it should have been kept all along. There is no Constitutional authority for the Fed Gov to have control of or over health care. That's why MDs and other health care providers are licensed by each state, respectively, and not by the Fed Gov.
FWIW I don't believe that the issue of abortion should be decided on at the state level either , because there are far too many localities where the populace doesn't agree with the prevailing opinion in their state's legislature .
Which is why I'm a firm advocate of leaving most issues up to be decided upon by local level government .
Of course but when used properly birth control methods are very effective. Since there is no guarantee though if a woman does't want to become pregnant then don't engage in sex. Same goes for males.
Got it.
Everybody stop having sex, even if you are using contraception!
Because it's been trivialized and "not a big deal". Abortion is just the last resort when you don't take care.
My son is 21 and this is how he and his friends view it. He has one friend who has had 3 abortions and she's barely 22.
And she has been with the same boyfriend all along.
They just don't see abortion as a big deal, a major life decision with ramifications.
This is how society has evolved since abortion became legal.
Sad to say, that is just the way it is.
My informational is anecdotal as well. I have not seen statistics as to how prevalent abortion is because of lack of precautions. I do know from my daughters and nieces that in college they knew of several women who did resort to repeated abortions.
It might not work for anyone who takes it, whether she "fears" it will or not. That's the point.
You're the one missing the point. Use birth control but realize that it might not work so are you still willing to take that chance and kill your own child if it fails? Sorry, I don't get that mindset at all. Why don't you just stop now? We will never agree on this.
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.