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.
I say we have a compromise. We outlaw abortion completely, however those who supported the ban will be required to adopt at least three children.
so women become breeding machine against their will? supporting a ban is one thing but most would not step up if they had to adopt the children as a result of the ban
On a purely philosophical level, I do not believe in abortion.
But in practical terms, the procedure should be available in extreme cases (rape, incest, mother's life, or cases like the 11 and 13-year-old parents)......As for those who use it as a convenience, I believe it should not be available.
That's my stance, in a nutshell. I don't think I can say anything that hasn't already been said, but I feel abortions are an ugly necessity. Sure more people need to use their brains and use birth control more, but that's for another discussion. I'd like to think that the father of the unborn at least has a say in these matters, assuming he's around, and that they can come to an agreement, whatever their decision may be. If he's not around, then ultimately the woman will have to live with her (and her doctor's) decision for the rest of her life. It's a very serious and possibly dangerous move, that seems like a common sense fact but some yahoos don't seem to think so. Those who think abortions are an easy way out will be regret their carelessness on a level which the word regret takes on a whole new meaning.
I am just going to have to disagree with you. I think it is far too easy for people like yourself to make your own definition of what a human being is. You act as if the woman "owns" that baby until its born. As if that baby has absolutely no rights. These same people are the ones that believe if a man punches a woman in the stomache while she is pregnant and that causes her to have a miscarriage. That the man should be guilty of murder, or at the very least manslaughter.
Your definition "the baby isn't a person since it cannot survive without the mother". Well, what if this country didn't have welfare and orphanages/shelters for children. Would you say that your already birthed children aren't human, since they cannot "survive" without you? Is your one-year-old not a human since it would die without your support? If a person in a 3rd-world country kills their baby, is it really murder?
What you really mean is, if a woman can't just ditch her baby off on someone else because it would die if she did. Then she should be able to discard it like a piece of trash. In order to believe that ridiculous non-sense, you have to believe that any baby that isn't able to survive without their mother has no soul. That they are not a human. That the soul doesn't enter a babies body until the moment that it is capable of living without the mother. That when the baby kicks and moves inside the womans belly, that it isn't really a person. It is just a soul-less lump of flesh.
So ask yourself, is that really what you believe? Or is that just what you want to believe because it suits you?
Spot on. That hypocrisy is my greatest irritant about this entire issue.
By the way, it can be a capital offense....felony assualt resulting in a "death" equals felony murder which is eligible for the death penalty.
The sheer hypocrisy of saying if another person causes it they deserve to go to death row but if the mother makes the choice it's her "right" and perfectly legal is astonshing.
is opinion. a fetus is a developing human at conception, developing being the key word. your view that it is murder is just that your view, not fact.
At what point is a human being no longer "developing"? There are adults that you could say are "developing". What you and people like yourself want to do is pretend that a baby isn't a baby until some arbitrary point in their development to justify abortion. You may think that I am the enemy of abortion, but I'm not. I see many justifiable reasons to have an abortion. But I am not going to "pretend" that abortion isn't "compassionate murder". When that is exactly what it is, and that is what it always will be.
There is a reason the founder of planned parenthood was a supporter of Eugenics. Eugenics is also basically compassionate murder(abortion) and compassionate prevention of birth(sterilization). Eugenics is a belief that the world is better off if a child is not born.
Quote:
as a country we did decide for ourselves roe v wade
If the majority of the people in this country believe that abortion should be legal, then it will be legal, and it is legal. If the majority of people think that we should be able to "stone to death" a wayward son(as is said in the old testament of the bible), then that will also be legal. This is a democracy after all. Where 51% of the people hold tyranny over the other 49%.
Quote:
god or not, the choice is for a woman to decide
That is exactly true, it is the womans choice to decide because we have laws that protect a womans right to choose. That "right" could just as easily be stripped away, and don't believe for a minute that a womans "right" to choose is a "god-given" right. It is no more a god-given right than me walking up to my neighbor and shooting him in the head with a shotgun.
I just find it extremely hypocritical that people like yourself evoke god when you believe in "god-given" rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But you turn on god as soon as he doesn't benefit you anymore.
Lets say a 11 year old girl gets pregnant, by natural means with a 13 year old boy. Granted, this is a small chance, but still. Now, she hasn't had sex ed yet, she doesn't know about her period, or how often she should have one. You don't start showing until after 3 months,
Should she still have to have the kid after 3 months?
As I said, this would be a very small percentage, and I don't like the idea personally of abortions after the third trimester, but how would you like that situation handled.
Not if it would pose a threat to her life.
But let's get freaking REAL for a second: you don't start showing until never when you are 11 years old. An 11 year old is in 6th grade.
Define the 11 year old who had no clue about a period? She got her period and had no idea what it meant? What po-dunk town, in 2010, does she live in? Who are her stupid parents? She doesn't know about her period but she knows about how to get nekkid and get down to business with a boy? What century does this 11 year old live in? Why was she left alone with a boy long enough to have sex? Where was mom or dad or grandmother, etc.?
You can say, with a straight face, that some 11 year old doesn't "know" about her period but she "knows" how to get knocked up. She doesn't know about tampons and when to expect her period but she sure knows how to make a 13 year old boy happy in bed? Are you kidding?
You can't have an abortion AFTER the third trimester because there are only three trimesters - given the three trimesters of a pregnancy. Why abort a 40 week old fetus? He could survive without NICU care. Even a 21 week old fetus can survive (and typically with complications....but there's a big ********* to people who think abortion in the 2nd trimester isn't killing something that can survive without you...mom....and be adopted by a family who wanted the baby).
If my biological mother believed in abortion for birth defects, I would not be here debating this with you guys.
Yeah, I have actually had many arguments with my sister about abortion and birth defects. She is adamantly opposed to abortion because she had a lot of complications with my nephew, and the doctors kept telling her that she should abort him because he would be basically retarded, and it could kill her. They were even trying to get her to abort him right up until basically the very end(in the third tri-mester).
She is alive and her son is actually very intelligent and funny. He is 18 and a senior in high school. He took his ACT not long ago, and scored I think a 26 or 27, and he has already been accepted to go to a few different colleges. His mother took him around to all the colleges so he could see where he might be going. I don't know which one he is going to go to.
I felt pretty bad because if I had been my sister, I would have aborted him. I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I have even jokingly told him that he is lucky to have been his mothers son. Because if he had been my son, he wouldn't be alive. I don't really know for sure how he felt about that, haha.
At what point is a human being no longer "developing"? There are adults that you could say are "developing". What you and people like yourself want to do is pretend that a baby isn't a baby until some arbitrary point in their development to justify abortion. You may think that I am the enemy of abortion, but I'm not. I see many justifiable reasons to have an abortion. But I am not going to "pretend" that abortion isn't "compassionate murder". When that is exactly what it is, and that is what it always will be.
when the baby is viable and can live outside the womb is when it stops developing in this case. hopefully none of us stops developing and growing in life and can always be open to learn and experience new things.
you bring other issues into your posts like they have something to do with the subject when they don't. we are not talking about adults that are developing.
no one I know that is pro choice "pretends" to not know that abortion puts an end to a developing life. women are not stupid, they know what abortion is.
There is a reason the founder of planned parenthood was a supporter of Eugenics. Eugenics is also basically compassionate murder(abortion) and compassionate prevention of birth(sterilization). Eugenics is a belief that the world is better off if a child is not born.
the founder of planned parenthood would no doubt rethink her position on eugenics if she were alive today.
If the majority of the people in this country believe that abortion should be legal, then it will be legal, and it is legal. If the majority of people think that we should be able to "stone to death" a wayward son(as is said in the old testament of the bible), then that will also be legal. This is a democracy after all. Where 51% of the people hold tyranny over the other 49%.
That is exactly true, it is the womans choice to decide because we have laws that protect a womans right to choose. That "right" could just as easily be stripped away, and don't believe for a minute that a womans "right" to choose is a "god-given" right. It is no more a god-given right than me walking up to my neighbor and shooting him in the head with a shotgun.
I just find it extremely hypocritical that people like yourself evoke god when you believe in "god-given" rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But you turn on god as soon as he doesn't benefit you
anymore.
I do not believe in god nor the idea of a god given right. people have rights because we are human and have a brain. religion and god have caused more wars and problems than almost any other one thing around.
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.
