| Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| 001: Abortion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:06 pm (865 Views) | |
| DeMaGoG | Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:18 pm Post #21 |
|
Level 23
|
Yes, that's possible, but he can't force her decision, only influence it.
It's obvious they wouldn't be exactly like you (unless cloned!!!) But what I really mean, is that there is no way you can know. Again, the best decision you can make is the lesser of two evils. You have to understand that killing goes against my religion, so you won't be persuading me on this point.
Yes, the parents will be taking care of the child, but it is still the girls responsibility. The parents just do it because of the unconditional love. The parents have every right to try and persuade their daughter to have an abortion. It's just her decision, and once it's made, they should respect it. Also, having a child as a teenager doesn't ruin your life. It only makes it difficult. You assume it ruins the person's life because they will likely not reach any of their previous goals, and because teenage pregnancy is not a social norm (it is in some places though...).
Hair is protein, not DNA. DNA is in the follicle. Also, DNA becomes contaminated easily. The DNA in a follicle in hot soup would likely denature to an unusable extent. My point is just that it would be very bad if our genetic material could be forcibly taken. You could be doing anything and they would basically interrupt your life and take tissue samples. Of course she would have to list off every guy. Teach her a lesson about being a slut for one. I don't get how anyone could think that little of sex to have that many partners, especially in one month.
Exactly. Nothing is forced, everything is voluntary.
My mistake, I assumed you would realize I meant move out of the country. I'm too tired to make the connection here... what does that sound familiar to?
I thought I stated that the issue was quality... Anyway, if you choose the mother's life, everyone's lives remain the same. If you choose the babies, that's less income for the family, and many other factors. So choosing the mother's life is obviously a better choice. You make it sound like the mother was selfish. Those children would also realize that if their mother hadn't saved herself, they wouldn't be here. And I don't think I ever said each case should be reviewed individually. |
![]() |
|
| Etra | Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:58 pm Post #22 |
|
Level 22
|
Life and liberty are not rights, they are privileges. A right is something every person has, a privilege is something a select group of people have. You're going to have a hard time proving every person has the right to life and liberty. Also, I'm not really sure why you're using those examples since they're not actually relevant to our discussion. In one of my previous posts, I said "A baby, no matter how developed, will be under the age of 18. The parent is then able to do whatever he or she wishes with the child as long as no laws are not broken. And abortion is legal." Note the bold. And the "rights", as you call them, in this country are entitled to people, which implies person-hood. One of the more generally accepted requirements for being a person is self-awareness. A baby does not develop that until long after it is born. If a baby is not a person before it is born, it is not entitled to those "rights".
I don't mean to be rude but real life isn't a fairy tale; rarely does anyone live a blissful life with a happy ending. And I'm not assuming anything, as the article below shows. Rather, it seems you're making a generalization based on your religious beliefs.
Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source but the gist of the article and the studies done should be obvious.
Whatever, regardless of the specifics, my point still stands. Genetic material does not have to be "forcibly taken", it can be picked up off the floor. And why does one person's actions warrant the obviously detrimental effect on her sex partners?
Uh, your statement here is contradictory with the preceding paragraph. You argue that having DNA "forcibly taken" is wrong, and yet you're OK with the ignoring of the father's refusal to volunteer his DNA?
Pilgrims, Jews.
Yes, and I agreed with you. Re-read my post. If having a baby means "less income for the family, and many other factors", why should people be reproducing at all? In your attempt arguing for abortion, you've also argued against planned pregnancies. That's not very religious :lol:. I said that thing about reviewing each case individually to rule that option out, leaving you with the mother or the baby. You chose the mother, and in my previous paragraph I noted a problem with your argument. |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:04 am Post #23 |
|
The Mambo King
|
If you are born in this country, then life and liberty are indeed "rights". This might not apply to other countries in the world, but as long as we live in the United States then we are afforded these rights by the Delcaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It's called the Bill of Rights, not the bill of Priveledges. You seem to be misunderstanding my point. You stated that children are the property of the parents until the age of 18. I provided some examples to clarify the fact that while children are the responsibility of the parents, they are not property, and they cannot be held to the same standards. I realize the fact that abortion is legal. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. My argument is that the same rights that apply to children up until the age of 18 should apply to the children before they exit the womb. Also, your point about rights only applying to a self-aware human is incorrect. You stated yourself that a child does not develop self-awareness until it is a few years old. This doesn't mean that parent has the right to do as it pleases with the baby simply because it is not self-aware. It also has the same rights I pointed out earlier, which are life and liberty. Life, because a parent can not decide to end the life of their child when it becomes a financial inconvenience no matter what age the baby. There is a fundamental difference between a right and a priveledge in this country. Priveledges can be revoked. You cannot revoke the right to life in this country without legal repercussions. The same right should be applied to the unborn children, who are already a distinguishable human being with its own fingerprints, heart, and brain from the age of only two to three weeks. And the right to liberty also applies, when the child is old enough to take advantage of the fact. Another common argument in this thread against abortion is that the baby will be born into a bad family, or since the woman cannot afford the child, the baby will suffer a cruel fate and abortion prevents that from happening. This argument is fundamentally flawed. While it may be true that unwanted pregnancies sometimes result in unfavorable conditions for the newborn, it doesn’t justify the act of killing any more than it justifies a mother killing her two year old infant because she has run into difficult financial times. It is no more unfair to an “unwanted” child to bring to bring him into the world where he will face potential hardships then it is to outright kill him. In many cases, people who decided not to abort end up loving the child in the end, and it is unconscionable not to provide every human being with that chance. The argument that a woman shouldn't have to suffer a pregnancy if she doesn't want to is ludicrous. Abortion is a dangerous procedure unto itself. Terminating a life under the guise of “birth control” is not only unjustifiable, but despicable as well. Most unwanted pregnancies are completely avoidable with just some basic precautions needed to be taken. There are a plethora of methods readily available to dramatically reduce and practically eliminate the chances of an unwanted pregnancy. Irresponsibility should not warrant abortion and give the chooser the power to end life. Most abortions are done for young adults who don’t have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions. Why should they be put in the position where they can take the life of an unborn human being? |
![]() |
|
| Lintendo | Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:21 am Post #24 |
|
Level 5
|
umm i dont see why its hard to argue that every person has a right to life,if ur saying they don't then i'd say ur saying there are no rights at all for anything only privleges and thats just ehh... also about the relevancy, just because parent is under the law able to do whatever he/she wishes with the child as long as no laws are broken, doesn't mean its morally right, thats why we're having this debate. just because perhaps the law allows murder for some reason doesn't mean its ok. also about the self-awareness thing, u say a baby does not develop that until long after it is born. so its ok to kill 3 months old year olds? i dont think anyone agrees with that. oh to tonic, "You cannot revoke the right to life in this country without legal repercussions." technically we can, its called capital pnuishment xP, but thats argued against too so iono xP... lastly i just want to bring up anotehr pt. for those of you who are against abortions except in cases of rape or threatening of a mothers life... why is it ok to murder in these cases. cause i still assume u call it murder. just because ur life is in danger and killing someoen else is the only way to save it its ok? imagine ur on a sinking boat that can only support 1 person, and there are 2 ppl on it u and someone, its suddenly ok for u to kill that person and throw him off the ship if its the only way u can live? and rape.... just because u suffered something very bad and don't want a child.. its ok to kill it? why... in the legal sense, its not even ok for you to find teh rapist and kill him, the one who did it to you, but to kill an innocent bystander for it?? i'd think u have to be either for abortion or against it, its kinda weird to think its murder but suddenly justifiable for reasons like rape. |
![]() |
|
| TeaLaGe | Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:48 am Post #25 |
|
Level 50
|
I'll sum this up in 2 minutes: Observe greatness
Kill the baby? no. Kill the fetus? oh yes.. If it's too late might as well just have the baby.
No. [UNLESS it is 1-2 month during preg] <-- ignore
When the baby is past 3 month.
Depend on age. over 18 = no.. Under 18 = yes, because the teen cannot take care by herself.
Yep. No other answer to this.
Yes, if she decides too. It is the only possible way to give the baby a chance at a good life.
Abort whenever any problem come up. Make sure they understand the risk and prepare for the worst. End the baby life and put it out of it's misery.. if not possible, put up for abortion to have a better chance at life.
What the fuck is this question? You telling me a baby can have be addicted to alcohol? or nicotine? Good game. |
![]() |
|
| Dope | Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:09 am Post #26 |
![]()
Expert Colon Stomper
|
I've been arguing for both sides because when dealing with something like this I refer to Shakespeare "There is nothing neither good or bad, but thinking makes it so." $3.7 billion a year is in fact not dedicated to abortion.s You're forgetting that people also open up their own medical practices and there are three privately owned hospitals that I know of in Philadelphia alone. Then we subtract the money used to train doctors, since more than likely anything extra, after you get authorized and pass the exams, comes out of your pocket. Unless, you're working in a government hospital. Now the second point is completely ridiculous. You have to pay taxes regardless of whether or not you agree with the government. You send your kids to private school? Guess what, The government doesn't care and will continue to collect just as much property tax from you as they do everyone else? If you want to change that they make you go through this long process and only refund a fraction of the amount they collected from you. It's part of being an American citizen. You pay taxes whether or not you're a hippy or commy. And in fact that has happened. The CIA trained Osama and gave him two billion...Guess how he repaid us.
If what you say is true, then unless your parents are millionaires I guess you shouldn't have been born in the first place. Secondly I think they would both be equally happy. One if she didn't sacrifice the older child, the younger ones wouldn't have been born. And obviously the latter is a mother sacrificing her life for her only child.
Been arguing for both sides...each case deserves to be looked at separately, it's the only way I know how to confuse everyone enough to where they'd have to agree.
Read this again, particularly the end. I said that is wrong and should be corrected.
Because now that they have a solution that is more efficient in their mind. There's some study in psychology, I don't remember who did it, but it said people will rationalize anything they believe in. So even though it may not be more efficient, if they see it in their eyes to be so, they will rationalize it. Not to mention, their own personal experiences effect the decisions they will make. They made a mistake once before and had an abortion. If they do the same thing, and felt no remorse about the first time, obviously they would do it again.
I think you're defining a successful life very mistakenly. A successful life should be measured by happiness, not wealth. Just because having a child is costly, doesn't mean the quality of life parents experience drops or that the child is a burden. There are plenty of people who have the ability to drive, but cannot afford a car, he'd get over it. Hell that's a hazing most teenagers go through. |
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:35 am Post #27 |
|
Level 23
|
I'll come back later and argue against more statements, I just want to clarify this one really quick.
Since others are defining the quality of life as wealth, I have to in order to argue with them. If I just say money is happiness, not wealth, then we will have to argue over that as well, which would just be a waste of time. |
![]() |
|
| Lintendo | Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:29 pm Post #28 |
|
Level 5
|
i think this person was talking about genes that might indicate such things, more prone to getting cancer and such.. im not sure...
but in answer to this question, yes a baby can be born addicted to alcohol or nicotine, if a mother uses addictive drugs, it goes through her system and therefore also through the fetus's system, there are many documented cases of babies born like this. http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Babies-born-as-d...icts.3962053.jp first link i found. |
![]() |
|
| TeaLaGe | Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:13 pm Post #29 |
|
Level 50
|
It's not right for a baby to be born into a world like that. The mother should seek help for her baby, NOT continue to do the same lifestyle she does. So yes, if the mother drinks, smokes, drugs and cant stop it, the the baby should not even be born. |
![]() |
|
| Etra | Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:13 pm Post #30 |
|
Level 22
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
In a "murder" trial, the law is what matters, not your feelings about them. As I've said before, abortion is legal. And one of the main arguments for abortion is that a baby is not a person. You cannot go to jail for "murdering" a rock, or a tree, or the water because they are not persons; they are not self-aware. Unless you can perform a miracle and prove a baby is a person by either showing why being self-aware is not a requirement to being a person or by coming up with scientific evidence that a baby is self-aware in the womb, a preborn has no rights.
Forgetful induction: "the fallacy of failing to take into account all the relevant evidence bearing on a conclusion". A preborn is not a person, a 2 year old infant is.
100% probability of a woman dying for whatever reason if she does not abort > The probability of a woman dying as a direct result of the abortion. Unless the risk from the abortion is also 100%, at which point it becomes less a legal issue and more a moral one that the mother is going to have to make. The only absolute way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is to abstain from sex. You'd be OK with one of those "young adults who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions" raising a child?
See above. Currently in the United States, the Patriot Act basically allows the government to revoke your "rights" when it feels that you're a risk to national security. If life and liberty are in fact "rights" as you call them, the PA would have been ruled unconstitutional and overturned by the Supreme Court. It hasn't been.
Well it's not really relevant to the topic but the proponents of capital punishment believe it will prevent major crimes. It doesn't.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
Addiction in general has a genetic factor that makes them more susceptible, as does cancer. And yes, as Lintendo said, a baby can be born addicted to nicotine and alcohol.
The exact numbers aren't important since we don't even know what they are anyway. What does matter is the fact that everyone will be paying a lot of money if abortion is regulated, regardless of your stance. What I stated was one of the reasons people do not want to regulate abortion. You're going to have to make them re-consider if you want them to vote to allow the government to impose regulations. Getting them to pay taxes to help kill a child against their beliefs is going to take more than saying, "You pay taxes whether or not you're a hippy or commy".
Put yourself in the position of the first child. You just found out your mother aborted your older sibling. But you decide it's OK because if she hadn't, you wouldn't be alive. Is that really what you would think?
Uh, maybe I read something wrong because I'm confused again. Your original point was that the mother should have more say than her parents, right? Then I replied saying that the teenage mother is not mature enough to handle a decision like that, but her parents are. Then you said that only the mother can know what's best for her life. Then I said apparently not since having one abortion makes you more likely to have another. And then you replied by arguing against your original point by saying a teenage girl should not be able to make a decision of that scale? Did you not read the link I gave?
Edit: I hope you all realize I'm just playing my role as the devil's advocate. Anything I say doesn't necessarily say anything about what I believe. When I think the topic has exhausted itself, I'll post my own beliefs and you can all take your turns attacking mine :P. |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:57 pm Post #31 |
|
The Mambo King
|
Quote me a specific passage of relevance. Don't link me to a bill which has over 340 pages and expect me to know exactly which section you're referring to. And I've yet to see a section of that act which revokes the right to life, which is the right in discussion.
You would be hard-pressed to find a rock or a tree which has human DNA, a human brain, a human heart, or human fingerprints. Also, you stated that a baby has no rights because it is not self-aware. This is not true.
A baby enjoys that same basic right that you and I do. The fact that a baby is not self-aware up until a certain age does not mean that the baby can be killed. It is unlawful, not to mention highly immoral, to kill a "self-unaware" baby. The argument that the rights apply only to a person who is self-aware is false. The rights apply to all humans, regardless of age.
To what relevant evidence are you referring to? A preborn IS an infant. In what respect is it not? The baby does not undergo some drastic transformation before it is birthed. The baby that a doctor delivers during pregnancy is the same baby that was developing inside the womb for nine months. There isn't a magical vortex inside the uterus from where we pull complete babies. The unborn baby is genetically identicaland physiologically identical to the baby which is birthed. It is similiar to the fact that a baby cannot survive on it's own without the mother. We must facilitate the development of an infant until he/she is old enough to take care of him/herself. This also applies to the baby inside of the womb. We must also nurture and care for the baby until it is able to live outside of the womb. Simply, you must care for the baby at all stages of its life until it is of mature age. A stage of the baby's life is during pregnancy.
I'm not sure I understand your implication in the first paragraph. Maybe you can clarify. It's true that the only ABSOLUTE way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is the abstain from sex, but it is not the only practical way. The possibility of an unwanted pregnancy occuring even with the use of prophylactics is less than 3%. This includes condoms and birth control pills. If these measures are appropriately taken, then an unwanted pregnancy is largely avoidable. The vast majority of abortions are sought as a means of birth control. This is despicable. Those "young adults" in discussion are probably not ready to raise a child, but that's something that should be considered before the irresponsible act of unprotected sex. And as I pointed out earlier, there are alternatives to abortion. Adoption is one of them. There are approximately 1.5 million families in the United States that are looking to adopt a baby. Why not provide one of these couples with the joy of having a child that they could not otherwise possibly have? |
![]() |
|
| Lintendo | Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:00 pm Post #32 |
|
Level 5
|
u put this link up but im not sure what ur trying to say by it. In everything the links says, its about protecting yourself against violence. I dont think a baby being born even if it kills the mother would be called violence. The only thing that link is saying that u could possibly kill the person raping you at the time of the incident to stop such actions. It's not really self-defence when u abort a baby to save ur life. Just like its not self-defence in my sinking boat example.
It's self-preservation not self-defence.
You are assuming that the Supreme Court is perfect. In the real world, things that infringes on our rights happens. That doesn't mean they are no longer our rights. From what you are saying, you are implying that there are no such things as rights at all. And that anything relating to rights only comes from the Government we live under. "Quoting from our declaration of independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Government is only there to help us secure those rights. They are not the ones who give us rights in the first place. Whether you believe these rights come from God, or just from being alive/human.
I don't know how old you'd really have to be to fully understand the concept of abortion. But hopefully they child is old enough before finding out about such a thing. I dont really know how the child would think. Most children i'd assume love their mothers. THey'd just be happy that their mother is alive rather than some unknown older sibling that was aborted. That would be kinda what a child would think wouldn't it? I dont think any child would go emo finding out, omg a brother i never knew about was aborted to save my mothers life. Wahh my poor brother i don't know or really care about. *cut* Not until the child is quite old around our ages? and possibly develop an anti-abortion stance would the child perhaps look down on his mother or feel sad that his mother is a "killer".
So that is still saying that u can kill even born babies up to the point of Self-awareness, whenver that is. *edit.. wow tonic always posts right b4 me, so alot of my stuff coincides with what hes says. but whee, also about self aware. dont we lose that when we're asleep? or when ppl are comatose? following that idea, those ppl are no longer ppl, so its also ok to kill them? |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:20 pm Post #33 |
|
The Mambo King
|
This quickly turned into an everyone vs. Etra thread. Are there really no other champions of pro-choice in here? |
![]() |
|
| Stun | Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:08 pm Post #34 |
|
Level 10
|
I'm going to have to say that I'm pro-choice. Despite ending an innocent life(more or less) it is the choice of the mother. No child wants to grow up in financial struggle, or knowing that it was a mistake, or even with disease. The current stance on abortion is that it is legal(as long as it isn't in the 3rd trimester?), according to the 14th amendment the fetus is the "property" of the mother and anti-abortion laws violate the privacy of that mother. The court case of Roe v. Wade explains this, as the pro-choice Roe, won. |
![]() |
|
| Etra | Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:32 pm Post #35 |
|
Level 22
|
My mistake, the provision that revokes citizenship and thereby your "right to life" is in Patriot II. And the Patriot Act can revoke your liberty.
Definition of a person: http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Sectio...tentDisplay.cfm I don't think we've concluded yet if a baby can feel pain while in the womb. A baby does not become self-aware for a long while after birth. Not sure when a baby learns to reason. And I suppose crying is a form of communication.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm
My first paragraph was in response to "The argument that a woman shouldn't have to suffer a pregnancy if she doesn't want to is ludicrous. Abortion is a dangerous procedure unto itself. Terminating a life under the guise of “birth control” is not only unjustifiable, but despicable as well." Our current population is 301,139,947. 3% of that is 9,034,198. And since about half the population is women, 4,517,099 women become pregnant each year even while practicing safe sex. There are about 1,300,000 abortions per year. So no, the vast majority of abortions are not sought "as a means of birth control". Regardless of how many families want to adopt, there are only 17,000 adoptions each year (http://adoption.state.gov/news/total_chart.htm). That leaves millions more in orphanages each year.
Abortion that is done to save the life of the mother is technically self-defense. The link I posted is the legal definition of self-defense. This one is easier to understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense.
You would assume that the Supreme Court is imperfect and therefore capable of making a mistake in regards to a ruling, but assume that the writers of the Declaration of Independence made no mistake? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When the DoI was written, "men" referred to white, property owners but now it includes men and women regardless of gender or race, as long as they are a citizen of the United States. Only a person can become a citizen. As I've repeated numerous times now, a baby is not a person because it is not self-aware. Also, a baby becomes a citizen after it is born, not at any time before.
We're debating the legality and morality of abortion, not infanticide.
I'm just arguing for whatever side happened to be opposing the popular view. If we all agreed, this would a pretty lame discussion. |
![]() |
|
| Xtreme | Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:13 am Post #36 |
|
The Creator
|
Pro-choice is the better of the two. Why do people even care? It does not affect the people on the outside whatsoever. Just let people have their freedom, that is what it is there for. There are many other things that should be illegal but aren't. Go take up one of those you jesus loving freaks. Mind your own god damn business and stop worrying about what other people are doing. It is legal, get over it. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:20 am Post #37 |
|
Level 39
|
I'm sorry to butt in a bit late here, but I just find defining a baby as a non-person due to it being self-unaware is just blind. If a mother kills her 4 month old son, is that not murder as well? It still depends on her for life, albeit indirectly, and by most accounts has equal self-awareness to an abortion victim even a few weeks in. The fact is that we are not sure, and that's reason enough to use abortions only as a last resort. As for the data you found for those who practice safe-sex and still have pregnancies, I'd love to see where it came from. Does the website consider pulling out "safe sex" as well? Xtreme, I invite you to listen to or read a speech given at the turn of the millennium by Holocaust victim and author Elie Wiesel: "The Perils of Indifference." Your viewpoint ignorantly assumes that human beings will not make morally unsound decisions, and that the fact that evil exists in the world is reason enough for man to continue to suffer its existence. That is wholly foolish and due to such a viewpoint evil is left largely unchecked in the world around us. |
![]() |
|
| Lintendo | Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:27 am Post #38 |
|
Level 5
|
but by saying that they are not people up to the point of self awareness u are saying that infanticide is ok. i just want to clarify if that is what you are saying. If u are saying that infanticide is also ok up to a point, the ideas woudln't conflict. However if u say infanticide is wrong even b4 the point of self-awareness there'd be a contradiction in logic. If u say that infanticide is wrong, then why? What is morally different from killing a baby 1 minute b4 it is born and 1 minute after it is born. Is being "born" what makes us a person. And from
I dont see why being a citizen matters. Even if illegal immigrants aren't citizens of the US, they still have a right to life and it'd still be wrong to kill them.
so if murder was legal and as long as they weren't directly trying to kill you we should mind our own buisness?? i dont think so.... just because it doesn't "directly" affect us does not mean we shouldn't speak out against an act we find morally wrong.
LOL, non-christians also think murder is wrong. I don't think religion was really brought into this debate at all. This line is just funny. |
![]() |
|
| Xtreme | Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:07 am Post #39 |
|
The Creator
|
If it was legal since the beginning of time? No one would care about murder. But it is illegal for a reason. Abortion isn't illegal because it is not murder. Your opinions might be heard, but will not change anything. I feel that our government does the right thing in giving women the choice, rather then forcing them to have a baby. What would you want them to do instead? Put a limit on how much sex people have? Put all unwanted babies up for adoption? Force them to raise an unwanted child? All those things violate your rights. We live in a country where you live your life with freedom, which is why they give you a choice. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:29 am Post #40 |
|
Level 39
|
Create discipline among teenagers? Force safe sex or allow those who don't practice it to serve as bad examples, rather than advisers at the clinic. Abortion gives immature teens the ability to make stupid decisions and not have to pay for them. While it's certainly a part of our culture, I don't feel that it at all has to be. 99.9% isn't an estimate, it's a fact. If used correctly. If you're too stupid to put a condom on correctly, the world might be better off if you didn't have children anyway, but that's not morally right. If you're 1/1000 people who has a child even despite proper use of contraceptives, adoption is an unfortunate option. When does a woman's choice over her child end? What arbitrary measure is birth? Birth means next to nothing in the development of a child, it still needs to be in the mother's care for years, or it will die. Should we then allow women to kill their 3 year olds if they decide that night of drunken sex really wasn't worth it in the end, or when their loveless marriage falls apart? These poor actions are all reflective of each other and of the poor levels of world and societal awareness in Americans. Having an abortion means admitting that you made a mistake in having a child. That means poor planning, poor decision making ability, and, above all, poor self control. The required tenet when calling America a free country is the follow-up that you are only free insofar as you do not limit the freedoms or rights of others or face repercussions by law. Abortion is the most obvious and glaring example of this, and I feel that future generations will look back on our abortions as we look at slavery. In closing, I was struck by the sincerity of this where I wouldn't expect to find it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjlS5P3l78w Thanks. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic » |






3:09 PM Jul 11