NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that there are a lot of these threads, but I don't really want to post on an existing thread because by the time I see them, they have already gotten to the point where people aren't going to listen to any other opinions. I was hoping that in this thread, I could have a reasonable discussion on what people's opinions on abortion are, and why they feel that way. There's no need to go into who's opinion is right or wrong.

To start: I am female and pro-choice. I do not plan on ever having an abortion,but I believe that abbortion is justified for three reasons. First, I do not believe that a human has a soul until it is capable of recognizing and responding to stimulus, as well as learning from it's experience and remembering what it learned. Secondly, although the fetus has potential, it has potential to be good or evil, as do all people. A person is more likely to become evil if they are raised in an environment where they are not wanted. Most children who would have been aborted would be raised in this environment, which could cause many psychological problems, including depression. And, finally, there is the matter of the woman's rights. Although the woman made a bad choice when she chose to have sex, the father made an equally bad descision. Even if the father pays child support, the mother still has to carry the child for nine months and give birth. Child support alone won't keep her and her child alive, so many young mothers have to drop out of school and give up on their dreams because they made a bad choice. Mothers pay a greater price than fathers for the children, so they should be allowed to chose not to pay that price if they aren't ready for it.

Please try to be civil on this thread. If you want to start an argument, I suggest that you start your own thread.

I completely agree with you.

I know that there are a lot of these threads, but I don't really want to post on an existing thread because by the time I see them, they have already gotten to the point where people aren't going to listen to any other opinions. I was hoping that in this thread, I could have a reasonable discussion on what people's opinions on abortion are, and why they feel that way. There's no need to go into who's opinion is right or wrong.

To start: I am female and pro-choice. I do not plan on ever having an abortion,but I believe that abbortion is justified for three reasons. First, I do not believe that a human has a soul until it is capable of recognizing and responding to stimulus, as well as learning from it's experience and remembering what it learned. Secondly, although the fetus has potential, it has potential to be good or evil, as do all people. A person is more likely to become evil if they are raised in an environment where they are not wanted. Most children who would have been aborted would be raised in this environment, which could cause many psychological problems, including depression. And, finally, there is the matter of the woman's rights. Although the woman made a bad choice when she chose to have sex, the father made an equally bad descision. Even if the father pays child support, the mother still has to carry the child for nine months and give birth. Child support alone won't keep her and her child alive, so many young mothers have to drop out of school and give up on their dreams because they made a bad choice. Mothers pay a greater price than fathers for the children, so they should be allowed to chose not to pay that price if they aren't ready for it.


I disagree with your comments for three reasons:
1. I believe that humans have a soul at the moment of conception, and are thus accorded the full rights of a child of God.
2. I don't kill people because they might turn out to be evil, actually I don't kill people if I know them to be evil.
3. Women have no right to kill babies, thye have no right to think that their short-term happiness outweighs right to life (I am not suggesting this is true of all women, by any means). They have no right to murder innocents because they are a burden.

Mothers pay a greater price than fathers for the children, so they should be allowed to chose not to pay that price if they aren't ready for it.
It is exactly this attitude that is the cause of a lack of paternal responsibility, keep saying that father's are less important, have less responsibility, feel fewer consequences and they will abscond.

I justify abortion for three reasons:

There is no such thing as a soul, and a fetus has yet to be born, thus isn't alive.

Nothing has the right to leech off of a human's blood and nutrients without their consent, an unwanted pregnancy is little different then any other parasite.

There is no way to justify forcing a person to carry a parasite against their will, to do so is a violation of their personal rights, the living take precident over the potentially living.

NVay, I know this is close to arguing, and I really don't want to start a debate, but:
"1. I believe that humans have a soul at the moment of conception, and are thus accorded the full rights of a child of God"
I'm an atheist. There's probably no way we'll agree on this. My main reason for believing that abortion isn't murder is that the child isn't human because in my mind, it doesn't have a soul.

"2. I don't kill people because they might turn out to be evil, actually I don't kill people if I know them to be evil."
Neither do I. I am simply saying that while pro-life people argue that the child has potential to do good, they also have potential to do evil. I don't really care about the potential either way. However, as I said, I don't believe that they are people. Human, yes, but not people.

"3. Women have no right to kill babies, thye have no right to think that their short-term happiness outweighs right to life (I am not suggesting this is true of all women, by any means). They have no right to murder innocents because they are a burden."
People have the right to think whatever they want. I was talking about long-term happiness. If someone my age has a child, it's likely that it will destroy any chance of them succeeding in their dreams. I also am aware that people my age are usually not mature enough to make such choices. I don't think that these people should have to live with that choice for the rest of their lives, though.

"It is exactly this attitude that is the cause of a lack of paternal responsibility, keep saying that father's are less important, have less responsibility, feel fewer consequences and they will abscond."
That wasn't what I was saying. I meant that fathers often leave the mother once they find out that she's pregnant. Do you really believe that the majority of boys between the ages of 15 and 20 will stay with the mother? Of course they should, but will they? Legally, they don't have to.

Also, I'd just like to point out that i don't intend to get an abortion, because I don't intend to have sex until I'm ready to have children. Convince the rest of the 15-year-olds to do the same, and we won't get abortions except for when we didn't get to make the choice not to have sex.

Thanks for telling me why you feel that way, though, I can kind of understand.

I forgot to add this to the other thread, anyway.

Part of me always laughs a bit when pro-lifers claim life begins at conception. I've read the Bible cover to cover- there is absolutely nothing in there that claims life begins at conception. Nada. The idea of the sperm and the egg didn't even exist when the Bible was written.

In fact, before all these scientific advances, a woman was not considered pregnant until she declared herself to be so, since the cessation of menstruation was often caused by other reasons such as disease. Generally, pregnancy was determined at "the quickenining", when the baby started to kick. Since a woman wasn't considered pregnant, any methods she used to restart her menstruation were perfectly legal. There are many herbal remedies that were frequently used to remove the uterine lining, which would cause a "natural" abortion.

And this was in a far more religious day and age. Instead of nations being a patchwork quilt of different religions in addition to nonbelievers, nations tended to follow one main religion. No one was excommunicated for inducing a natural abortion. The Church didn't condemn them.

The idea of life beginning at conception is an entirely modern construction, not a Biblical one.

I completely agree with you.
:eek: Are you SURE? I think that's the first time anyone's ever said that to me, so I have to make sure I read that right. :) I like having people agree with me.

For once, I'd like a debate on abortion without religion getting involved. But I guess that's nearly impossible in society today.

I found something interesting about abortion:

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

I really think that we should try to find some common ground. Everyone always wants it their way 100%.

The first thing to consider is that we are all arguing this topic from a bais point of veiw. That bias being that we have all been born already. Let's face it, at one point, we were all "little clumps of cells." I am also quite certain that we are all glad that our parents did not decide to terminate us for any reason, let alone just because they wanted to look good in a bathing suit.

The second thing to consider is that we can preaty much agree that the health and life (as in opposed to death) of the mother are still more important than the unborn child.

Therefore, I don't think that abortion should be done away with completely. However, I do think that there needs to be a good reason for it. The traditional rape and "the mother's life is at risk" cases being obvious. Some other reasons could be applied as well. If they can't afford or don't want a baby, adoption is always an option; there is no reason to terminate the fetus.


Is this the sort of reply you were looking for?

Ok, the topic starter has it worked out, dont have sex/kids till either A. your married, B. you love that person VERY much.

As you can guess i am religous, and this is my opinion on abortian.

The follwoing scenarios i beleive are right for abortian:

Rape , health trouble, or poverty. If you dont want children dont have sex, me and my GF have chosen to abstane, its not a huge deal to not have sex.

However, this is where im against abortian, where its used as an assecerie , eg the morning after pill. Its just a daily thing!!!! nope, to me thats wrong, to do it so casually to me is VERY wrong, and should be stopped.

just my thoughts......

Gronde, good reply, I think that is a great way for the laws to work. I'm only a little concerned about the problem that the requirements for adoption would be too strict. It's hard to find a family who will be good for the child, there are so few good families who want to adopt. Some mothers might want contact with the baby afterwards too. I know I would. I'm not going to give birth to a kid and never see it again. Adoption should definately be encouraged, though. It's much better for everyone involved.

There are far too many children in foster care right now. There is a shortage of adoptive families. Unfortunately, adoption is not always going to be a viable solution, unless you consider shuttling children from foster home to foster home until majority a solution.

Not all married couples are ready for children, either. Is your implication that couples should not get married unless they expect to have children? What about married couples who don't want children at all? Many doctors will not sterilize young married individuals in case they change their minds.

I disagree with your comments for three reasons:
1. I believe that humans have a soul at the moment of conception, and are thus accorded the full rights of a child of God.
2. I don't kill people because they might turn out to be evil, actually I don't kill people if I know them to be evil.
3. Women have no right to kill babies, thye have no right to think that their short-term happiness outweighs right to life (I am not suggesting this is true of all women, by any means). They have no right to murder innocents because they are a burden.

It is exactly this attitude that is the cause of a lack of paternal responsibility, keep saying that father's are less important, have less responsibility, feel fewer consequences and they will abscond.
1. No you don't. If you did, you'd celebrate your conception day instead of your birthday. Even the Christian thinkers agree, original sin doesn't attach until one is born, which is quite sensible since fertilized eggs face very long odds.
3. But women do have the right to remove parasites from their bodies. Which is a good thing. Control over reproduction leads to low infant mortality rates, because people who want children are more likely to be diligent in their care. So you can choose, high infant mortality (and more crime and poverty as it would happen), or low infant mortality and abortion.

And by the way, a woman who would choose short term happiness over her "child" and use abortion as a form of birth control can be expected to what exactly for the next eighteen years after the child is born? See, when you're against choice, against the well considered descision to control one's reproduction, you're not only against freedom (which God loves), but you're against child welfare. And ultimately, for children being beaten, starved and generally neglected to death. But as long as it happenes out of sight and due to a confluence of events that can't be described in thirty seconds, you're fine with that. When Jesus was talking about compassion, and loving thy neighbor, that's what he was preaching against.

About father's rights, I can get on that bus. Easy to design hard to excecute. Have father's sign a contract taking responsability, accepting, the child, if they don't sign, not their problem. And every baby born should have a paternity test as part of the standard course, and a clause where the wrong paternity invalidates the contract. Smart women who are serious about having families will have the contract signed in advance, and know who's kid they're having. Once it becomes impossible for a woman to use a child to steal a man's possessions, there won't be a problem with those unwanted children. Infant mortality will drop, as will social ills.

have you thought about what it would be like to make abortion illegal?

how many of the girls in your school would be forced to have babies? how many would do whatever it takes NOT to? how many teenaged couples would be forced to get married at 17? how many of the girls would be forced to quit school and live on public aid and in poverty for years?

since most abortions are for women who are already mothers, how many families would be financially stressed? how many careers put aside for another 5 years, how many babies put into inadequate daycare? how many families broken by the stress of having a baby with severe disabilities?

how many women suffering the nightmare of carrying the child of her rapist?

how many children hated for just being born?

oh i know you think that all these extra babies will be put up for adoption. how long do you think it would take for all those aching for babies today to be satisfied when a million extra babies a year are born? how long before we have orphanages for perfect newborns like they had to have in romania? and what about the less than perfect babies/children who have some chance today of getting adopted? who will ever take them when they can get a perfect newborn within a month?


either a woman has a right to her own body or she doesnt. either she is free or she is slave to her reproductive system. every woman needs to have the right to decide.

Brava, Ashmoria.

have you thought about what it would be like to make abortion illegal?

how many of the girls in your school would be forced to have babies? how many would do whatever it takes NOT to? how many teenaged couples would be forced to get married at 17? how many of the girls would be forced to quit school and live on public aid and in poverty for years?

since most abortions are for women who are already mothers, how many families would be financially stressed? how many careers put aside for another 5 years, how many babies put into inadequate daycare? how many families broken by the stress of having a baby with severe disabilities?

how many women suffering the nightmare of carrying the child of her rapist?

how many children hated for just being born?

oh i know you think that all these extra babies will be put up for adoption. how long do you think it would take for all those aching for babies today to be satisfied when a million extra babies a year are born? how long before we have orphanages for perfect newborns like they had to have in romania? and what about the less than perfect babies/children who have some chance today of getting adopted? who will ever take them when they can get a perfect newborn within a month?


either a woman has a right to her own body or she doesnt. either she is free or she is slave to her reproductive system. every woman needs to have the right to decide.

Well, I think you are exaggerating a little, though I can understand where you are comming from. You must be more understanding and compassionate than I am, because I think that the woman already made her choice when she got knocked up. lol. This is why I support abortion in the case of rape, (she didn't choose to get raped) and maybe in the case of disease (Such as AIDS). I also think that poverty may be another possibility. However, even if the babies childhood isn't very good, I am quite sure that it is better then them being not alive. I drew this conclusion because a few of my friends grew up in poverty or in neglectfull homes. So again, there needs to be some middle ground. Abortion is something that is needed, but it shouldn't be taken so lightly and the law should reflect that.

However, this is where im against abortian, where its used as an assecerie , eg the morning after pill. Its just a daily thing!!!! nope, to me thats wrong, to do it so casually to me is VERY wrong, and should be stopped.


I'm not completely sure what you are trying to say here, but I think you are horribly misinformed.

First off, the morning after pill is not an abortion. It prevents pregnancy by not allowing conception to occur, even if fertilization has occurred. It is not a "daily thing", but an emergency form of contraception. The birth control pill is a daily thing - and blocks ovulation, so that fertilization cannot occur.

There is an abortion pill known as RU-486. This pill induces an abortion (aka miscarriage) in a woman during early pregnancy. It also is not a "daily thing" and requires the same consultation, etc. as an abortion.

Neither RU-486 nor the morning after pill are over the counter medication, at least in the US.

Well, I think you are exaggerating a little, though I can understand where you are comming from. You must be more understanding and compassionate than I am, because I think that the woman already made her choice when she got knocked up. lol. This is why I support abortion in the case of rape, (she didn't choose to get raped) and maybe in the case of disease (Such as AIDS). I also think that poverty may be another possibility. However, even if the babies childhood isn't very good, I am quite sure that it is better then them being not alive. I drew this conclusion because a few of my friends grew up in poverty or in neglectfull homes. So again, there needs to be some middle ground. Abortion is something that is needed, but it shouldn't be taken so lightly and the law should reflect that.
its not a matter of understanding or compassion. either a woman is free or she isnt. either she has a right to her own body or she doesnt. EVERY woman, good or bad, has the right to control her body. if she has to pass some kind of test in order to qualify for an abortion (is she free of sexual blame?) then she isnt free.

perhaps my examples are "exaggerated" (although i only asked, i didnt say what i thought the answers would be) the truth is that when abortion is illegal it only affects certain segments of society. rich women have no problem getting abortions. well connected women have no problem getting abortions. this was true when abortion was illegal IN the states where it was illegal.

poor women and women who arent "in the know" are denied abortions when abortion is illegal. they bear the burden of other peoples religious beliefs. they suffer unwanted pregnancies and unsafe backalley abortions. the "banker's daughter" will never be seen in the halls of the local highschool wearing a maternity outfit, only the daughters of the lower classes with be forced into that position.

oops now you put me on a rant.

I know that there are a lot of these threads, but I don't really want to post on an existing thread because by the time I see them, they have already gotten to the point where people aren't going to listen to any other opinions. I was hoping that in this thread, I could have a reasonable discussion on what people's opinions on abortion are, and why they feel that way. There's no need to go into who's opinion is right or wrong.

To start: I am female and pro-choice. I do not plan on ever having an abortion,but I believe that abbortion is justified for three reasons. First, I do not believe that a human has a soul until it is capable of recognizing and responding to stimulus, as well as learning from it's experience and remembering what it learned. Secondly, although the fetus has potential, it has potential to be good or evil, as do all people. A person is more likely to become evil if they are raised in an environment where they are not wanted. Most children who would have been aborted would be raised in this environment, which could cause many psychological problems, including depression. And, finally, there is the matter of the woman's rights. Although the woman made a bad choice when she chose to have sex, the father made an equally bad descision. Even if the father pays child support, the mother still has to carry the child for nine months and give birth. Child support alone won't keep her and her child alive, so many young mothers have to drop out of school and give up on their dreams because they made a bad choice. Mothers pay a greater price than fathers for the children, so they should be allowed to chose not to pay that price if they aren't ready for it.

Please try to be civil on this thread. If you want to start an argument, I suggest that you start your own thread.

On your points:

1. Unborn children feel pain as early as 8 weeks. They have an intact, though not fully developed, neuological system with pain recepticals. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp#By%208%20weeks?%20Show%20me! . Besides, common sense says that, for example, a 28 week old unborn baby (which could easily be born the next day prematurely) is developed enough to feel pain if born... why not if unborn? I don't know how it is in whatever country you live in, but here in the United States, abortion is legal right up until the child is born. In fact, a mother could go into labor but decide to have the child aborted before the baby comes out. It's pretty insulting to suggest that an unborn baby doesn't feel pain, then suddenly, magically feels pain as soon as it is physically displaced outside of the mother's womb. Does this change your analysis?

2. An unborn child has the potential to have a constructive or a destructive life. I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. Same with a baby who was born 2 months ago. That doesn't change the analysis. As for the child being raised by parents who don't want it, isn't that exactly what adoption is for? My brother and sister-in-law can't have children, and they want to adopt, but they have to choose between going on a huge waiting list (for an American baby) or spending thousands of dollars in attorney fees and bribes and dealing with all sorts of political posturing (for a non-american baby)--which they are in the process of doing. The point is, there are plenty of people who would give an unwanted kid a healthy home to be raised in, wherein they could reach their potential.

3. It sounds like you're basically saying that the ends justify the means. I disagree that interrupting a girl's life for a few months or inconveniencing a parent who was too reckless to use birth control justifies aborting a human life.

1. Unborn children feel pain as early as 8 weeks. They have an intact, though not fully developed, neuological system with pain recepticals. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp#By%208%20weeks?%20Show%20me!

Guess it's a good thing that the vast majority (somewhere on the order of 85%) of all abortions (and an even higher percentage of elective ones) occur before 8 weeks.

Of course, everything I have ever seen on embryology would dispute your claim. There isn't even enough of a neuro system to support reflexive movement until near 12 weeks.

My brother and sister-in-law can't have children, and they want to adopt, but they have to choose between going on a huge waiting list (for an American baby) or spending thousands of dollars in attorney fees and bribes and dealing with all sorts of political posturing (for a non-american baby)--which they are in the process of doing.

Maybe they could stop being selfish brats and give a home to one of the millions of children already waiting to be adopted. Of course, that would be too much, eh? It isn't about giving a child a home, it is about them getting a baby. Will this other country wrap their present in a big bow?

its not a matter of understanding or compassion. either a woman is free or she isnt. either she has a right to her own body or she doesnt. EVERY woman, good or bad, has the right to control her body. if she has to pass some kind of test in order to qualify for an abortion (is she free of sexual blame?) then she isnt free.

perhaps my examples are "exaggerated" (although i only asked, i didnt say what i thought the answers would be) the truth is that when abortion is illegal it only affects certain segments of society. rich women have no problem getting abortions. well connected women have no problem getting abortions. this was true when abortion was illegal IN the states where it was illegal.

poor women and women who arent "in the know" are denied abortions when abortion is illegal. they bear the burden of other peoples religious beliefs. they suffer unwanted pregnancies and unsafe backalley abortions. the "banker's daughter" will never be seen in the halls of the local highschool wearing a maternity outfit, only the daughters of the lower classes with be forced into that position.

oops now you put me on a rant.

Wow, take it easy. This is supposed to be a more laid-back and accepting-of-other-people's-views thread. Lol.

Anyways, of coarse women have the right to controll their bodies. They were controlling their bodies when they decided to have sex in the first place. (again, except in cases of rape in which I already addressed) No one made them. It is their fault and their fault alone that they are dealing with a pregnancy. If they didn't want a baby, they should have just kept their legs shut. Lol. People make mistakes, but they need to learn that there are consequences for them. Part of what I don't like about the current abortion policy is that it gives women a free pass from their mistakes instead of making them take responsibility.

I understand that rich women would be able to get an abortion illegally. However, that is true for everything. Do you want to make crack legal because rich people would be able to afford more of it than poor people? Do you want to make (for you liberals only) all types of guns and weapons legal just because rich people can get them anyways? I think not. Besides, no one FORCED them into their position, they did it to themselves.

If you ask me, the United States government should get rid of welfare for illegal aliens and able-bodied citizens and use the money to help young and/or poor parents support their children. Also, the guy shouldn't be let off the hook either; some sort of child support is obviously neccissary if he tries to run off.

Part of what I don't like about the current abortion policy is that it gives women a free pass from their mistakes instead of making them take responsibility.

If you honestly think an abortion is a "free pass" from a woman's mistakes, you are incredibly naive and have obviously never faced the issue, nor had a decent conversation with anyone who does.

When you grow up a bit, maybe you can have a mature discussion of the issue.

I justify abortion for three reasons:

There is no such thing as a soul, and a fetus has yet to be born, thus isn't alive.

Nothing has the right to leech off of a human's blood and nutrients without their consent, an unwanted pregnancy is little different then any other parasite.

There is no way to justify forcing a person to carry a parasite against their will, to do so is a violation of their personal rights, the living take precident over the potentially living.

Unfortunately, it appears that your mother put up with her parasite for too long.

I think that this diebate, while healthy in its discussion of what is an issue largely without compromise or middle ground, that some of you have lost sight of relevancy and simple common sense.

Perhaps reading the opinions here - http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=regressive - will give you a fresh perspective.

Part of what I don't like about the current abortion policy is that it gives women a free pass from their mistakes instead of making them take responsibility.

Besides, no one FORCED them into their position, they did it to themselves.


You make it into revenge.

You seem to think it okay for a child to be brought into the world as a 'punishment' for the alleged transgressions of the mother.

How much of that sounds like 'caring' for the unborn, to you?

Unfortunately, it appears that your mother put up with her parasite for too long.
I do believe that counts as a flame.

Maybe they could stop being selfish brats and give a home to one of the millions of children already waiting to be adopted. Of course, that would be too much, eh? It isn't about giving a child a home, it is about them getting a baby. Will this other country wrap their present in a big bow?

You are a monster.

Guess it's a good thing that the vast majority (somewhere on the order of 85%) of all abortions (and an even higher percentage of elective ones) occur before 8 weeks.

Of course, everything I have ever seen on embryology would dispute your claim. There isn't even enough of a neuro system to support reflexive movement until near 12 weeks.

1. You made that percentage up.

2. You made that fact up.

So basically, no. :)

You are a monster.

I'm a monster because I think someone should care more about the child they are bringing into their home than themselves?

*shrug* If that's the way you think....

You are a monster.

Pretty flame-y, don't you think?

No debate... nothing to refute or discuss... just insults?

I'm disappointed.

1. You made that percentage up.

No. If anyone did, the CDC website did. I can't seem to find the report now, but it was posted up in another thread fairly recently.

2. You made that fact up.

No. If anyone did, the people who write textbooks did.

[QUOTE]have you thought about what it would be like to make abortion illegal?

Yes.


how many of the girls in your school would be forced to have babies?

None of them who abstained and/or took the appropriate precautions that they all should be taking anyway. Why should the baby have to die for mom and dad's irresponsibility?

how many would do whatever it takes NOT to?

None. Or practically none. It was virtually non-existent when abortion was not legal in the U.S. There would be more? That's speculation. Since they were previous scarce when it was still illegal, the burden is on you to demonstrate it would become otherwise the next time around.

how many teenaged couples would be forced to get married at 17?

Zero, because you don't have to married to give birth.

how many of the girls would be forced to quit school and live on public aid and in poverty for years?

You're right. They definitely should not get pregnant when they're not ready.

since most abortions are for women who are already mothers, how many families would be financially stressed?

You're making this up.

how many careers put aside for another 5 years, how many babies put into inadequate daycare?

What is the relationship between inadequate daycare and having an unintended child?

how many families broken by the stress of having a baby with severe disabilities?

What the heck? Aborted kids would otherwise become disabled? Some of them would be wildly financial successful and finance their parents' early retirements.

how many women suffering the nightmare of carrying the child of her rapist?

Aborting a baby will not change the fact that the mom was raped. On the rare but tragic instances when this occurs, both the mom and the baby are already victims of the crime. An abortion doesn't change that.

how many children hated for just being born?

Well, that would be pretty psychotic. How many? Very few. Children are a blessing.

oh i know you think that all these extra babies will be put up for adoption. how long do you think it would take for all those aching for babies today to be satisfied when a million extra babies a year are born?

And I know that you think they won't. This country use to be a lot poorer and abortion was illegal, but the kids were still adopted and taken care of. That wouldn't change. Besides, if abortion was illegal, fewer people would have unwanted preganancies because abortion would not be considered a birth control option. So people would... now get ready for this... have to take responsibility to prevent the pregnancies to begin with! :eek:

how long before we have orphanages for perfect newborns like they had to have in romania?

5,000 years.

and what about the less than perfect babies/children who have some chance today of getting adopted?

what about?

who will ever take them when they can get a perfect newborn within a month?

You're implying that "less than perfect babies/children" are less desireable than "perfect", whatever the heck that means to you. Let me explain this really simply, since Madison Avenue's propaganda machine have apparently clouded your perceptions. A person's worth as a person is not remotely related to their physical limitations, and does not make them less worthy or less able to be loved or to give love. My wife and I sponsor a child through one of those international outreach things that you see on the commercials with those pitiful looking kids in countries that have been devistated by war and fammine. Our little girl's family makes $68 per month. We pay for her immunizations, nutrition needs, school uniforms and educational needs. She's coming along quite well, by the way. We chose her because her circumstances are so disadvantaged, not because she's attractive or defect-free. I'm sitting at my computer and shaking my head as I write this because I really feel sorry for you that you don't get this.

Incidentally, it takes way more than a month to adopt a child in this country. It usually takes years, so it actually would make things less hard on the adoptive parents.


either a woman has a right to her own body or she doesnt..

Correct. I believe we're talking about the baby's body, though.

either she is free or she is slave to her reproductive system.

Correct, which is why I strongly believe that a woman should be free to not get pregnant to begin with.

every woman needs to have the right to decide.

...whether to become impregnanted. I agree 100%.

Pretty flame-y, don't you think?

No debate... nothing to refute or discuss... just insults?

I'm disappointed.

My brother and sister-in-law can't have children. They want to adopt, but the wait list is a mile along and will take several years. They've instead decided to look into adopting a child from another country because it is quicker and the kids are in greater need, although the process usually involves greasing a few palms due to local governmental corruption.

The monster to whom I was responding called my brother and sister-in-law selfish because they're taking the international route instead of going through the local red-tape and wait list. He is a monster, or do you disagree? A better question, if this person is not a monster, how would a monster have responded differently? These questions are not rhetorical. Thanks.

No. If anyone did, the CDC website did. I can't seem to find the report now, but it was posted up in another thread fairly recently.



No. If anyone did, the people who write textbooks did.


riiiiiiight....

The monster to whom I was responding called my brother and sister-in-law selfish because they're taking the international route instead of going through the local red-tape and wait list. He is a monster, or do you disagree? A better question, if this person is not a monster, how would a monster have responded differently? These questions are not rhetorical. Thanks.

Is reading really that hard?

I did not call your relatives selfish because they are going through an international route.

I called them selfish because they obviously won't adopt a child that is not an infant. You said they had to get on a waiting list for an infant - which is true. However, what about the millions of children waiting for adoption that are not infants. If your relatives really cared about giving a child a good home, the age wouldn't matter. Instead, they are obviously more concerned with their own wish to have a baby.

Well, I think you are exaggerating a little, though I can understand where you are comming from. You must be more understanding and compassionate than I am, because I think that the woman already made her choice when she got knocked up. lol. This is why I support abortion in the case of rape, (she didn't choose to get raped) and maybe in the case of disease (Such as AIDS). I also think that poverty may be another possibility. However, even if the babies childhood isn't very good, I am quite sure that it is better then them being not alive. I drew this conclusion because a few of my friends grew up in poverty or in neglectfull homes. So again, there needs to be some middle ground. Abortion is something that is needed, but it shouldn't be taken so lightly and the law should reflect that.

No actually she is not. I know of a few families that broke up over children with a severe downs child (requires 24/7 attention).

Finally you really are patronizing to suggest women don't take abortion seriously (speaking of the majority that is). It's something they tend to carry with them for the rest of their days.

There are acceptions of course but they are a minute amount.

Dempublicents1: I'm not even going to respond to your post. And you tell me that I should grow up.


1.) You make it into revenge.

2.) You seem to think it okay for a child to be brought into the world as a 'punishment' for the alleged transgressions of the mother.

3.) How much of that sounds like 'caring' for the unborn, to you?


1.) Alright, how am I making it into revenge? You seem to be doing your trademark "play with words" trick. Who is taking revenge on who? Your not making sense.

2.) Again you are switching my words around. I never said anything about punishment, nor did I intentionally imply anything about it.

3.) Well let's see, somehow I think any life is better than no life. Are you saying that you would rather have never been born than have been born into poverty or into a bad home? And if yes, how can you say that for everyone? (We were all fetuses at one point)


Again, the point of this topic is not to "win the debate." We are exchanging our own points of veiws, not distorting other's points of view for the sake of making ourselves look right. So in the nicest possible way, cut the crap and lets have a productive descussion. And I don't meen to be condesending or rude and I apologize if I come off that way. (and that was directed at everyone)

[QUOTE=Ashmoria] None of them who abstained and/or took the appropriate precautions that they all should be taking anyway.

Birth control doesn't fail?

None. Or practically none. It was virtually non-existent when abortion was not legal in the U.S. There would be more? That's speculation. Since they were previous scarce when it was still illegal, the burden is on you to demonstrate it would become otherwise the next time around.

Are you seriously claiming that abortions didn't happen when they were illegal? That women didn't come in to emergency rooms on a regular basis with septic abortions? That women haven't tried different methods of abortion from the beginning humanity?

Statistics really aren't your friend, are they?

You're making this up.

I like your style. "These may be well-known statistics. But it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with them, you made them up."

Well, that would be pretty psychotic. How many? Very few. Children are a blessing.

If everyone thought that children were automatically a blessing, this discussion wouldn't be taking place, now would it?

This country use to be a lot poorer and abortion was illegal, but the kids were still adopted and taken care of.

If they were carried to term, sometimes.

Besides, if abortion was illegal, fewer people would have unwanted preganancies because abortion would not be considered a birth control option.

Abortion never has been considered a "birth control option."

So people would... now get ready for this... have to take responsibility to prevent the pregnancies to begin with! :eek:

The vast majority of unplanned pregnancies occur in women using one or more forms of birth control. And no, I didn't make that up.

Correct. I believe we're talking about the baby's body, though.

No more than we are talking about a leukemia patient when we discuss my bone marrow. I can choose to give my bone marrow to a patient with leukemia that matches me. I can also choose not to. They may die, but I can choose not to donate.

Maybe they could stop being selfish brats and give a home to one of the millions of children already waiting to be adopted. Of course, that would be too much, eh? It isn't about giving a child a home, it is about them getting a baby. Will this other country wrap their present in a big bow?

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

I would listent to the adoption argument if I heard the system was out of children.

I understand that rich women would be able to get an abortion illegally. However, that is true for everything. Do you want to make crack legal because rich people would be able to afford more of it than poor people? Do you want to make (for you liberals only) all types of guns and weapons legal just because rich people can get them anyways? I think not. Besides, no one FORCED them into their position, they did it to themselves.

no
rich women will get legal abortions.

there are always exceptions and the rich woman will "qualify" for the exception.

being a fully sexual human being is not a bad thing. it is not the mark of an evil woman. a woman should have the right to be as sexual as a man. and she should have the right to do as she pleases with her body whether it seems right to you (or me) or not.

Dempublicents1: I'm not even going to respond to your post. And you tell me that I should grow up.

You expressed an incredibly naive or possibly just imature viewpoint. I called you on it. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

No actually she is not. I know of a few families that broke up over children with a severe downs child (requires 24/7 attention).

Finally you really are patronizing to suggest women don't take abortion seriously (speaking of the majority that is). It's something they tend to carry with them for the rest of their days.

There are acceptions of course but they are a minute amount.

Ugh, I don't like to double post but yours came up while I was making my last post and all that...anyways:

As I said, abortion is not something that I think should be done away with completely. I personally think that downs babies could fall under that category. (I would be willing to accept that compromise)

Well, as I said, most of you are probobly more compassionate and understanding than I choose to be. Also, I see too many cases (mainly in teenagers) where, at least at the time of the abortion, do take their abortion seriously. I didn't mean to suggest that they don't dwell on it later in their lives; I am sure that they do.

See? There is no reason to get so hostile.

I'm a monster because I think someone should care more about the child they are bringing into their home than themselves?

*shrug* If that's the way you think....

I think he likes you. ;)

no
rich women will get legal abortions.

there are always exceptions and the rich woman will "qualify" for the exception.

being a fully sexual human being is not a bad thing. it is not the mark of an evil woman. a woman should have the right to be as sexual as a man. and she should have the right to do as she pleases with her body whether it seems right to you (or me) or not.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you were getting at. Well, again, that is going to happen with everything. Our government is always vulnerable to bribes and the like. Although I don't know how a rich person could unfairly "qualify" when the requirments mainly include being raped, terminal disease, and poverty. However, I do understand your concern, don't think that I am taking it lightly.

As for your last statement, you are making an argument against something that I didn't say. There is nothing wrong with being sexually active. However, it, as all things, has risks involved. People need to be held responsible, especially in this day and age where everyone knows the exact statistics before having sex.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you were getting at. Well, again, that is going to happen with everything. Our government is always vulnerable to bribes and the like. Although I don't know how a rich person could unfairly "qualify" when the requirments mainly include being raped, terminal disease, and poverty. However, I do understand your concern, don't think that I am taking it lightly.
Haha. Just like before Roe vs Wade, abortion for rich women will be called, "My summer in Europe."

Just admit it. You hate freedom, and think that God got it wrong, and you know how to live other people's lives much better than God, would-be mothers, and doctors.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you were getting at. Well, again, that is going to happen with everything. Our government is always vulnerable to bribes and the like. Although I don't know how a rich person could unfairly "qualify" when the requirments mainly include being raped, terminal disease, and poverty. However, I do understand your concern, don't think that I am taking it lightly.

As for your last statement, you are making an argument against something that I didn't say. There is nothing wrong with being sexually active. However, it, as all things, has risks involved. People need to be held responsible, especially in this day and age where everyone knows the exact statistics before having sex.
i dont want you to think that im railing at YOU. its not like anyone LIKES abortion. its a question of who gets to decide.

as to how a rich woman gets a legal abortion. well, in the past, there was an exception for the life of the mother. the woman went to a doctor, claimed that she would kill herself if she had to carry the baby to term, adn the willing doctor certified it.

or she flew to new york where it is legal.

it IS responsible to get a 1st trimester abortion.

People need to be held responsible, especially in this day and age where everyone knows the exact statistics before having sex.

More naivete, I see.

Everyone knows the exact statistics before having sex? That's the biggest crock I've ever heard. In low-income, poorly educated areas, very few if any know the statistics. In higher-income, well-educated areas, there are still a large portion that don't.

I went to one of the best high schools in my state, but still knew teenage girls who thought that you didn't need to use protection during your period, because you couldn't get pregnant then. Very few were aware that it is possible to get pregnant without actually having intercourse, if you are interacting closely enough. Many had no easy access to birth control - or knew how to properly use it. And it isn't as if any of these girls magically knew these things the minute they became women either.

In some areas, women are still expected to acquiesce to the wishes of the man. Thus, when he says no condom - they don't push the issue. They have been taught not to, while also being conditioned to believe they must have a relationship to be complete.

Haha. Just like before Roe vs Wade, abortion for rich women will be called, "My summer in Europe."

Just admit it. You hate freedom, and think that God got it wrong, and you know how to live other people's lives much better than God, would-be mothers, and doctors.

Lol, comon man. You make me laugh but your going a little too far. But the "my summer in europe" arguement can be compared to a rich person flying to a country where their drug of choice is legal. Does that mean we make it legal here? I want to move on from this petty class war that this thread is turning in to. But at least you make me laugh. :)

i dont want you to think that im railing at YOU. its not like anyone LIKES abortion. its a question of who gets to decide.

as to how a rich woman gets a legal abortion. well, in the past, there was an exception for the life of the mother. the woman went to a doctor, claimed that she would kill herself if she had to carry the baby to term, adn the willing doctor certified it.

or she flew to new york where it is legal.

it IS responsible to get a 1st trimester abortion.

Well, again, again (again), I am just trying to find some middle ground. Everyone wants it their way 100%. The United States was build on compromises, after all.

More naivete, I see.

Everyone knows the exact statistics before having sex? That's the biggest crock I've ever heard. In low-income, poorly educated areas, very few if any know the statistics. In higher-income, well-educated areas, there are still a large portion that don't.

I went to one of the best high schools in my state, but still knew teenage girls who thought that you didn't need to use protection during your period, because you couldn't get pregnant then. Very few were aware that it is possible to get pregnant without actually having intercourse, if you are interacting closely enough. Many had no easy access to birth control - or knew how to properly use it. And it isn't as if any of these girls magically knew these things the minute they became women either.

In some areas, women are still expected to acquiesce to the wishes of the man. Thus, when he says no condom - they don't push the issue. They have been taught not to, while also being conditioned to believe they must have a relationship to be complete.

Stop flame-baiting please. (your Jedi powers don't work on me, hahahaha)

But anyways, half of your cases its still the individuals own fault for being ignorant. However, I know that you are not going to agree with me, so fair enough. What if the US were to improve the educational system a little more? Then could be come to some terms on this issue? There is no point in arguing back and forth when we all know that we are not going to agree. This is why the United states is so polarized; the 60's made us forget how to compromise. (and I blame both sides) So instead of trying to say why you are right, let us try to come up with what might be a reasonable solution to this heated topic.

I havent ever met someone who is "for abortion", i dont think anyone really likes the idea of killing the fetus.
But its the mothers choice and restricting it by law is absolutely absurd, if the mother doesnt feel she is responsible enough to raise a child than it is her Decision and noone else's.

I really think that we should try to find some common ground. Everyone always wants it their way 100%.

The first thing to consider is that we are all arguing this topic from a bais point of veiw. That bias being that we have all been born already. Let's face it, at one point, we were all "little clumps of cells." I am also quite certain that we are all glad that our parents did not decide to terminate us for any reason, let alone just because they wanted to look good in a bathing suit.

The second thing to consider is that we can preaty much agree that the health and life (as in opposed to death) of the mother are still more important than the unborn child.

Therefore, I don't think that abortion should be done away with completely. However, I do think that there needs to be a good reason for it. The traditional rape and "the mother's life is at risk" cases being obvious. Some other reasons could be applied as well. If they can't afford or don't want a baby, adoption is always an option; there is no reason to terminate the fetus.


Is this the sort of reply you were looking for?
I do not agree. I do not believe we should defend the right of any human being (born or unborn) to own or inhabit the body of another human being against his/her wishes. I do not believe that paracitism should be a human right. No human, born or unborn, has the right to live inside the body of another human, born or unborn. A fetus may be housed in a woman's body only with her permission, and I believe she has the absolute right to revoke that permission just as she has the right to refuse to be a blood or organ donor to a born human.

[QUOTE=Brians Test]


[QUOTE]Are you seriously claiming that abortions didn't happen when they were illegal?

No, I'm not.

That women didn't come in to emergency rooms on a regular basis with septic abortions?

Yes, I am.


That women haven't tried different methods of abortion from the beginning humanity?

No, I'm not.

Statistics really aren't your friend, are they?

An odd statement from one who has not backed up his statistical assertions.


I like your style. "These may be well-known statistics. But it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with them, you made them up."

The commonality of the misinformation does not make it any more true. You have made several baseless assertions about the frequency of abortions prior to legalization, the duration of the preganancy at the time of abortion, and demographic information about those aborting--who they are and why they abort. When your assertions are challenged, you admit that the information to back up your claims are not available, but that apparently doesn't matter because these are "well-known statistics". Just back up your claims (which you have not been able to do) and I'll have no argument. What's the matter? Can't you do it?


If they were carried to term, sometimes.

They were, because abortions were not legal.

Abortion never has been considered a "birth control option."

I suspect that some of the pro-abortion people reading this would disagree.

The vast majority of unplanned pregnancies occur in women using one or more forms of birth control. And no, I didn't make that up.

That's true. However, the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion occur in women not using one or more forms of birth control, not including "the rhythm method."

Child support alone won't keep her and her child alive, so many young mothers have to drop out of school and give up on their dreams because they made a bad choice. Mothers pay a greater price than fathers for the children, so they should be allowed to chose not to pay that price if they aren't ready for it.

Here's the problem. If they do that, it will lull them into thinking that they can do whatever they want with no idea of consequences for their actions. They'll lose touhc with reality to a point. Of course, they'll probably do drugs, become a crack whore and die a slow, lonely death at 50.

Condoms? The pill? Who needs 'em, I can just get an abortion!

And even if they baby in question would/could turn out evil, it didn't do anyhting yet and if taken care of properly, by either his/her mother and/or father, or by a good foster parent, could just as easily grow up to save the world from cancer of AIDS or starvation.

And even if they do turn out evil, shouldn't everyone have the right to be redeemed somehow?

I value the life of a small, innocent, defenseless child over the ease of my living.

And besides, if you never become a real mother, you'll never fufill your purpose in life. You won't, actually, I should probably say SHOULDN'T go to Heaven, but rather wander the Earth a a ghost, a restless spirit, who is destined to roam over this hell hole with nothing to do for the rest of eternity.

At least, that's how I would have it. Unless you were raped, in which case the baby should be aborted and used for stem cell research.

Murder, as you HOPEFULLY know, is the killing in cold-blood of another human being. Abortion fits this perfectly. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and I blinded by their own selfishness, greed, and cruelty. I hope when they die, they finally see the light and realize that their wrongdoings were... wrongdoings.

If you disagree: see above. You CAN'T deny it. You can keep telling yourself "it's okay, it wasn't born yet," etc. But you know in your heart that it will haunt you for the rest of your life.

I tell you what, if I was a murderer, I don;t know how I'd sleep at night. Perhaps some are truly sorry for what they did. But girls who have abortion... don;t get me started. Every night they go to bed, happy and smiling, not taking a minute to think about the great joys of raising a child. Sure, they are hardships, but if you are too lazy to face them, then you might as well be too lazy to keep a steady job. I'll tell you what, I wouldn't want a cop or a firefighter to be that lazy. "Oh yeah, I could have saved the kids, but I didn't want to go into the burning house because I have to work alot."

Same difference.

I do not agree. I do not believe we should defend the right of any human being (born or unborn) to own or inhabit the body of another human being against his/her wishes. I do not believe that paracitism should be a human right. No human, born or unborn, has the right to live inside the body of another human, born or unborn. A fetus may be housed in a woman's body only with her permission, and I believe she has the absolute right to revoke that permission just as she has the right to refuse to be a blood or organ donor to a born human.

Lol, well that is an interesting way to look at it. So you were just a paracite? And I suppose that you would not have minded if your mother decided to revoke your permission to be inside of her? Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their own oppinions.


Unfortunately, heavy storms in my area threaten to fry my computer. Thus, I must shut down for the night. Try not to bombard me too hard to replies until tomorrow. 'Night all.

Here's the problem. If they do that, it will lull them into thinking that they can do whatever they want with no idea of consequences for their actions. They'll lose touhc with reality to a point. Of course, they'll probably do drugs, become a crack whore and die a slow, lonely death at 50.

Condoms? The pill? Who needs 'em, I can just get an abortion!

And even if they baby in question would/could turn out evil, it didn't do anyhting yet and if taken care of properly, by either his/her mother and/or father, or by a good foster parent, could just as easily grow up to save the world from cancer of AIDS or starvation.

And even if they do turn out evil, shouldn't everyone have the right to be redeemed somehow?

I value the life of a small, innocent, defenseless child over the ease of my living.

And besides, if you never become a real mother, you'll never fufill your purpose in life. You won't, actually, I should probably say SHOULDN'T go to Heaven, but rather wander the Earth a a ghost, a restless spirit, who is destined to roam over this hell hole with nothing to do for the rest of eternity.

At least, that's how I would have it. Unless you were raped, in which case the baby should be aborted and used for stem cell research.

Murder, as you HOPEFULLY know, is the killing in cold-blood of another human being. Abortion fits this perfectly. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and I blinded by their own selfishness, greed, and cruelty. I hope when they die, they finally see the light and realize that their wrongdoings were... wrongdoings.

If you disagree: see above. You CAN'T deny it. You can keep telling yourself "it's okay, it wasn't born yet," etc. But you know in your heart that it will haunt you for the rest of your life.

I tell you what, if I was a murderer, I don;t know how I'd sleep at night. Perhaps some are truly sorry for what they did. But girls who have abortion... don;t get me started. Every night they go to bed, happy and smiling, not taking a minute to think about the great joys of raising a child. Sure, they are hardships, but if you are too lazy to face them, then you might as well be too lazy to keep a steady job. I'll tell you what, I wouldn't want a cop or a firefighter to be that lazy. "Oh yeah, I could have saved the kids, but I didn't want to go into the burning house because I have to work alot."

Same difference.

You my friend are a wonderful arguement for abortion.

Just a note: a non-viable fetus, a zygote, an embyro, or any other inhabitant of the uterus that has not attained viability, is NOT a "baby". "Baby" is not a proper term for something unborn and potentially unwelcome. Proper terminology will help any debate.

Unfortunately, it appears that your mother put up with her parasite for too long.

And it was her choice to do so, my dear. :fluffle:

Just a few resources that are worth reading:

http://ffrf.org/books/AIAB/


http://ffrf.org/books/why_abortion/


http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

Lol, well that is an interesting way to look at it. So you were just a paracite?

Yes, I was. All human fetuses are. I see nothing degrading about using accurate terminology.


And I suppose that you would not have minded if your mother decided to revoke your permission to be inside of her?

I could not have minded if my mother aborted fetus-me, because I would never have had the structures required for experiencing such emotions. As the conscious person that I am, I am delighted to know that I exist because I was wanted...I would rather never have been born than know my mother was forced to bear me against her wishes.

And, to drag up one of my favorite personal anecdotes, my friend Dan knows that he ONLY exists because his mother had an abortion. If she hadn't had an abortion at 17, she would have gone to college when and where she did, would never have met his father, and would never have eventually married and given birth to Dan. Playing the "what if" game is pointless.


Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their own oppinions.

And to their own basic human rights.


Unfortunately, heavy storms in my area threaten to fry my computer. Thus, I must shut down for the night. Try not to bombard me too hard to replies until tomorrow. 'Night all.
*BOMBARDS GRONDE!!!!!*

TAKE THAT!!! MWA HA HA!!!

Just kidding :).

It MUST be the month for abortion threads. Yesh.

Part of the joys of being a teacher is working with children who are suddenly forced to become adults really quickly. And yes, you can blaim them, they didn't bother to learn, they didn't bother to listen, they should have waited, and every other "Let's blaim the victim" excuse I have seen on this thread.

Till you talk with them and you hear what they actually believed, and you find out that guess what, their parents did their damnest to make sure they never found out about sex, about birth control, abut taking charge of their own bodies.

But they were more than happy to inist to their daughters that they get an abortion after the young man, freaking out of his mind, skipped town.

So let's play pretend, can you do that? You're a 16 year old girl, you WERE in love, and on a special night because of whatever, love, magic, presure, you decided to give the boy you loved everything. You're young, you don't know what love really is, what counts for love and what is just hormones, but at that age, you THINK you know. And since your good, loving parents made sure you NEVER heard about condoms, or how pregnancy actually works (and you being too scared to demand that your lover use one) you end up pregnant.

Upon finding out, your lover, whom you swore you would marry someday, after all, you'd been together for a whole year, turned very pale, screamed at you that you were a slut and had to have been sleeping around, and, of course, the child was NOT his, skipped. Distraught, you turn to your parents, after the screaming dies down (which is where teachers get invloved), daddy demands you have an abortion. You agree, what else can be done? Your whole life would be ruined after all. No college, no high school, no carrer, just life as another young single mother.

Sounds very selfish, don't it?

Now then, let's try this again, same situation, only this time add in what that poor girl is REALLY feeling. Shock, scared out of her MIND. Not only concerned about not only her own life, but for the life of that child. If she bore it to term, COULD she be a good mother? How could she care for that child in her, and in a way that is GOOD for the child. Yes, she could give the child up for adoption, there IS a nice long waiting list... for white infants with no birth defects, but she might not be white, and at her young age, birth defects are more common. Besides, how can she know if that child will be adopted by good folks?

This is choice, this is what she is confronting.

And she will have to live with this for a very, very long time (Will I be a good mother after this? Can I STILL be a mother when I am ready?).

And this is just ONE set of circumstances, there are many of them, some very tragic, and yes, some viewed as just a way of birth control.

But before you damn them, put yourself in their shoes please, and ask your self, honestly, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

I doubt rabid pro lifers will of course, it's easier to just condem, and I doubt rabid pro choicers will either. Which just leaves the people who do have confront this head on left as a football in which their personal tragedy is ignored in the headlong rush of both sides to be proven right.

Stop flame-baiting please. (your Jedi powers don't work on me, hahahaha)

How can I stop doing something I haven't begun doing?

Naivete is not an insult.

But anyways, half of your cases its still the individuals own fault for being ignorant.

Ah, I see. It is a child's fault if we don't teach them what they need to know? It is a child's fault if their parents are idiots who say, "Don't have sex," and then don't bother to explain to the child why or what might protect them if they make a different decision? It is a child's fault if they are raised from birth to act a certain way and then get into trouble following instructions?

What if the US were to improve the educational system a little more?

That would certainly be a start. Unfortunately, to truly ensure that kids understand the repercussions of sex, we're going to have to vastly improve parenting - and that isn't something we can legislate.

No, I'm not.

Ah, good then.

Yes, I am.

Funny, I know some healthcare professionals that would disagree with you - and they were around at the time.

I also know that CDC statistics disagree with you, but you don't care about them, do you?

No, I'm not.

Good to know.

An odd statement from one who has not backed up his statistical assertions.

TG The Cat-Tribe. I'm sure he would be happy to give you his source. It was a CDC study, but it isn't always easy to find what you want there - and I don't have the time at work.

The commonality of the misinformation does not make it any more true.

So the CDC propogates misiniformation? Good to know.

Just back up your claims (which you have not been able to do) and I'll have no argument. What's the matter? Can't you do it?

One could equally ask why you have provided no evidence to the contrary, since you are so convinced that every statistic and every statement is made up.

Meanwhile, this is an older study than the one I was quoting:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/abortion_statistics.shtml

It actually places abortions before 8 weeks at about 60%, with nearly 90% of all abortions being carried out before the end of the first trimester. Only 1.4% occurred after full development of the nervous system - which makes sense, as they are only allowed for medical necessity at that point.

Almost a fourth of the women having abortions were married.

And I quote: "The abortion ratio was highest for women who had three previous live births (in other words, women with three previous children). Only 40% had not already had children.

This study was from 2000, while Cat-Tribe's study was from a later date, so the statistics will be a bit different. If we were to list overall numbers, they would probably be lower in general, as abortion rates have been dropping pretty steadily for at least a decade.

They were, because abortions were not legal.

The fact that abortions were not legal does not mean that every embryo was carried to full term. A full 50% of all known pregnancies miscarry naturally before full-term (http://www.marchofdimes.com), with even more ending before the mother is even aware she is pregnant. Those numbers don't even include the women who decided to have an abortion, illegal or not.

I suspect that some of the pro-abortion people reading this would disagree.

There are very, very, very few "pro-abortion" people. Even on Nationstates, I have only talked to maybe two. The vast majority of those who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion.

That's true. However, the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion occur in women not using one or more forms of birth control, not including "the rhythm method."

Not according to the CDC. Even in 2000, (and trends are that more women, not less, use birth control over time) 56% of women getting an abortion were using at least one form of birth control.

I would hardly call 44% a "vast majority".

How can I stop doing something I haven't begun doing?

Naivete is not an insult.



That's not what flame-baiting is anyways. You weren't directly insulting me, but you were trying to get me to insult you. (though I don't plan on doing so) Hence the "baiting" part.


Ah, I see. It is a child's fault if we don't teach them what they need to know? It is a child's fault if their parents are idiots who say, "Don't have sex," and then don't bother to explain to the child why or what might protect them if they make a different decision? It is a child's fault if they are raised from birth to act a certain way and then get into trouble following instructions?


I wasn't refering to children, you are just trying to play with my words...again. However, sinse we are now on that topic, how, may I ask, is a parent an idiot because they tell their kids not to have sex while they are still, well, kids? What are 14-16 year-olds doing having sex? As you keep saying, birth controll fails. Abstinence doesn't. I'm not a christian either; it's common sense. No amount of bad parenting and poorly funded educational systems should cause someone to not be aware that you get pregnant by having sex. I am not saying that sex is bad, if you are at 18+ (or maybe even 17). At least by then, they should know how things work. I don't blame children for this. I blame partially their parents and partially the media, which makes being sexually active at 14 and 15 normal and harmless. Your body is not even close to being fully developed yet.


That would certainly be a start. Unfortunately, to truly ensure that kids understand the repercussions of sex, we're going to have to vastly improve parenting - and that isn't something we can legislate.

Well, I don't know about that. If you ask me, though I believe we do need to better fund education, we need to make sex-ed a little simpler, not more complicated. Like the following:

Pregnancies are caused by having sex. You don't get pregnant if you don't have sex. Birth controll can help (for more info, see page 238 of you text book) but is not 100%. If you are in a position in your life where a baby would be damaging to the point where you would want to terminate it, you should strongly consider not having sex until you are ready for said consiquences.

Most liberals don't want to hear that. (if you are not one, then I apologize) They want kids having sex as early as 12. I am not a moralist. I simply look at what is common sense. Kids at 14 having sex is not common sense or healthy.

But I digress, I know that you have a very strong oppinion on this issue, and I respect that. I don't claim that my oppinion is any more valid than yours. You just need to understand that, however you may feel about this issue, there is another half of society that sees things very differently. So I ask you; how could the united states find some middle ground on this issue? (seeing as how you don't like my solutions very much)

I wasn't refering to children, you are just trying to play with my words...again.

The whole discussion was about children. I referred to teenage girls specifically, and you said that their ignorance was their own fault.

However, sinse we are now on that topic, how, may I ask, is a parent an idiot because they tell their kids not to have sex while they are still, well, kids?

If that is all they tell them, which is what I was referring to, they are idiots. It is exactly like telling your kid, "Don't play with matches," and then thinking, "Well, I told them not to play with matches. Guess they won't do it then. I don't need to show them how to use a fire extinguisher or teach them to call the fire department."

What are 14-16 year-olds doing having sex?

The same thing they have always been doing. As much as I can look at a 14-16 year old and tell them that they shouldn't be having sex, and probably be right, some are going to do it. I didn't. Some of my friends did. Strangely enough, I had a mother who was much more open with me and discussed all options, rather than saying, "Just don't have sex," and leaving it at that.

No amount of bad parenting and poorly funded educational systems should cause someone to not be aware that you get pregnant by having sex.

It shouldn't, but believe it or not, it does. Or it leads to them thinking that certain things will prevent pregnancy in error.

I blame partially their parents and partially the media, which makes being sexually active at 14 and 15 normal and harmless.

I don't know what media you watch, but I haven't seen anything that actually gives this impression. Some things may glamorize it, but the general consensus is still that these things shouldn't be happening.

Well, I don't know about that. If you ask me, though I believe we do need to better fund education, we need to make sex-ed a little simpler, not more complicated. Like the following:

Pregnancies are caused by having sex. You don't get pregnant if you don't have sex. Birth controll can help (for more info, see page 238 of you text book) but is not 100%. If you are in a position in your life where a baby would be damaging to the point where you would want to terminate it, you should strongly consider not having sex until you are ready for said consiquences.

I had a class somewhat like that. It was called PSI (Postponing Sexual Involvement). Unfortunately, it was cancelled.

It isn't that I have a problem with teaching abstinence or postponment of sex - I think that is key. However, I think that birth control methods should *also* be taught. Knowing how to use birth control does not mean that someone will have sex, any more than knowing how to use a fire extinguisher means that someone will go out and commit arson.

Most liberals don't want to hear that. (if you are not one, then I apologize) They want kids having sex as early as 12.

I'm not a liberal really - much more of a moderate, however, I haven't met a single "liberal" who wants kids having sex at 12. I've met quite a few who are aware that it will happen no matter what we do, but none that think it is a good thing (and weren't 12 or 13 themselves).

So I ask you; how could the united states find some middle ground on this issue? (seeing as how you don't like my solutions very much)

I think the US already has found a middle ground. It was called Roe v. Wade. It isn't as if Roe allowed any and all abortions.

Just a note: a non-viable fetus, a zygote, an embyro, or any other inhabitant of the uterus that has not attained viability, is NOT a "baby". "Baby" is not a proper term for something unborn and potentially unwelcome. Proper terminology will help any debate.

I was just about to say that.

The incomplete nervous system before 12 weeks was mentioned, and I believe that is correct.

Anyway, Confused Empresses I completely agree with you. Don't sound so shocked!

NERVUN made a very good point. Atticus Finch tells us to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Atticus Finch was a very wise man, so let's heed his advice, shall we?

Abortions are kind of a stale mate, a contradiction of the American Freedom. Either way you're supposedly not granting one person a choice. But really, who has the choice anyway? Logically, that would be the person who could understand her options and process thought (which fetuses cannot do). So give the mother the choice.

And many people have brought up the adoption thing. Everyone who has said that the foster care programs are too clogged up is absolutely correct. How many adopt simply because they can, and not because they have their own children? Maybe adoption will be a good idea one day, in a land where gays are free to get married and therefore adopt children because they can't have them -- I will NOT start an argument about gays here.

Those who said children brought up in conditions in which they are unwanted do not benefit. Many mothers may simply just leave them in soiled diapers crying in cribs because she didn't want the child anyway. Children who know they were unwanted at birth become angry - perfect example is whatshisface on Brat Camp (ABC Wednesday 9/8c). I have a friend who knows that he was an 'accident'. He just so happens tobe lucky enough to have an older sister who was n't an accident because SHE had to be the mother. What a pity that not all sisters are that caring, huh. You'd think the mother was blessed to have such a smart and caring son, but she certainly doesn't think so. It's been fifteen years, and his mother still tells him that he's stupid and was an accident. Yells at him that she never wanted him in the first place. What kind of childhood is that?

And someone mentioned the US making their education systems better. It wouldn't work. There are many stupid people out there who don't seem to utilize anything they're taught. But it's a good idea. While you're at it, though, tell them to add Geography to the mandatory course list. The stereotypical American's Geography sucks :D.

I know that there are a lot of these threads, but I don't really want to post on an existing thread because by the time I see them, they have already gotten to the point where people aren't going to listen to any other opinions. I was hoping that in this thread, I could have a reasonable discussion on what people's opinions on abortion are, and why they feel that way. There's no need to go into who's opinion is right or wrong.

To start: I am female and pro-choice. I do not plan on ever having an abortion,but I believe that abbortion is justified for three reasons. First, I do not believe that a human has a soul until it is capable of recognizing and responding to stimulus, as well as learning from it's experience and remembering what it learned. Secondly, although the fetus has potential, it has potential to be good or evil, as do all people. A person is more likely to become evil if they are raised in an environment where they are not wanted. Most children who would have been aborted would be raised in this environment, which could cause many psychological problems, including depression. And, finally, there is the matter of the woman's rights. Although the woman made a bad choice when she chose to have sex, the father made an equally bad descision. Even if the father pays child support, the mother still has to carry the child for nine months and give birth. Child support alone won't keep her and her child alive, so many young mothers have to drop out of school and give up on their dreams because they made a bad choice. Mothers pay a greater price than fathers for the children, so they should be allowed to chose not to pay that price if they aren't ready for it.

Please try to be civil on this thread. If you want to start an argument, I suggest that you start your own thread.


Better idea. How about no more threads on abortion, period?

It's a highly-charged, emotional, and polarizing issue. No one is going to convince ANYONE on the other side that they are right. I'm pro-choice, no way is any pro-lifer going to win my heart or mind. Likewise, I realize I am not going to win their heart or mind. It's useless.

After as many threads on abortion (and, I might add, gay marriage) as we have had...it should be crystal-clear to everyone that everyone has already made up their minds on these issues, and no way in hell are they going to listen to an opinion opposite their own...or be swayed by any such opinion.

One new thread...and 500 new threads are not going to change this.

The whole discussion was about children. I referred to teenage girls specifically, and you said that their ignorance was their own fault.



If that is all they tell them, which is what I was referring to, they are idiots. It is exactly like telling your kid, "Don't play with matches," and then thinking, "Well, I told them not to play with matches. Guess they won't do it then. I don't need to show them how to use a fire extinguisher or teach them to call the fire department."



The same thing they have always been doing. As much as I can look at a 14-16 year old and tell them that they shouldn't be having sex, and probably be right, some are going to do it. I didn't. Some of my friends did. Strangely enough, I had a mother who was much more open with me and discussed all options, rather than saying, "Just don't have sex," and leaving it at that.



It shouldn't, but believe it or not, it does. Or it leads to them thinking that certain things will prevent pregnancy in error.



I don't know what media you watch, but I haven't seen anything that actually gives this impression. Some things may glamorize it, but the general consensus is still that these things shouldn't be happening.



I had a class somewhat like that. It was called PSI (Postponing Sexual Involvement). Unfortunately, it was cancelled.

It isn't that I have a problem with teaching abstinence or postponment of sex - I think that is key. However, I think that birth control methods should *also* be taught. Knowing how to use birth control does not mean that someone will have sex, any more than knowing how to use a fire extinguisher means that someone will go out and commit arson.



I'm not a liberal really - much more of a moderate, however, I haven't met a single "liberal" who wants kids having sex at 12. I've met quite a few who are aware that it will happen no matter what we do, but none that think it is a good thing (and weren't 12 or 13 themselves).



I think the US already has found a middle ground. It was called Roe v. Wade. It isn't as if Roe allowed any and all abortions.

First of all, for the record, I never said that birth controll options should not be taught.

Anyways, you have your oppinions; fair enough. You seem like a fairly reasonable person for the most part. I can't say as I think you will be changing your oppinions any time soon. So I guess that's settled. I am going to leave this thread before the flame-war starts. (should be any time now) Hopefully, I have at least given you something to think about. I will most likely consider your points as well. There is no reason for neither of us to try to learn things. So with that, I'm off.

No amount of bad parenting and poorly funded educational systems should cause someone to not be aware that you get pregnant by having sex. I am not saying that sex is bad, if you are at 18+ (or maybe even 17). At least by then, they should know how things work. I don't blame children for this. I blame partially their parents and partially the media, which makes being sexually active at 14 and 15 normal and harmless. Your body is not even close to being fully developed yet.
You'd be surprised. As much as we all like to think that today's teens are a hotbed of sexual knowledge, I'm sorry, but no. There is a whole lot of mis-information out there because teens, like teens have for years, will gladly fill in the gaps that their parents, teachers, and society will not talk about.

Some things that I have encountered (either as a student, or as a teacher):
Coke (or soda of choice) works as a spermacide (usually by the aplication of it after sex by squirting)
You cannot get pregnant if you're a virgin
You can't get pregnant if you're on your period
You can't get pregnant if you and your boyfriend just mastrubate each other (It is unlikely, but possible)
You can't get pregnant if you have sex in a hot tub (technically this is true, but you'd have to cook the guy at a high temp for a few hours)
Jumping up and down right after sex will cause the sperm to fall out and you won't get pregnant
Eating or drinking X will cause you not to get pregnant
Having your boyfriend urinate right before sex will mean you can't get pregnant
You can't get pregnant during a full moon (hmm, werewolf babies anyone?)
Douching or using a hose after sex will allow you to not get pregnant

On the flip side, I've also encountered kids who are convinced that boys and girls sharing toiletpaper may result in pregnancy (I mean the roll of toilet paper). You can get pregnant in a swimming pool. And, I had to deal with one hysterical girl who was convinced she WAS pregant as her period was a few days late, and a week ago she had hugged her boyfriend close and hard, while they were both fully clothed.

Yup, lots of correct sexual knowledge there and a detailed working of human pregancy and causes thereof.

Liberals do not want to see 12 or 13 year olds having sex, if anything, I'd say it's more along the lines of being too damned cynical and pregmatic. If they are going to do it, they will, and they will creativly create any excuse or get out of jail free card in their minds to allow them to do so without the fear of pregnancy.

I'd much rather teach them as much as I can so they don't have these silly ideas in their heads and they know how to protect themselves. I look at it like teaching kids how to drive, you (hopefully) teach them skills that they will (hopefully) never need. You tell them how to avoid needing to use these skills, but you teach them so that just in case, they know what to do.

One abortion is too many in my mind, but until we can find a way to prevent pregnancy that works 100% of the time, and is in tune with reality (no, abstence is not), we will have it with us and I refuse to take it away.

<snerk> :eek: Some things that I have encountered (either as a student, or as a teacher):
<snip>
You cannot get pregnant if you're a virgin
<snip>
Unless you are counting Mary, (and/or all the other "immaculate conceptions"), and InVitro/Turkey basters, this one is true.

I have yet to hear of a sperm crawling without at least a little penetrative assistance...

(ok, it MIGHT be feasable if I took a fingerfull and wiggled it up there for a bit... but that's hardly "virginal" activity..." :rolleyes:

Unless you are counting Mary, (and/or all the other "immaculate conceptions"), and InVitro/Turkey basters, this one is true.

I have yet to hear of a sperm crawling without at least a little penetrative assistance...

(ok, it MIGHT be feasable if I took a fingerfull and wiggled it up there for a bit... but that's hardly "virginal" activity..." :rolleyes:
My apologies, let me put it differently then; you cannot get pregnant if the vaginal sexual intercourse is your first vaginal sexual intercourse. Meaning you cannot get pregrant if it is your first time having sex.

I justify abortion for three reasons:

There is no such thing as a soul, and a fetus has yet to be born, thus isn't alive.

Nothing has the right to leech off of a human's blood and nutrients without their consent, an unwanted pregnancy is little different then any other parasite.

There is no way to justify forcing a person to carry a parasite against their will, to do so is a violation of their personal rights, the living take precident over the potentially living.

You need help, god forbid you ever EVER have kids!

One! babies are now KNOWN! to be alive, and moving in the mothers womb, it was all over the news!, they jump around and even blink and such their thumbs!

Two! YOU! ARE A NARROW MINDED LOSER!

Three! Abortion should be illegal unless the baby is a result of rape, or the mother is in danger

Four! How the hell do you think you came to be?, Were you a parasite living inside a peice of meat named Mommy?

Five! You disgust me!

Soviet Haaregrad, You really anger me!

On your points:

1. Unborn children feel pain as early as 8 weeks. They have an intact, though not fully developed, neuological system with pain recepticals. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp#By%208%20weeks?%20Show%20me! . Besides, common sense says that, for example, a 28 week old unborn baby (which could easily be born the next day prematurely) is developed enough to feel pain if born... why not if unborn? I don't know how it is in whatever country you live in, but here in the United States, abortion is legal right up until the child is born. In fact, a mother could go into labor but decide to have the child aborted before the baby comes out. It's pretty insulting to suggest that an unborn baby doesn't feel pain, then suddenly, magically feels pain as soon as it is physically displaced outside of the mother's womb. Does this change your analysis?

2. An unborn child has the potential to have a constructive or a destructive life. I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. Same with a baby who was born 2 months ago. That doesn't change the analysis. As for the child being raised by parents who don't want it, isn't that exactly what adoption is for? My brother and sister-in-law can't have children, and they want to adopt, but they have to choose between going on a huge waiting list (for an American baby) or spending thousands of dollars in attorney fees and bribes and dealing with all sorts of political posturing (for a non-american baby)--which they are in the process of doing. The point is, there are plenty of people who would give an unwanted kid a healthy home to be raised in, wherein they could reach their potential.

3. It sounds like you're basically saying that the ends justify the means. I disagree that interrupting a girl's life for a few months or inconveniencing a parent who was too reckless to use birth control justifies aborting a human life.

I live in the USA too. I said nothing about not feeling pain, I did say that I don't think it has a soul, and is therefore not a person. I don't care about killing humans, but I'd never kill a person. If your brother adopts a kid, will he let the birth mother have contact with him/her? If you expect a woman to carry a child for nine months, give birth to it, and then completely cut off contact with it, then adoption won't work. At that point, she has an emotional attachment to it. Abortion is fine because no one has a real emotional attachment to the baby at that point. Also, I only think that abortion is OK during the first trimester of the pregnancy. After that, the baby is a person, and as I said, I won't kill people.

I just finished reading all of the posts, and I have to ask you all one thing:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?! CAN'T YOU GO FIVE MINUTES WITHOUT POINTING OUT THAT SOMEONE IS -- IN YOUR MIND -- WRONG?!
OK, now that I'm a little calmer, I'd just like to say that I started this thread to find out what people think of abortion, not what they think of what other people say! Don't respond to my post, don't respond to any posts, don't quote what someone else said and argue with them, just tell me what YOU think. Can't you let one thread be free from any debate, I just want to see other people's opinions, and all you do is tell me how horrible of a person I am! I KNOW I'm going to hell if you're right, cuz all atheists who don't accept jesus as their savior are going to hell, right? So stop telling me! I can't change what I believe any more than you can, and i'm sick of people thinking they can make me a good person and save my soul. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a good person simply because I'm doing what I believe is right! Now, Brians Test and anyone else who wants to argue about abortion, if you'll please stop ruining this thread and go argue somewhere else, I'd be a much happier person.
... It's gonna take forever to regain my self control... better go work on that.

My brother and sister-in-law can't have children. They want to adopt, but the wait list is a mile along and will take several years. They've instead decided to look into adopting a child from another country because it is quicker and the kids are in greater need, although the process usually involves greasing a few palms due to local governmental corruption.

The monster to whom I was responding called my brother and sister-in-law selfish because they're taking the international route instead of going through the local red-tape and wait list. He is a monster, or do you disagree? A better question, if this person is not a monster, how would a monster have responded differently? These questions are not rhetorical. Thanks.

I'm afraid to say, your brother and sister-in-law are not germaine... and your feelings for them do not justify you flaming another poster... ESCPECIALLY without any explanation of what you mean, or WHY you are using such inflammatory terminology.

In this country, as in the rest of the world, there are many, MANY more children waiting to be adopted, than there are potential adoptive parents. Which is why the 'adopt, not abort' claim by the Anti-Abortion Faction is so ridiculous... we already have thousands of un-adopted persons out there... which would be MILLIONS, without abortion.

Regarding adopting from overseas - well, there are two ways to look at that...

1) On the one hand, it is a humanitarian effort, to allow a disadvantaged child to grow in an advantaged society. BUT;

2) On the other hand - there are already MANY disadvantaged children that are WITHIN your country of origin... why should they not get a 'good start'? Why should people be allowed to circumvent controls on adoption PURELY by lining the pockets of a poorer nation? Do you not realise that this actually ENCOURAGES poorer nations to cast off unwanted children?

Is reading really that hard?

I did not call your relatives selfish because they are going through an international route.

I called them selfish because they obviously won't adopt a child that is not an infant. You said they had to get on a waiting list for an infant - which is true. However, what about the millions of children waiting for adoption that are not infants. If your relatives really cared about giving a child a good home, the age wouldn't matter. Instead, they are obviously more concerned with their own wish to have a baby.
Agreed people tend to only want the youngest rather then providing a good home for a kid just for the sake of helping someone

They are doing this to please themselves rather then helping out someone that is needy

Someone being helped is just a byproduct

I just finished reading all of the posts, and I have to ask you all one thing:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?! CAN'T YOU GO FIVE MINUTES WITHOUT POINTING OUT THAT SOMEONE IS -- IN YOUR MIND -- WRONG?!
OK, now that I'm a little calmer, I'd just like to say that I started this thread to find out what people think of abortion, not what they think of what other people say! Don't respond to my post, don't respond to any posts, don't quote what someone else said and argue with them, just tell me what YOU think. Can't you let one thread be free from any debate, I just want to see other people's opinions, and all you do is tell me how horrible of a person I am! I KNOW I'm going to hell if you're right, cuz all atheists who don't accept jesus as their savior are going to hell, right? So stop telling me! I can't change what I believe any more than you can, and i'm sick of people thinking they can make me a good person and save my soul. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a good person simply because I'm doing what I believe is right! Now, Brians Test and anyone else who wants to argue about abortion, if you'll please stop ruining this thread and go argue somewhere else, I'd be a much happier person.
... It's gonna take forever to regain my self control... better go work on that.


How ironic asking “what’s wrong with you people” (implying that there IS something wrong and you want to know what it is) while condemning us for thinking someone else is wrong

Irony meter off the charts

You'd be surprised. As much as we all like to think that today's teens are a hotbed of sexual knowledge, I'm sorry, but no. There is a whole lot of mis-information out there because teens, like teens have for years, will gladly fill in the gaps that their parents, teachers, and society will not talk about.

Some things that I have encountered (either as a student, or as a teacher):
Coke (or soda of choice) works as a spermacide (usually by the aplication of it after sex by squirting)
You cannot get pregnant if you're a virgin
You can't get pregnant if you're on your period
You can't get pregnant if you and your boyfriend just mastrubate each other (It is unlikely, but possible)
You can't get pregnant if you have sex in a hot tub (technically this is true, but you'd have to cook the guy at a high temp for a few hours)
Jumping up and down right after sex will cause the sperm to fall out and you won't get pregnant
Eating or drinking X will cause you not to get pregnant
Having your boyfriend urinate right before sex will mean you can't get pregnant
You can't get pregnant during a full moon (hmm, werewolf babies anyone?)
Douching or using a hose after sex will allow you to not get pregnant

On the flip side, I've also encountered kids who are convinced that boys and girls sharing toiletpaper may result in pregnancy (I mean the roll of toilet paper). You can get pregnant in a swimming pool. And, I had to deal with one hysterical girl who was convinced she WAS pregant as her period was a few days late, and a week ago she had hugged her boyfriend close and hard, while they were both fully clothed.

Yup, lots of correct sexual knowledge there and a detailed working of human pregancy and causes thereof.

Liberals do not want to see 12 or 13 year olds having sex, if anything, I'd say it's more along the lines of being too damned cynical and pregmatic. If they are going to do it, they will, and they will creativly create any excuse or get out of jail free card in their minds to allow them to do so without the fear of pregnancy.

I'd much rather teach them as much as I can so they don't have these silly ideas in their heads and they know how to protect themselves. I look at it like teaching kids how to drive, you (hopefully) teach them skills that they will (hopefully) never need. You tell them how to avoid needing to use these skills, but you teach them so that just in case, they know what to do.

One abortion is too many in my mind, but until we can find a way to prevent pregnancy that works 100% of the time, and is in tune with reality (no, abstence is not), we will have it with us and I refuse to take it away.

Ok, I lied. I came back anyways. This is because of a thought that occured to me.

I am quoting you because my idea adresses many of your points.

We seem to be on the topic of kids and abortion at the moment. Just today, I was talking to my cousin (who happens to be teaching a health class for a summer school program) and we preaty much came to the conclusion that teenager ignorance was not going away no matter what. Therefore, I have a different idea. Perhaps making abortion legal for someone under 18, if it is within a certain stage of the pregnancy. The kicker for this issue was the fact that, for someone that young, a pregnancy can be very unhealthy, both for the child and the mother. And obviously a teenager wouldn't be able to support a child in any practical manner. Granted, I don't think the girl should be able to get an abortion without consulting her parents/gardians.

As for women 18+, if they didn't get it by then, it's their own fault. For them, I stick with the cases of rape, woman's life in danger, poverty, or terminal disease.

So does this sound like a compromise that most people could get behind?

Just wanted to back this claim up:

since most abortions are for women who are already mothers, how many families would be financially stressed? how many careers put aside for another 5 years, how many babies put into inadequate daycare? how many families broken by the stress of having a baby with severe disabilities?

60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children. http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

This link is actually anti abortion but the statistics seem to be right.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp

You need help, god forbid you ever EVER have kids!

One! babies are now KNOWN! to be alive, and moving in the mothers womb, it was all over the news!, they jump around and even blink and such their thumbs!

Two! YOU! ARE A NARROW MINDED LOSER!

Three! Abortion should be illegal unless the baby is a result of rape, or the mother is in danger

Four! How the hell do you think you came to be?, Were you a parasite living inside a peice of meat named Mommy?

Five! You disgust me!

Soviet Haaregrad, You really anger me!

Hardly a constructive addition to the thread, my friend... since points 2 and five are PURE flame/flamebait material, and serve no other purpose.

Regarding your other points:

One: There is no debate about whether foetal CELLS are alive - the debate is whether a collection of cells, prior to formation of a coherent neural complex (normally) counts as being a 'human life'.

Three: It's somewhat hypocritical to denounce abortion as wrong, and then somehow imply that it is 'less wrong' in some instances... don't you think?

Four: Whether you like it or not, we ALL start as parasitical forms... we all leech chemicals from another human body, and rely entirely upon it for our every need.

How ironic asking “what’s wrong with you people” (implying that there IS something wrong and you want to know what it is) while condemning us for thinking someone else is wrong

Irony meter off the charts

Yeah, I do that all the time. I never notice how funny it sounds until I calm down and think about what I said. What I meant to say was, *voice becomes very high-pitched* "Will you--will you all please stop arguing because I would like to find out what other people's views on abortion are, not what their views on previous posts are." *plays with a pen nervously while avoiding eye-contact* "Please?" Better? Feel free to laugh about the irony. Thanks for pointing it out to me! :D

Ok, I lied. I came back anyways. This is because of a thought that occured to me.

I am quoting you because my idea adresses many of your points.

We seem to be on the topic of kids and abortion at the moment. Just today, I was talking to my cousin (who happens to be teaching a health class for a summer school program) and we preaty much came to the conclusion that teenager ignorance was not going away no matter what. Therefore, I have a different idea. Perhaps making abortion legal for someone under 18, if it is within a certain stage of the pregnancy. The kicker for this issue was the fact that, for someone that young, a pregnancy can be very unhealthy, both for the child and the mother. And obviously a teenager wouldn't be able to support a child in any practical manner. Granted, I don't think the girl should be able to get an abortion without consulting her parents/gardians.

As for women 18+, if they didn't get it by then, it's their own fault. For them, I stick with the cases of rape, woman's life in danger, poverty, or terminal disease.

So does this sound like a compromise that most people could get behind?

I don't entirely agree with you, but I do agree with part of it, although we differ on details.

I don't think a girl should EVER be allowed to carry to term before the age of, say, 15... regardless of her, or familial beliefs.

Other than that, I think it too dangerous to set age limits on elective abortion... since people 'age' differently - and pregnancy CAN be harmful, even fatal, to a female at ANY age.

So - since I doubt you would agree with my platform of AUTOMATIC abortion for the under 15's... I think I would have to oppose your entire proposal.