Abortion is murder, apparently.
It should be illegal, apparently.
If abortion is made completely illegal, it won't stop it from happening.
If women are desperate, they will do anything to get rid of the mass of tissue growing inside them.. drinking toxic liquids, using a hanger, going across country borders. We have to keep abortion, at least first trimester abortions, legal. If we do not, many more women will risk their lives.
Abortions are on a downward trend, anyway. Ever since 1990, the number of reported abortions has gone down. Do some research before you say that everyone is getting an abortion.
I'm not saying that abortion is a good method of birth control, that's the worst reason to get one. However, some women are very unprepared to raise a child. They have no health insurance, no home, no family. Tell me what is better.. a sick baby born on the streets or an abortion.
God condemns abortions indirectly because it' murder.
Ok... well, I personally believe that a small mass of tissue isn't quite a human being, but I'll grant you this one for argument's sake. If an embryo is a human baby, what about all the millions of frozen embryos that Bush throws away every year? Rather than using them for stem cell research, because of the sanctity of life, he ok's them to be thrown out. That's not murder. God's ok with it. WHAT?
They should just put their baby up for adoption.
Ok, I've already brought up the lack of health care issue. Many young mothers-to-be are without adequate pre-natal care. So, their baby will not have access to proper medical treatment, and may be born with many defects. That's ok, surely someone will pick them. Wrong. How many children are waiting to be adopted in the US? How many more are waiting to be adopted in the world at large? Unless you're willing to take these young women's children, you can't tell me they should put them up for adoption- where there's no guarantee their lives would be any better than staying with their mothers.
Speaking of an abundance of parentless children, there are hundreds of thousands of gay couples hoping to become parents, but that's a topic for another day.
If we were to give women better options for healthcare and a better starting point to raise their children, then we could talk about illegalizing abortion. For now, with the amazing social welfare programs we have... we can't expect women to want to bring their children into a world that has already abandoned them.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I see something vital in your argument, that in America's current moral state abortions would continue. You said, "they will do anything to get rid of the mass of tissue growing inside them", which I find disturbing on several fronts, as it shows America's predominant perception of child-baring, having removed from it the true substance of the matter: the creation of life.
It is rather disturbing to think that this miracle has become so commonplace, and that it seems to be taken so lightly. Thanks for your comment, it's written very eloquently.
Yes, it won't stop it from happening. But you can't seriously say that the rate of abortions performed won't decrease. With any new law there are always those who will follow it just because it's a law. And others who will re-think abortion since the government is not allowing it.
Those embryos are results of abortion. If abortion were illegal, those embryos would be gone. And you make it sound different than what is actually factual. Bush doesn't just throw away babies. He allowed for current embryos to be used for stem cell research, but after a certain date, he won't allow for that. So yes, they will have to be discarded.
Do you realize that many years the number of babies waiting to be adopted in the U.S. is the same size, if not smaller than the amount of abortions?
Of course the number of reported abortions would go down. However, illegal abortions would kill the mother and the baby, perhaps even others involved. Keeping it legal would at least provide safer options.
I wasn't talking about embryos from abortions, I have no idea if they use those, but I'd imagine they couldn't. I was talking about embryos made from assisted reproduction. They're still embryos, however, I was commenting on the hypocrisy in policy.
And, although the number of abortions may be greater than the number of children waiting for adoption, that doesn't change the fact that entirely too many kids are forced into a system that can't adequately provide for them.
I agree with you jb356. People don't understand the situation until they have been in it. Well, I have been in it. Its not a good feeling at all but I knew that at the time, it was the right decision. I wouldn't do it again, as you said it's not a form of birth control. But you know, I was on birth control. But as you and everyone else know, NOTHING is 100% effective and I am proof to that. Before you go through with the procedure, they explain all of your options to you. Adoption, keeping it for yourself, foster care, etc. It's a tough thing to go through but it needs to remain legal.
Abstinence is 100% effective. I'm not refering to your situation im just talking in general. I'm not judging you either.
I'm really glad all of your mothers were pro-life and decided to bring you into this world...but, let's talk about the statistics which are now being released about the trauma abortion has on would-be mothers...drug-abuse, suicide and mental illness?...and, please, don't try to justify it by saying they were that way before, because the stats show most of them were never beforehand...there's more to this debate than simply saying "Out of convenience, I 'had' to do it", because that doesn't fly when there's someone else's voice pro-life people are speaking up for, and that's the unborn...let me ask you a question, if your mother had decided "Out of convenience, I 'had' to do it", what would your desire had been for someone speaking out for you?...would you have wanted to be born?...where would you be now?...
If you justfiy abortion, at what point is it not legal? In other words, if you say I may have an abortion "at will" because of my circumstances, then my decision should not be restricted to the unborn, but to my born children as well. As ludicrous as this may sound, where is the line drawn and how is that line decided?
That's a rediculous argument. You're jumping from a clump of cells to a developed human being.
Until the mid-second or third trimestor, that's all the "being" is - a clump of developing cells. They're more of a parasite than anything, living in a perosn's body and taking their energy.
As for me being aborted? If I was going to grow up in a family of poverty, where I would starve to death and die, yes. Abort me, I don't want to grow up that way. Yes, there will always be mothers who abort as a birth control method, but most mothers aren't like that - it's a big decision, one that takes a lot of consideration.Mothers who do it for "convenience" methods wouldn't be good parents anyway, if they take their lifestyle (by that Imean the conveniences they have, the opportunities they have only when they don't have children, etc.) at a higher priority than their children, born or otherwise.
If you consider a clump of cells a human being, how do you justify, say, eating an egg? It's a clump of cells just as much as a fetus. How about scratching your skin? You're killing clumps of cells in the same manner. Where is THAT line drawn, eh?
The difference between born and unborn is obvious. We would never have legalized post-birth abortions, because that is considered murder under the law (it's now a baby).
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
My mother had an abortion before she had me, so I know what trauma may go through after having an abortion. Women are talked through alllll of the consequences of having an abortion, I've seen the information packet. And, like many other medical procedures and treatments, patients have to be willing to undergo certain side effects.
My aunt had several miscarriages, so we've had many discussions about how much she hurt because she couldn't have any children while all her friends were having multiple abortions.
Women generally have up to 6 months to decide. It's not like most women haven't thought about it one way or another before that. I think it's simple to draw the line... when the child comes out, you can't get rid of it.
I know of girls who have waited too long to try and get an abortion, and they've had to go through with the baby. I heard a judge say once if they're too stupid to get pregnant, they're too stupid to have an abortion. So, instead he wanted stupid moms. Awesome.
It is better to have stupid moms and living children then stupid women and dead children. And not all of the women will be mothers to their children since they can put them up for adoption
People need to stop focusing on abortion and start focusing on education. It's always about what should you do once you're already pregnant?... how about thinking about the consequences before you have sex!
Sure, the doctor tells you that the pill is 99% effective... great. I can take that chance, it's a small risk. But if you really took the time to think about it, the number is decieving. 99% effective means one out of every hundred DOES get pregnant every year. So if one million women are on the pill, TEN THOUSAND will get pregnant!!! ...They dont tell you that small detail. Women should use two types of birth control... like the pill AND condoms.
There are those women who just think 'it won't happen to me' and just risk it... probably teens who can't control their raging hormones, can't afford birth control, or won't get any for fear of parents finding out(and that one is scary, I know someone who chanced it many times because her mom would look through her drawer... but thats more of a parenting issue).
Some say condoms reduce the pleasure, so they refuse to use them. Well, it's not surprising since all we see in the media is sex sex and more sex... like its the most important thing in the world and you gotta have it.
Should we put pleasure before responsibility? If you get pregnant, you suddenly have a HUGE responsibility to make the right decision. Why put yourself through the agony? Is one night really worth all that? These thoughts need to be drilled into girls' minds so they are never faced with these agonizing decisions! Teens need to be bombarded with statistics... it CAN happen to you!
In my opinion, people shouldn't even have sex until they know they are able to support children. Being a woman myself, I don't even want to imagine the pain involved in killing the child growing inside you. Or the pain of having to give your child to somebody else because you can't support it. Or even the pain involved in keeping the child and knowing you can never provide all the things a child needs(like a father for instance). I think teens should be informed that, despite what the media and your hormones tell you, there are better things in life than sex.
It seems I have turned this into an essay, lol. But I felt the need to voice my opinion clearly :)
I completely agree, education always seems to be the answer!
Based off data from the only country that legalized abortion and then illegalized it, Poland, were abortion to be made illegal in this country, deaths from abortion would decrease. Yes, that's right, decrease.
In the year before Roe v. Wade, approximately 39 women died from illegal abortions. A bit fewer than 30 died from legal abortions. Bernard Nathanson, co-founded of NARAL, testified before the Supreme Court that over 10,000 women died from abortion per year. He later admitted this was a lie he and others in the pro-choice movement fabricated. Anytime you hear someone saying thousands died per year before Roe v. Wade because of abortion, either they are misinformed, lying, or talking about ancient history before the antibiotic, like when the majority children died before age 5.
And this mass of tissue you speak of? I am a mass of tissue, as are you. Abortion is legal in the U.S. for any reason up until the moment of birth. Is that child immediately after birth any less a mass of tissue than the child immediately before birth? Does some magical transfiguration happen? Of course not, that would be religion and mysticism, not science and fact. The fact is, that by the 9th week of pregnancy, at and after which most abortions occur, the unborn has fingers, fingernails, a beating heart, brain waves, nerves, and all the organs he/she'll ever have. He/she can kick and move around. This is no mere lump of tissue.
Some think only conservatives can be Pro-Life, but I assure you, there is, myself included, a substantial amount of Pro-Lifers who consider themselves otherwise. We think women deserve better than abortion, and violence is never a solution to a social problem. We are guided by medicine, and love for our fellow man.
I realize that we have statistics to go off of from places like Poland, and maybe this is sheer ignorance on my part, but I cannot believe that we could ever have an intelligent estimate on the numbers of illegal abortions in this country.
It doesn't surprise me that he made that statistic up, about the 10,000 women that died, I'm sure many officials have made up facts to sway people... you're not convincing me.
"Abortion is legal in the U.S. for any reason up until the moment of birth." What? I think you need to recheck the guidelines. Depending on where you live, abortions may, or may not, be availabe during only the 1st and maybe the 2nd trimester. Third trimester abortions are rare, and only if the mother's health is in danger.
and, I would never say that only conservatives can be Pro-Life... I know many people who are pro-Life, and otherwise more socially liberal. Believe it or not, I am anti-abortion. I think it would be wonderful if we could get rid of abortions. However, with our health and social programs in the state they are, I realize that having a baby is simply not the responsible option for many girls and women. Increase education, increase healthcare, increase opportunites for young women, and then I will you show you a world where we don't really need abortion.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect about the Poland data is that one year, Poland reinstituted legalized abortion to see if there really were tons of secret-back alley abortions going on. The result? Abortions increased from something like 300 legal abortions the previous year (life and health) to only a little over 1,000. This from a country, mind you, that when it was under Communist rule had as much as 100,000 abortions per year.
The reason I mentioned the 10,000 number was because a poster here was erroneously saying that thousands were dying before Roe v. Wade. That's just false. Yes, many people have lied about many things over the years. However, that does not excuse someone here to do it, nor does it deny me the ability to call them on it. And I don't even think the person here was lying, just lied to. Sadly, many on the Pro-Choice side are lied to, about a great many things.
Consider:
"Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy." Report, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on Senate Joint Resolution 3, 98th Congress, 98-149, June 7, 1983, p. 6
In the United States, abortion is legal up until the moment of birth for any reason. That is because the Supreme Court made it so, in Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton, which was released on the same day. There is much confusion about this, because the Court in Roe said that abortions can be restricted in the 3rd trimester with the exceptions of life and health of the mother. The trickery came in Doe v. Bolton when they defined health as meaning mental, emotional, etc. Basically, there is absolutely no reason that could not qualify as health. That's why the Senate committee found as it did. Talk to any legal scholar on it, and they'll tell you what I'm telling you: abortion is legal on demand through the U.S. for any conceivable reason.
Heck, even banning a particular type of abortion, partial-birth abortion, was deemed unconstitutional by the Court in 2000. This wasn't even banning late term abortions, just a specific procedure.
I find it really hard to believe your sources, considering they're 20+ years old. I'll keep them in mind though, and do more research.
Thanks for your response.
Thanks, that's all I can really ask for, I suppose. Many in the U.S. are massively ignorant about the law behind abortion, and that is not happenstance.
The only law passed in the U.S. that prohibits abortions at a stage (ignoring the partial-birth abortion bans which just prohibit a specific type of procedure) was passed in South Dakota a few months ago. And it's quite unconstitutional according to the current majority on the court. This is the only serious prohibitory law passed since Roe v. Wade, and since the findings of the Judiciary Committee. Other laws have been passed that require parental notification, ban funding, husband notification, 24 hour waiting period, etc., basically things that might reduce abortion, but don't actually restrict it.
Basically, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the issue of abortion would go back to the states for them to decide.
I think you're partly right.. many are massively ignorant about most laws behind anything.
However, I have to disagree with you in one area, aren't abortion restrictions already heavily decided on the state level? I mean, as you said South Dakota has already illegalized abortion, and groups like the Christian Right seem to be working on grass-roots levels rather than trying to take on federal courts.
Yes, they passed the law, but it was contested immediately.
Under current constitutional law, states have nearly zero capacity to do anything about abortion, and they certainly have zero capacity to restrict any. The most they could do is to illegalize abortion post viability with exceptions for the mother's life and health. But, I already showed, Doe v. Bolton defined health so broadly as to make any restriction meaningless. It was in this context that the Senate Judiciary Committee found as it did.
I would remind you that not all Pro-Life groups or people belong to the Christian right. I certainly do not. While I am Christian, I disagree with many of their ideas, mainly concerning homosexuals and prayer in schools.
Pro-Life groups and Pro-Choice groups are working at the grass-roots level mainly to build up support for work on the federal courts. The Supreme Court is mainly where this is all fought now, and has been so for over 30 years. Roe v. Wade took away the decision of abortion from the American people, and instilled a radical ideology and law onto the American people that made abortion for any reason at any time a fundamental right of women. Very few are the countries in the world that have as 'liberal' (although I would say it is anything but) abortion laws as we do. Most European countries, for instance, such as England, France, and Germany have much more 'conservative' abortion laws than we do. Apparently, they must be all patriarchal bigots.
I would say it is rather unhealthy for something as important as abortion to be basically decided by 9 people on the Supreme Court. It bogs down the court when it should be tackling other issues, and skews many voters. I would prefer it be left up to the legislatures, to the people. To Pro-Choice groups, that is their worst nightmare. Mainly because they know that most people don't believe in abortion for any reason at any time. Fortunately for them, most people also support Roe v. Wade, mainly because they have no clue what it means.
I basically vote Republican solely because of this issue, and long for the day in which I won't have to.
The government is now trying to perseive any woman at child nearing age as "pree-preganant" so as to make sure she stays healthy and well enough to have a baby should anything happen. Now this is disturbing because of the fact that the government is more concerned about the baby yet to come, and is pushing to has doctors support this view. Why would they want to do this? they should be more concerned about the person, not a possibility. I support abortion becuase of the fact that its the ladies right to do what she wants, and frankly the small underdeveloped child has no say. Having an unwanted child can seriously mess up both of the lives involved in some cases, so stopping this is the only right thing to do. You cant just cant veiw abortion on moral grounds. Im not saying to have no moral views about it, but when your making a decision about everyone involved, your views do not and should not reflect the views of the group on a whole. aach, ive said enough
You've completely missed the point of the abortion debate. If a mass of tissue is a human being, what right do you have to deny life just because you consider its circumstances poor? This debate has been spun as a debate over women's rights when it's not and by labeling that one side automatically receives the whole momentum behind the women's rights movement. It is an issue of life. When does life start? Who has the right to end life? Blah blah. We've been over those questions for decades and it is practically impossible to seperate them from some sort of spiritual morality. Maybe it's easier and more comfortable to view abortion as a womens rights issue. 'Do women deserve rights? Yes, probelm solved.'
It's just not that simple.
and to add
perhaps if we instilled worthy values in the young women of this generation instead of allowing our music and our media to convince them they are purely physical beings or even took measured to strengthen the family unit....the majority of unwanted pregnancies occur with women who do not have a strong family background--absence of fathers, substance abuse etc etc
who would get killed wihtout abortiation. i am sure ot would be easier just to put tehbaby up for adobtion and let a deserving fmaily get it
Melissa, do you have spell check on your computer? Every post I have read from you looks as though a four year old typed it.
Here is a question I pose to all of you pro lifers-If the pregnancy puts the life of the mother at high risk, do you permit an abortion?
I want to hear your answers and then pose a follow up question in terms of your answers...
I, myself do not permit an abortion. Sometimes the mother can still live. If she doesn't, that's just God's will.
Though if abortion ever does become legal in the U.S, I understand that there would probably be exceptions for cases like this.
..."If abortion ever does become legal in the US".
I hate to be the one to tell you this but uh...abortion IS legal in the US.
Ok so, you can "understand". Many people outside of PPM who are pro life agree "when the mother's life is in danger it is ok to abort the pregnancy".
Many pro lifers, I'm not saying all.
And to those people, I present this question: why do the rights of the woman take a higher ranking than the rights of the fetus only SOMETIMES? Why is it not ok to let the woman have the "right" to abort a pregnancy if she decides she can't handle a child at that point, but when the mother's life is in danger, suddenly the fetus is stripped of the rights you believe it has? How do you determine when the mother's rights outweigh the fetus' rights?
gogood question! I'm anxious to see answers.
I meant to write illegal.
Because it's socompletely different. If you're allowing the woman her rights, she lives and the child dies. If you're allowing the fetus its rights, the the woman still lives, and so does the fetus. I've mentioned this before, but when the woman's rights are higher ranking, then a death occurs. Yet when the fetus' rights are higher, neither parties die. Giving the fetus rights doesn't take away nearly as many rights of the mother as giving the mother rights so she can kill her baby.
I don't really think you answered the question... you just gave an either/or... you've said the fetus' rights outweigh the mother's, but you've also said that if the mother's life is in danger, she should abort the pregnancy. It's just pretty fuzzy, when does it become ok to override the fetus' right to live?
No I do not believe the mother should ever have an abortion in any circumstance. I said before that I understand why a law that makes abortion illegal would still allow it if the mother's life is in danger. Saying I understand does not mean that I agree with that. I absolutely do not.
Exactly, you didn't answer it correctly.
WHY is ok to give the mother the right to live but not the fetus (in the case where the mother's life was at high risk bc of the pregnancy) THEN, but never again? The woman's life only "means more" than the fetus' when the woman is in danger? How come it's ok to make the exception SOME times? Why don't you choose to let the MOTHER die and let the fetus live? Why are you so quick to give the woman more rights than the fetus when it's the mother's life at risk? You say the fetus should have rights equal to that of it's mother, correct? Well, then, why in many pro lifer's views is it ok to abort a pregnancy when the mother's life is at high risk? Why not let nature take it's course? Why not let God do his will? Why "murder" one to save another? In your eyes, isn't all life equal?
That's my beef with pro lifers. You want to give the mother all her rights of living over the fetus' when it's life or death for the mother. You have no problem "murdering" the "potential to be a human" when it's your daughter's life on the line. But who gives YOU the right to choose who lives and dies? How come it's only ok SOMETIMES? How come you can ignore the fetus' rights SOMETIMES? How come you admit the mother's life holds more weight than the fetus' only SOMETIMES?
Trust me, I 150% believe abortion should always be an option for women. Not as a means of birth control, but as an option. I understand that not everyone's situation is the same, and sometimes shit happens. You can't predict what will happen, you can't predict how you will react 100% of the time.
So if your mother was pregnant, and the doctor told her if she didn't have an abortion she would probably hemorrage and die (i don't know, use your imagination) you would want your mother to die?
I know what you're going to say, so I'm not expecting a good argument back bc you're uber religious, but still point being, a lot of Pro Lifers outside of PPM tend to believe the woman should be allowed an abortion if her life is at risk...i find it ironic.
Would I want my mother to die? Of course not. Would I want my brother or sister to die? No. So how do you choose? Well, I would let it come down to God's will. You said my mother would "probably" die. That's usually not 100% certain. Maybe God will bless her so that both can survive. If not, that's just what God wanted. We should not just kill the baby, hoping that everything will be ok. Because killing is not a good solution.
Well that's your choice to put your faith in God. Not everyone does that.
"Killing the baby". A lot of people don't see it as killing a baby. They see it as removing a fetus, removing a sack of cells. Some people don't see it as personally as you do.
Also, maybe I'm totally wrong, but if your mother came to you and said "hunny, the doctor said if I don't abort the pregnancy, I'm going to probably bleed to death during labor...I'm going to have the proceedure" you wouldn't be like NO MOM I WANT YOU TO HAVE THIS BABY AND LET GOD'S WILL MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION THIS ISN'T YOUR DECISION LET IT PLAY OUT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO TAKE THE CHANCE THAT YOU MIGHT DIE, HAVE FAITH IN GOD AND IF YOU DIE, THAT'S WHAT GOD WANTS. I just can't fathom anyone being that blatently unconcerned for their own flesh and blood, especially the one who raised you. Personally, I don't know you, but I really believe that it would be a lot different than you imagine it would be.
Also, you are so big on following God's will. Well, do you take medicine when you are sick? Would you go to the hospital if you broke your leg? Would you have a tumor removed if it was on your breast? Chances are either you do or you would (though, knowing you, you'll probably say no no no just to argue me out). Why is that ok? Why is it ok to not rely on God's will to work out the sitatuion? Why is it not ok to expect God to cure yur cancer and to wait it out? Why is it when you are sick or dying elsewise it would be ok to go against God's will, but when it comes to my life being jeopardized due to a pregnancy , I shouldn't be allowed to "god against God's will" and save my own life? Why, because a tumor isn't a baby? But at the very heart of your argument, isn't having cancer God's will? Didnt God give it to you for a reason? Aren't you defying what God did in order to save your own life? God gave you cancer, God makes you pregnanct. If you get the tumor removed, or you get the fetus removed, it's going against what God had planned for you. It's medically and scientifically going against God's will. So promise me, PPM, that next time you get sick, you won't take cough medicine. That if you ever have ovarian cancer, breast cancer, etc, you will let that cancer grow inside you and not get treatment for it because God's will will provail, just have faith in God. Promise me that if you ever break your arm, or your leg, you will not step foot into a hospital, or put it in a cast, but rather you will let God choose whether or not to fix your arm. You will let God's will prevail. You will not interfere at all.
Sometimes you can't put all your faith in God. Sometimes you have to put faith in your own choices and decisions for your own life. If you spent your entire life letting God make your choices for you, you'd probably have been dead a really long time ago.
"I just can't fathom anyone being that blatently unconcerned for their own flesh and blood,"
-It's not a matter of being unconcerned. I can be concerned and still not want my mother to have the abortion. Of course I would be tremendously upset, but I would never ask my mom to have an abortion just so she can live. Especially when it's never certain that she'll die at all.
Why is that ok? Because it's different than creating or ending life. What is wrong it the blatan killing of people. Or creating people with the new technologies. Those things are up to God. But if we just take medicine to help us get better when we're sick, that's just helping us to be healthy. Most medicines are derived from Amazonian plants that God created. He created them with the ability to cure diseases and help people become healthier.
Yep, haivng Cancer is God's will. But if you survive and beat cancer, that's also His will. You aren't out and out killing anything or creating anything. It's so much different from abortion where you'r killing God's precious creation.
"God created the amazonian plants to help cure people and make them healthier"
On what grounds do you say that? I can just as quickly turn around and say "God created abortion in order to help women who aren't ready to have a baby"...what, because you "believe in God" it gives you more authority on how he works?
You might not encourage your mother to get an abortion, but something tells me if she made the decision based on fear for her life, you wouldn't give her the same speeches you give to me. Maybe you would consider the fact that she is concerned for her daughter and son (I thought I recalled you saying you had a brother in a previous post, but if I'm wrong I'm sorry), the idea of them living without their mother AND having to raise an infant alone, maybe your mother is worried about that, and not just her own life...women make the choice to have an abortion for a millon reasons, some which you and I might not understand right now being too young. It's not just "they want to kill their baby". I hate that, first off, no one wants to kill babies. Second, some women just have to do what they have to do. Third, some women don't see what's growing inside them as "babies" yet. Some people just have different points of views on when life begins and I think it's unfair for pro lifers to push their opinion on when it begins on the rest of society. I for one do not see anything that cannot sustain life outside of my body as "it's own person" yet. I just don't. So who should have the right to tell me I'm wrong? Why should someone else be able to say it starts at conception? Why can't I feel differently, and make my choice based on my belief? If you've formed an opinion, why can't I?
"On what grounds do you say that? I can just as quickly turn around and say "God created abortion in order to help women who aren't ready to have a baby"...what, because you "believe in God" it gives you more authority on how he works?"
-You can't seriously correlate those two things. Abortion is nothing like a naturally occurring plant that has natural healing properties. Abortion is just the killing of something. It isn't a plant that grows out of the ground and was created directly by God.
"Second, some women just have to do what they have to do."
-For most of the women who do get abortions, it's not a personal life and death issues. It's about selfishness. Yes, some women get abortions for more "valid" reasons than others, but most have them because they just don't want a child, or for financial reasons.
Many aborted babies can sustain life if they were given a chance to outside of the mother's body.
It's not different-you made the assumption that those plants were created by God with the extreme function of healing and curing people.
I don't believe in your religion. I don't believe in the God you do. So to assume a plant is the result of God wanting to help heal us, is equivilant to consider God creating mansoons, tornados, earthquakes and hurricanes to kill us. I think the plant existed to hel sustain an ecosystem of which it thrived in. Not because God wanted us to find it and use it for medical purposes.
Many aborted babies can sustain life, well, many can't. I hate that people call women who have abortions selfish. Just because they don't want to destroy their entire lives, they are selfish. SOME WOMEN JUST AREN'T READY! it's not a hard concept! A woman protecting her own life isn't selfish, it's smart. Where in any contract did a woman ever sign of behalf of the rest of the female population of the world that we should automatically give up our own lives in order to sustain another's?
"So to assume a plant is the result of God wanting to help heal us, is equivilant to consider God creating mansoons, tornados, earthquakes and hurricanes to kill us. "
-And if that is the equivalent? I'm not disagreeing with that. The point is that it's a creation of God, even if God didn't necessarily place it there for us to find so it could heal us. Did God place abortion into our hands? No. It is a completely different thing.
Destroy their entire lives? Wow, I didn't know a baby was that horrible. Many young mothers who have babies realize it's the best thing that ever happened to them...even if it was a mistake. I doubt that most women who have babies would really say it destroyed their entire lives. That's a stretch. And there's still adoption as a viable solution.
If they aren't ready, DON'T HAVE SEX!!!! That isn't a hard concept either. Protecting her own life??? Having the baby will kill her? Usually that is not the case.
We aren't giving up our own lives. We're still healthy. It would be different if having a baby meant that you died. That's just not the reality of the situation. And as I said before, adoption is a solution.
Abortion is a solution as well. And that's what it comes down to. Having the right to choose.
And yes, to some people, having a baby is that horrible. Life is not happy happy unicorns and fluff. Some people don't or can't handle a pregnancy or child at sepcific times in their lives. It happens. However, in this day and age, with the birth control pill and other effective forms of BC, I like to think those who do have sex are generally smart about it, and use caution to prevent having to have an abortion. I don't WANT one, but if I had to have one, I would have no problem stepping into that clinic as soon as I could to have it done. I'm 20. I'm not ready to be a mother or have those changes in my body. I have a life to continue living, which though you may say is selfish, I consider more important than a life that was never meant to be here in the first place. If i had never gotten pregnant, would it be murder or a life wasted because I didn't create it?
Abortion will never be illegal. It's too much of a neccessity and people around the country would be up in arms...it will never be illegal throughout the nation, and even if by some crazy reason it did become illegal, it would still go on, whether out of the country or underground.
Yes, I would say that's selfish. You could go through the 9 months of bodily changes and then put your child up for adoption.
No because there was nothing inside of you that was a human yet. Just an egg...but that can never become a human without fertilization.
Well I choose to be selfish and salvage my own life, thanks. And I appreciate the fact that I have the choice to do so.
You make it sound like having a child would literally end your life. But it wouldn't. If you chose adoption, it would only happen for 9 months and then you would be back to your normal life.
Well maybe more states will follow South Dakota's lead and prohibit your right to murder.
Oh don't even tell me what would and would not ruin my life. Having a child, would ruin my life PPM. I would have to take a year off school, I would have to stop modeling, I would have to give up law school, I would have to live at home, I would have to deal with the depression of watching my body change grotesquely, and then I would have to spend the rest of my life worrying that some child will show up on my doorstep some years later looking for mommy. My life would be ruined. Because unlike you, I don't sit around and just take what "God" throws at me. I deal with it and I make it work in my own life. So please, don't presume to tell me how my life goes. You are so fucking young and naive it's disgusting that you would even make such a rude comment.
Maybe the US will wise up and only give freedom of speech rights to people who don't use religion as their sole backup to arguments. Otherwise known as "intelligent" people.
Not everyone who has a child takes school off. There are models who have had children. You can't say that it would ruin your life because you don't know that. But since you feel that way, I guess you should never have sex because pregnancy is a consequence of sex.
Don't curse. It makes you sound uneducated and rude. I don't need to swear in order to get my points across.
I type how I normally speak in comfortable situations. A lot of things you say also make you sound uneducated, I don't ask you to refrain from saying them.
Trust me, look-you can't tell someone else how their life will be. I know my life, I know my feelings and I know what would happen in a case like that in terms of the basics. 22 year old abercrombie models dont have babies. I wouldnt be able to support a child 250 miles away at school my myself. A baby would ruin my life right now. It just would. Regardless of whether or not you think it would, it would. Because I'm not you, and neither is every other person in the world. Some people make different choices because they k now their lives better than you do.
But if you really believe it would ruin your life that much, you should just abstain from sex and then it wouldn't even matter if abortion was illegal or not.
I don't have to abstain from sex, I am on the pill, and I consider it safe and effective. You can't just tell everyone who doesn't want a baby to abstain from sex, you're basically telling an entire nation to stop what they are doing. It doesn't work. It shouldn't have to be a choice "no sex or a baby". We live in a very advanced world where that's not the choice anymore.
I think advocating for safe methods of sex, for checkups at the gyno yearly, sex education and birth control would help lessen the NEED for abortions, quite personally.
I don't agree with contraception either, but let's not get into that because I know that argument is purely religious.
But if you're on birth control, you still have to know that a baby is a possibility. And if that pregnancy does happen, you need to be ready for it. If you're not ready for it, then no, you should not be having sex.
If you have AIDS, you should abstain from sex. You may not like that, but that's what usually is done so the virus isn't spread. If you're dead set against having a child, the same thing needs to happen: you need to abstain because even on the pill, there is still the slight chance that you will conceive.
THANK YOU! Thank you thank you thank you for saying "i know that argument is purely religious". Good lord, it makes me think maybe you might have a shot at argumentation that doesn't regard religion. It makes me happy, it's a step up in our relationship ppm :).
I see what you're saying, however, you can say that "if you're not ready to be paralyzed, you shouldn't drive a care because it can happen". But, there are means to make it so you don't become paralyzed in an accident. Honestly, it's difficult to get preggers on the pill. And condoms are effective, no where near the pill, but if it helps, go for it. I think that sex is no longer just for procreation these days, and we are learning how to prevent the tremendous consequences, and I think BC is the first step in being safe and responsibly enjoying sex.
Saying that if a mother that can't afford to have a child tries to have a child it will have birth defects and won't be adopted is simply false.
If a mother wanted to use adoption as a method it would take her about five seconds on a search engine to discover that there are many programs that provide health care and a place to live for women who are pregnant and want to give thier child up for adoption.
Abortions aren't free...the money to pay for that has to come from somewhere.
There are government programs like WIC that provide food for pregnant women.
Having an abortion because you can't "afford to be pregnant" is simply not a justifiable excuse.
It does matter if it is legal or not, regardless of what you, or anyone thinks. People like to have sex. They will. They will get pregnant (on accident! No one uses abortion as birth control, it is much too expensive. So, these people will get rid of their babies by being safe and helping the economy, or by hurting themselves or getting it done illegally.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/monsters (stop on by!)
This has gotten a lot of comments...
I just wanted to say that I agree that women will get them even if it is illegal. It is better to just make them legal to ensure most women can get them done properly.
With every law, there will always be some people who break it. Does that mean that the law should not even be enforced at all? No. Murder is illegal. But some people will still commit murders. So does that mean we shouldn't make it illegal because then people who are murderers wouldn't try to hard ti hide it? Of course not. Should drug use be legal so at least we know who's buying drugs? No. The same goes for abortion.
You have a lot of good points here, jb356. But the main premise of this is flawed - the title itself is false.
Think of it this way:
Laws cannot stop all rape—should we legalize rape? The fact is that laws against abortion, like laws against rape, drastically reduce its occurrence. Prior to Roe v. Wade (1973), there were at most 210,000 illegal abortions per year while more conservative estimates suggest an average of 89,000 per year. Within seven years of legalization, abortion totals jumped to over 1.5 million annually! True, no law can stop ALL illegal behavior, but that’s not the point. At issue is the status of the unborn: Are they human beings? If so, we should legally protect them the way we would any other group that is unjustly harmed.
See my blog ( http://progressiveu.org/190000-todays-holocaust ) for my arguement on why the unborn ARE human beings. Or rather, on why they can't NOT be human beings. I don't wish to go into much more right here, because I have already dedicated much time & space to laying out this argument and defending it in my blog post.
~Just Me