Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
The Great Abortion Debate (Page 2)
Anonymous
(30-35) 
Ask to an AI Persona
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
36Opinion
There shouldn't even be a debate.
A person's choice to do what they feel is right regarding their body and their baby is theirs and theirs alone.
It has nothing to do with anyone else and people need to start minding their own business.
I'm sure these same people who are so quick to voice their judgmental opinion wouldn't appreciate having their personal lives "debated"
It needs to stop being everyone else's business
There is a problem with minding my own business when I as a tax paying citizen have to pay for your abortion through the taxes from government. I care if my money is spent well or wasted.
Not only do I agree with @Splintercell, but I also find your argument incredibly flawed. Does your body belong to your parents? Do they own you, and as such have the right to do what they'd like to you because they own your body? No. When you were a fetus, your body was your own. Just because there is something living and growing inside of you does NOT mean it is part of your body. If a woman wants to do something to her body, let her. Not my problem. But if you use that same argument to defend abortion, I will retaliate with fact. You and every other person alive will not want to say their bodies are owned by their parents or by anyone else. As the saying today goes, "your body is your own". So, why should YOU have the right to dictate what happens to someone else's body? In this case, 'someone else' the body, the baby, you murder through abortion. It's murder because you are killing the combined product of egg and sperm cells, both of which are alive and never cease being so.
And, additionally, to say that an unborn fetus is part of your body is like saying a parasite, such as a tape worm or other creature, is part of your body when it attaches itself to you. We treat parasites as separate creatures, even when they exist within our bodies. Why is a baby any different?
@Splintercell
There is a problem with minding my own business when I as a tax paying citizen have to pay for wars conservatives want through the taxes from government.
These wars are way deadlier and more cruel.
@Splintercell Abortions are paid out of pocket and are not tax-funded, you daft twat. Even at PP women pay hundreds for an abortion procedure.
@LittleFinch so a fetus is like a parasite? I'm afraid that comparison isn't helping your argument.
@cpzpbx3
No, you fail to comprehend my entire argument. I am NOT saying a fetus is a parasite, you "daft twat". I used it as an example. If you had a parasite inside of you, you would not call it part of your body because, although it IS inside you, it is not part of you. You are not one with the parasite. A baby, a fetus, is inside of you. However, it is NOT part of you. I am not comparing a baby to a parasite. I am simply saying that the same rule of judgement applies. There is no comparison. Like a parasite inside your body is NOT PART OF YOU, a baby, LIKEWISE, is NOT PART OF YOU simply because it RESIDES INSIDE OF YOU. See? No comparison, only use of the same principle.
Furthermore, my argument is that since, SIMILAR TO A PARASITE, a baby is NOT part of you though it IS INSIDE YOU, a mother-or should I say woman, because a mother would not under any circumstance kill her child- a woman should not have the right to to abortion because it's "her body her choice".
The child inside you is NOT YOUR BODY. It is its own SEPARATE BODY. Why should YOU, simply because you are carrying this second body, have the right to determine its fate?
Simple answer: you shouldn't.
@LittleFinch I understood your argument, I was just telling you that particular comparison tends to be inflammatory when used in another context. Like a parasite, a fetus is also relying solely on your body to survive. So, abortion is a bit more like taking someone off life support than it is murder--that is, if you absolutely must compare an embryo to a sentient person.
All that aside, a fetus having separate DNA is irrelevant to the fact that it is not self-aware, cannot feel pain, and must siphon nutrients from the body of the mother in order to continue its existence and move closer to full development.
@cpzpbx3 I must view an unborn child as a sentient person, considering that their heart begins beating 18 days after conception. Additionally, there is research to suffice as evidence that a a fetus can feel pain from 20 weeks onward, with some studies suggesting the ability to feel a precursor to pain even before this mark (as cited from websites such as Fact Check, DoctorsonFetalPain), though most of the sources I've looked into suggest primarily from 20-25 weeks on.
Regardless, my primary argument was that a woman should not have a say regarding her child's life because of the belief that she can do to her body whatever she so chooses. My argument is that because a baby is not part of a woman's body, such as argument is invalid.
I can argue the topic of abortion for days, and why I am against it and view it as morally and humanely wrong. However, my primary argument, which was as stated above, regarded primarily a woman's right to abortion based on her right to her own body.
@LittleFinch If you believe that an embryo is sentient 18 weeks post-conception, then you clearly don't know what the word sentient actually means. An embryo does not know it exists, because it lacks the capacity for complex thought. A heartbeat is not enough to fuel self-awareness.
For the record, I firmly believe that an abortion should be performed well before 20 weeks. Fortunately, a vast majority are. I don't believe abortion is a "right" as much as it is something that is necessary in society. That doesn't mean I like it. It also doesn't mean that I think women should abuse it... but there are a lot of things people do that I disagree with, and it needs to exist regardless how I feel about individual circumstances.
@LittleFinch I meant to say 18 days, but 18 weeks also works in that context.
@cpzpbx3 Look, I think it's safe to say we are never going to agree on this topic. You have you view on the issue, and I'll have mine. My own beliefs are that a human being's life begins at conception, that no one has the right to end that life, and that to purposely end that life through abortion is murder. You believe differently, and have a right to retain that opinion, as I have rights to my own.
@LittleFinch that's fine for you to keep your opinion. No one should expect you not to. But the fact remains that a fetus is not sentient from conception, or even through most of pregnancy. It lacks the capability to be.
Yes, this is complicated and I do not see the two sides ever agreeing, as you said they have completely different world-views.
One sides disregards the scientific fact an unborn child is a separate human being, although it its early stage of development - they claim it not the be a human (the DNA shows otherwise).
The pro-life crowd is often religious nut-cases, using the bible or a very conservative view (often also pro war and whatnot).
Facts have almost no influence in peoples opinion on pro life or pro choice, it's all based on selfish needs and emotional based ideology.
The simply facts are, it's independent human beings it is early stage and dependant on the time may or may not without a functional brain and pain perception. It's also a fact, free abortion is in everybody interest (except the children of course), it's cheaper for the taxpayers, it good for both the parents etc..
I've never heard anyone say that an embryo or a fetus isn't human... The argument is that they are not sentient or self-aware, and that they do not possess the same bodily autonomy that a person outside the womb does. Saying that pro-choicers deny a fetus is "human" is drastically oversimplifying the argument.
@cpzpbx3 I do not think he was saying all pro-choicers deny it, some do however, and being self-aware is not something we otherwise uses as an argument for arbitrary killing of humans.
Mentality ill or retarded people can sometime be said to lack self-awareness or be non sentient, yet it's still illegal to kill them - it was done early to mid last century though, in some scale.
@smølf mentally ill and retarded people do not lack sentience or self-awareness. A tree lacks sentience. A brain dead (like a machine is breathing for them brain dead) person lacks sentience. Anyone who responds to stimuli on a non-reflexive basis is sentient. An embryo doesn't know and has never known of its existence, because it lacks the capacity to think and feel altogether.
@cpzpbx3 "Anyone who responds to stimuli on a non-reflexive basis is sentient." those fetus are killed all the time, despite respond to stimuli on a non-reflexive basis. So again abortion is killing even by your definition.
In any case, the point was clearly made, and I agree, free abortion is legal because it's in everybody interest - except for the victim of course, but the victim can't vote, so who cares right.
@smølf again, do you know what reflexive means? Responses to stimuli occur on different levels. A fetus does not have the capability to become emotionally upset by something. After around week 18 to 20, it can respond to light and sound--but these are reflexes and the response does not occur with intent. You obviously are having a hard time understanding the difference.
For the record, I don't believe abortion should be occurring in week 20 or beyond, but as it stands now it usually doesn't. At least 98% of abortions occur in the first trimester (when responses to stimuli, reflexive or intentional, does not occur).
@cpzpbx3 Abortion are done till week 24 (however with restrictions), and you know nothing about the foetus emotional state or intent, since it is scientifically unknown at this point - it is your guess, nothing more or less.
If fact, even adults emotional state or intent, can be hard to scientifically quantify.
You obviously are having a hard time understanding the difference believes and scientifically known facts.
@smølf Emotions are largely controlled by neurotransmitters in the CNS. The CNS (and, subsequently, the receptors to which these neurotransmitters bind) is not developed to a functioning degree until well into the second trimester.
I also literally said I don't think abortions should be performed that late, though I am aware that occasionally they are. This does not alter the fact that a fetus is not sentient. It cannot be. Period.
@cpzpbx3 Human life is not defined by the ability to perceive or feel things, we don't kill people in coma despite this.
But even so, this would still prohibit abortion from week 18 (just to be safe), so there is a discrepancy between how abortion is practised and how people (pro choice) perceives it.
Point being, we may will never agree on this issues just like many other issues, however regardless of what believe about homosexual behaviour from a moral standpoint, I will always defend the homosexuals right to live as they pleases. Same goes with religious or political views I don't share.
Abortion is the only issues where I never will accepter free choice, for very reason it doesn't exclusively involves only the person who makes the choice - it involves others, the child the farther the grandparents etc..
Women have the choice to not get pregnant, but when they do, they should face the consequences of the choice they made, just like the father must - no difference.
The debate is pointless as it will become Illegal soonish anyway. Once a baby can survive outside the body with medical intervention abortion will be illegal and anyone who gets pregnant will be on the hook for those medical costs and the cost of the child.
It's not because religious folks outlaw abortion that it will cease to happen. It will happen on kitchen tables by moon lighting midwifes. Many more victims that way.
@jacquesvol What are you even talking about? My comment has nothing to do with religious folks making it illegal.
Also that shit about many more victims, yeah that's true, those midwives and pregnant women who choose to do an abortion like you say will go to jail for murdering children, which is a good thing, murderers have no place in society.
Are you anticipating that we will soon be able to support embryos with medical intervention all the way through their stages of development--outside the womb? Because as it stands now, most states have outlawed abortion past the age of viability anyway. Your point is moot.
@cpzpbx3 No that is exactly my point, you just parroted it back to me and told it was moot...
You said that abortion will "become illegal soonish" using the logic of viability... Viability has nothing to do with early-term abortion (which the majority of abortions performed are). So I guess I'm not sure what your point is. You seem confused.
@cpzpbx3 No I don't believe I'm confused.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
@cpzpbx3 Later, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but none of what you just said alludes to abortions prior to 22 weeks being outlawed in the near future. 22 weeks is the youngest fetus to ever survive outside the womb, so that's the youngest gestational age that can be considered viable.
@cpzpbx3 I am saying as technology improves it will eventually become viable at any stage. Not sure how to make this any more simple or easier for you to understand.
Eventually does not mean "soonish". The gestational age in which a fetus is able to survive outside the womb has really not progressed THAT much, even in the last twenty years. If you think that we will be able to grow a fertilized egg in a makeshift womb to term "soonish" then you clearly don't understand pregnancy OR prospective technological advancement.
@cpzpbx3 ahhh ok so your hung up on the term "soonish", man just say so next time and save us all a lot of time and energy! Seems to me your trying to predict the future and arguing with me about it because I apparently, by your assumptions, don't agree with you on your predictions. The problem is "soonish" is deliberatelly non specific and vague, it could be taken to mean just about anything, say 1 year, 5 years, 25 year, hell even 80 years is within 1 life time that is certainly "soonish" as well...
Another thing to consider is that it's not only earlier and earlier viability that is improving it's also longer and longer amount of time a fetus can survive without needing to be implanted into a womb.
Also tech is unpredictable, take quantum computing for example, they thought we were at least decades away from a viable one then a couple breakthroughs and bam! you have been able to buy them for years now.
I think your point is moot, your arguing about basically nothing.
Earlier viability and length of time able to survive outside the womb are basically the same thing... and you literally said the debate was pointless because of how soon it will be outlawed for instant viability at conception. The real reason the debate is pointless is that they are not going to outlaw it anytime soon or even "soonish" because it needs to exist.
Also, 80 years actually is a really long time. Roe v Wade was barely half that long ago.
@Jager66
In vitro fertilization is possible. Thus that logic of viability would
*-outlaw masturbation and
*-force girls to keep the egg they lose each month on their period.
Think about that.
@cpzpbx3 Barring something radical, because abortion is now a right, the situation is not going to change until technology advances enough for a fetus to be viable at the point of conception, then it will be illegal. This will happen in (place adjective time descriptor that makes you happy here). Therefore further debating the issue ad nauseum is pointless.
If this descriptor isn't exactly to the semantics that will make you happy please feel free to tweak it so that you can see we actually agree on the issue and that further argument is totally pointless.
@jacquesvol Dude, seriously? /facepalm
Sperm is not a fetus.
Egg's are not a fetus.
The law is about what happens AFTER sperm fertilizes egg.
@Jager66 a fertilized egg is not a baby. Only religion sees it as a 'soul'.
@jacquesvol "a fertilized egg is not a baby." Uh ya, no shit, in case you didn't notice we have been using colloquialism's here not scientific terminology. You're the only person talking about "souls".
@Jager66 I may be the only one using the word but here several mentioned religion and all over the world it's religious people thinking about life= soul.
(On another forum some guy even said that the soul is first created when both people think about having sex. (!)
@jacquesvol "(On another forum some guy even said that the soul is first created when both people think about having sex. (!)"
Just wow... lol, what do you even say to that? I hope that person is not a voter.
@jacquesvol someone actually said that? I hope they were trolling...
@cpzpbx3 The guy who said it is/was a Christian pretending to have Noahide beliefs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism
A woman's body is sovereign territory, i dont believe any person has a right to tell her what she can or cannot do with it. On a side note though, if a woman has a right to opt out of being a parent via abortion, then i think a man should have a right to opt out of being a parent as well. For example, signing a document that says: "This baby is being born without my consent, so i from this point forward am not responsible for this child either as a parent or for financial support."
abortion should be illegal in most instances. i think roe vs wade will never be overturned but i do think they will be a personhood act that would effectively make abortion illegal in most instances. i think it should be that way. if the pregnancy is going to kill the women then she needs a medical operation. if however she just doesn't want to be a mom well tough shit.
You really think it's a good idea to force women to have and raise babies they never wanted? That's not a recipe for child abuse and/or neglect at all, is it?
this isn't a debate. it's just people who are too stupid to have sound arguments and think every little thing is a checkbox and 1 size fits all. life doesn't work that way and neither do these "controversial" topics. once people figure out and get rid of all the "but this", "but that" and "what if this" bullshit, then people should be able to talk about this. but since people are stupid and not how things work... whatever
I don't even know why it's a debate. It was made legal by a Supreme Court Case.
It's not going anywhere anytime soon
It's her body so it's her monopoly... unless they try to make the Gov't (aka us) pay for it. Then it's not purely her business alone
I think if a woman wants to have an abortion, she should have the right to have one. If a woman thinks the baby should be able to live, then good for her. She should have her baby. However, that's not going to stop me from being %100 pro-choice.
Do you believe that a woman should be be able to abort her child outside of the womb?
@Homey14 In what world do people abort babies outside of the womb? That's called murder, not abortion.
I'm just trying to figure out the difference. If abortion ( which in this context would be to end a life prematurely and therefore would be synonymous with murder) outside the womb is murder, why is abortion inside the womb not?
@Homey14 You realize that a child outside of the womb has self-awareness and the ability to feel pain, right? If you truly and honestly don't understand the difference between an embryo at 8 weeks gestation, and a full-term fetus that is able to survive outside the womb, then you are not intelligent enough to be having this conversation.
@cpzpbx3 "You realize that a child outside of the womb has self-awareness and the ability to feel pain, right?" Yes madam. I'm also aware that the child inside the womb can feel pain as well yet you still seem to think it's alright to kill it.
"If you truly and honestly don't understand the difference between an embryo at 8 weeks gestation, and a full-term fetus that is able to survive outside the womb, then you are not intelligent enough to be having this conversation." I understand that we all start off as embryos and end up becoming fetuses. Unless we make it past that first stage we'll never make it to the next. If it's wrong to kill a baby when they're outside the womb, why is it alright to kill them when they're inside? Is it really just because they're at an earlier stage of development? IT'S THE SAME PERSON!!! You wouldn't be who you are now if you hadn't been given the chance to survive that first stage in your life.
@Homey14 a fetus cannot feel pain until around week 20--long after most abortions occur.
I also wouldn't be who I am now if my parents had gotten it on two days after they did, or in a different position that caused a different sperm to win the race. What's your point? Existence is fragile no matter how you slice it. But a fetus prior to 20 weeks cannot feel pain, is not self-aware, and cannot possibly know that it's "missing out" on its existence if it is aborted. It never knew it existed, period.
@cpzpbx3 That's the difference between you and I. I don't believe that one's awareness or whether or not they can feel pain dictates the value of their life. If one is killed while sleeping or unconscious, is that justified because they weren't in the moment self-aware?
There's a condition known as congenital analgesia where people literally can't feel pain. If you slap them, punch them, or break their leg they wouldn't feel it. Should someone be able to kill them because they can't feel pain?
"I also wouldn't be who I am now if my parents had gotten it on two days after they did, or in a different position that caused a different sperm to win the race." They didn't though and a different sperm didn't win the race, you did. At the point at which that element of you combined with the other (the egg) you came to be. There's a difference between the two cells by themselves which will be deposited out of the body and when they come together and attach to the mother for nourishment.
@Homey14 I'm not talking about "in the moment" self-awareness. You do not lose your sentience when you're sleeping. You are unconscious, and there actually is a difference. You still know you exist when you sleep.
You know what would make this a LOT simpler? If people only had sex when they want a child.
Yes there is still rape, however most abortions are not from rape.
Whenever I debated with people on this, and said "They shouldn't have had sex if they didn't want a kid!" They would always respond "its their right to have sex!" Sex=babies. Common sense, if you don't want a child, don't have sex. Its a fool proof birth control!
Let me know when you can control the sexual habits of millions of people.
Because when you can do that, a whole lot more than just the abortion issue will be solved.
@cpzpbx3 I can't, I just said that this would solve tmost of the problem.
And definitely way more
If all the raindrops were lemon drops and gumdrops... What's your point? Hypothetical solutions aren't real solutions. Obviously if people didn't have sex, they wouldn't get pregnant, and if they didn't get pregnant, they wouldn't need an abortion. Thanks for that revelation, professor, but it's not a real argument against abortion. Sorry.
@cpzpbx3 you must not have met some people. Some people I've talked with could not see that if you have sex, its your fault if you get pregnant.
I'm not disagreeing with that. People are idiots. But that's my point--if it were so easy to just make people understand how to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, somebody would have done it already. Abortion needs to exist because people who don't understand where babies come from probably shouldn't be raising them, anyway... Especially if they're ambivalent about having any to boot.
You can't make people smarter. You just can't. You'll make yourself crazy and miserable chasing this pie-in-the-sky idea that everyone should (or can) have the same understanding of cause and effect that you do. Never gonna happen.
@cpzpbx3 so because some people are immature we should let them kill a baby? That hardly seems fair...
Also... I really want pie now 0_0
No, that's not the logic at all.
Firstly, abortion does not "kill" a baby. Babies are sentient, self-aware, and can feel pain. Fetuses prior to 22 weeks are not and cannot. I've had four miscarriages. Not one of them could be compared to the death of a baby. Of course, I wanted to be pregnant and so I was devastated... but not nearly as devastated as I would be to lose one of my born children. It's different.
Secondly, there are hundreds of thousands of children awaiting adoption in this country as it is. You want to increase that number tenfold? That's not doing the born children any favors. Forcing stupid women who don't want babies to have them is a recipe for disaster no matter what. They either get crammed into the foster care system--prolonging the adoptions of even more kids--or they end up being raised by the moron who didn't want them in the first place.
No one likes abortion, but it quite simply needs to exist.
Also, I have a piece of chocolate satin pie I'm working on. XD
@cpzpbx3 well, I think I should respond to the most important answer you said, the one that makes the most impact on society. YOU ARE SO LUCKY!! GIVE ME YOUR PIE!!! XD
all unborn babies are actually even scientifically alive by the 13th week (that's when they have all the requirments to be living) so if something is alive and you make it not alive, isn't that pretty much what killing is?
I'm sorry about the miscarriages :(
I've actually met several people who love abortion (online, and I really do not think they were trolling 0_0)
Actually, until around week 22, a fetus lacks the capability to survive outside the womb, even with medical intervention. Before that time (the age of viability), aborting is more like taking a brain dead person off of life support than it is killing them. If we are intervening to keep something alive (the way a woman's body is during pregnancy), then removing that intervention is not the same as killing. It is allowing nature to take its course.
Also, even at week 13, response to stimuli is reflexive and not done with intent, so it does not indicate sentience. A fetus at that time is "alive" in much the same way that a plant is alive (plants also respond to stimuli).
And it's okay. They discovered I have an autoimmune disorder that makes my body reject pregnancy. I'm on medication to hopefully prevent it from happening again.
Horton said it best...
www.demco.com/.../V1310084ASd.jpg
If a male can be put in jail for murder when they trick their wives into taking the morning after pill because the 24 hour old creature is "a life"...
then women should NOT be allowed to murder a child at 24 weeks.
Abortion as an issue aside, the man goes to jail because he drugged his wife. She didn't know, and she might've not wanted it.
A woman going in to get an abortion isn't being "tricked". She knows what she's doing. I will, say, however... that time period may be a little too late.
@amyluvsgaskarth If he went to jail for drugging his wife... it wouldn't be a "MURDER" charge. And you fail to realize that when a male doesn't want the kid and she decides he is going to either have it anyway or pay for it anyway... he has NO say. So "She might've not wanted it"... if males had ANY parental rights at all then men wouldn't have to do that shit in the first place.
A woman having a abortion isn't tricked... LIKE the MANY men who are tricked by women every day into getting her pregnant so she can have an 18 year pay check? But that's ok and society doesn't seem to give a god damn about when a male is tricked into being a father or has no say in if the child he wants is murdered or not because the "mother" doesn't want it.
That 18 year pay check is for the kid, not for the woman.
The morning after pill is not an abortifacient. It prevents implantation--which is the same mechanism of action that many other forms of birth control have. A woman's body does not even start producing pregnancy hormones until after implantation anyway, so there is no way to tell if she would have become pregnant had she not ingested the "morning after pill" (also called Plan B CONTRACEPTION" because it prevents conception, it doesn't abort an implanted embryo).
If you drug anyone with anything--even ibuprofen--without their consent, you can be charged. The fact that it was a contraceptive is irrelevant to this fact.
Having said that, I would love to see a case where a man was actually convicted of murder for giving his wife anot emergency contraceptive without her knowledge... There literally might not have even been a fertilized egg, and there is no possible way to prove that there was, since Plan B works before a legitimate pregnancy even begins. There is no possible way to prove that taking Plan B did or did not result in a fertilized egg not implanting on a case-by-case basis--aside from controlled studies taking place under constant observation, and if that were the case she could not have ingested the drug unknowingly.
*an not anot
@cpzpbx3 Here's a handful
www.google.ca/search
Not a single one of those cases involves the morning after pill. All of them either involved mifepristone or misoprostol, both of which ARE abortifacient drugs, NOT Plan B contraceptives.
Those men drugged women who had confirmed pregnancies, so that is entirely different. I'm not saying they should be charged with murder, since a fetus is not a sentient being, but it's still pretty fucked up to terminate a woman's pregnancy if she wants to keep it and they definitely should be held accountable for what they did. After all, she didn't get pregnant by herself in the first place.
To reiterate, I do NOT believe they should be charged with murder as long as abortion remains legal. However, aggravated assault (you very much are assaulting someone when you drug them without their consent) would be an appropriate charge.
I also don't believe anyone should be getting an abortion at 24 weeks, because a fetus is viable at that gestational age. Fortunately, 99% of abortions occur well before that time.
@cpzpbx3 I apologize for the misnomer... but that being said... a male giving his wife an "abortion pill" and being charged with murder of a fetus when an abortion by a female is not considered murder is still wrong.
I agree that a female should not be ingesting a pill unwillingly but counter to what you said...
it's pretty fucked up to terminate a man's child if he wants to keep it, but it happens.
or A male should not have to be a father unwillingly either, or have to pay for a child unwillingly... so if a female can make the call 100% on if he is going to be a father or not... then there is no difference with him making the call. (These men were NOT charged with giving the pill, they were charged with MURDER)
When it comes down to the aggravated assault, women who use pregnancy or children, or murdering the child as a weapon against the male should also be charged. This bullshit is accepted and it shouldn't be.
It's not about the pregnancy really. They gave their wives drugs that undoubtedly caused them pain and made them extremely sick. While I agree that fathers should absolutely have more rights than they do, drugging someone is a separate issue entirely.
Also, it is very rare that a father wants a child that the mother wants to abort. Women who are impregnated by men who would make decent fathers aren't usually the ones having abortions. I realize it does happen, but it isn't a typical scenario.
@cpzpbx3 You keep going back to the him giving her drugs idea... they were not charged with giving her drugs... they were charged with "murder" of a fetus which she would legally be allowed to murder. It has nothing to do with how he did it, and everything to do with the fact that a male made the decision to end the life.
Secondly... it is Not RARE for men to want a child a woman doesn't want. You simply haven't looked. It happens all the time. Women also won't tell the guy she is even pregnant and give him the option, she will abort it and tell him she lost it, have the child and tell him it isn't his, etc. Women underhandedly screw with male parental rights more often than not.
Your bias shows how big the issue really is. But it's hard to get solid numbers on something that is generally ignored by society.
I literally said that murder was an inappropriate charge, because it is. But they absolutely should have been charged for drugging someone against their will.
I also said that fathers don't have enough rights, because they don't. My husband had to fight for custody of his son from the drug addict mother, even though he was clearly the better parent. I get it. I really do. But it's a difficult thing because women are the ones who have to potentially sacrifice their health and bodies to sustain a pregnancy. That's just fact. But there should still be more fairness across the board instead of men getting shafted. I'm not biased, I'm just a realist. It's impossible for it to be totally fair just because of the way reproduction works.
@cpzpbx3 Yes we agree on most of the conversation but I cringe at the women have to sacrifice their health and body excuse. Yes they do, but if you want to compare a list of things where men sacrifice their health and body for the benefit of women, it's a sad excuse.
I'm not biased either. I'm being a realist.
If a male tricks a woman into something it's no longer free choice.
@jacquesvol I don't disagree. It is also not free choice when a female tricks a male into becoming a father, or keeps (or kills) a kid against his wishes. This is the point I'm trying to make. Females legally are allowed to kill an unborn child against the fathers wishes, not tell him about it, or keep it and force him to pay even when he didn't want it. Yet a male taking his parental rights into his own hands is illegal. (The didn't charge him with the pill, they charged him with the murder)
Like what? I almost died giving birth to my son. I have permanent sciatic nerve damage from my pregnancy with him. My kidneys began shutting down beforevery labor and they will never be the same. Granted that I WANTED my son, but my point is that pregnancy is a serious prolonged medical condition. Please compare a widespread physical sacrifice men make to that. (I say widespread as in something as common as childbirth, because most women don't have husbands in the military.)
**before labor
@cpzpbx3 The wide spread sacrifice that men make for women...
Men are 95% or more of work place deaths. Men do almost ALL the jobs that make the world work. All the deadliest jobs are male dominated because women don't want to do them and someone has to. Men have put their lives in danger since the dawn of human existence protecting women and providing for women. The entire "women and children first" concept alone is enough proof that men sacrifice their well being for women.
So when you try and downplay EVERYDAY actions of men and assume that men don't generally sacrifice themselves for women because you feel women who have babies are doing some sort of heroic act for men, you show how ignorant you are to anything outside your bubble. If you were being attacked or needed rescuing for ANYTHING... 9.9 chances out of 10 a male would be the one rescuing you. This happens EVERY DAY around the world. Search Google for "Man saves" and then "women saves"... you will see what I mean.
If we simplify the discussion, we can simply ask the question whether we think all human life is equal or not
In the end the entire debate comes down to when you define the unborn child as worthy of living. Something both sides aren't really arguing for/against. And that is not a logical, but an ethical argument to have.
What people don't get is that It's already been resolved. 40 years ago. In the Supreme Court.
They said it was legal so it is, whether it's right or not is what people argue about
Won't be resolved. It'll rock back and forth like a wave and whatever politician is in power will be the deciding factor for a few years, till another politician retracts it.
Really bad analysis. Or just bad examples. Abortions so doctors can work? As if babies and more people growing up don't require more doctor's at work anyway?
Abortion has helped keep our population from growing to quick and helps prevent babies being born into single parent or poor households. Like cancer, it is a necessary evil for our society to remain.
With all due respect, that's asinine. If population growth is the problem then people holding off on sex would be a better solution than killing a child. Besides, if death to keep the population from expanding to much is the problem then there are far more adults in the world whose lives could be justified for the taking as opposed to the innocent lives in the womb.
Being one that was born to a single parent and didn't grow up in the richest of households I can attest that I am happy to be living despite my circumstances and whatever trials and tribulations I've been through in my life. Many like me feel the same exact way and no one should be able to make the choice over whether or not our lives are valuable just because of some delusional sense of "doing what's in the best interest of the child".
@Homey14 With all due respect, it's actually asinine to assume that people who don't want kids will abstain from sex just because you say so, thus eradicating the need for abortion. People are going to do what they want regardless, and unfortunately, you will never, ever have any control over that. If you think millions of people are suddenly going to comply to celibacy just because you don't like abortion, then you are incredibly naïve. You can only control yourself, period.
Of course, we want to prevent unwanted pregnancy as much as possible. We want to educate and do what we can to make preventative measures readily available... but the need for abortion will never completely disappear. Sorry.
I don't think it will resolve as long as religion exists.
Personally I am pro life and I am pro choice when it comes to policy. I mean, I would not choose to get an abortion but I don't want abortion banned either.
Religion doesn't need to have any say, I am against free abortion (I only think health issues, for either the child or mother are good reasons, except of course when the pregnancy is caused by rape) - but I am not religious.
I am religious so I would say no to abortion, BUT, if I wasn't religious I would abort if something was wrong with the fetus, abort if it is not the sex I want, abort if I didn't want to have responsibility, abort, abort abort... no biggie.
Do you fear God? Do you think he can honestly be swayed by debate? I don't think so myself. Only acting in ignorance he can forgive. If you murder in full conscience I know how badly you'll be punished. It says in black and white. The innocent of this world are above all of us and to hurt one is to condemn yourself to hell. I've got 2 kids. I've seen how beautiful and funny they are and how treasured every baby is. How can a woman who'd ever got to know one casually murder it I'll never know. I'd rather cut my own hands off than hurt a kid. At least I could live with myself
@bluenose1872 Fear, no. Swayed by debate, no. I said "if I wasn't religious", in that case I wouldn't care about anything as it just doesn't matter.
I know what you meant. You were being ironic. The thing is you are religious. Like me you think taking any life is horrific, especially innocent life. There's no justifying it
Being religious, how could you possibly begin to speculate how you would behave if you were not religious? Especially if you admit that it's the only thing stopping you from being amoral?
If your religion is the only thing that drives you to be a good person... Then I'm afraid you are not actually a good person.
@cpzpbx3 If there isn't a God then there really is no need to be good. No because of a lack of punishment, but rather because nothing matters... happiness and live are just chemical reactions in the brain, being 'good' is just because we are social creatures and that is needed to continue the soecies, but continuing the species is fruitless as the universe is doomed and therefor so it the species. A lot to take in but bottom line no God means nothing matters, including being 'good'.
Love, not live*
If you truly believe that there is no reason to be good to others without the existence of a god, then I will reiterate: You are not a good person.
And I will also add that you seem to lead a very sad existence. Why must there be an afterlife in order for you to enjoy living now? Why must there be a divine purpose for your life for you to have an innate desire to be good to others? I don't believe there is a God, yet I find a great deal of enjoyment in making others happy. How do you suppose that is?
I feel quite sorry for you. I hope your life has more enjoyment to it than simply looking forward to what you think comes after it.
@cpzpbx3 look first off, I am quite happy... you insistence that I am not is your own lack of comprehension that others see things differently and can be happy. Yes, I do believe in God and I do enjoy life. But athiests like science from what I have heard here. I do too. I enjoy reading up on it to better understand things. What I understand is that we are social creatures and being good is just a way for our species to survive. A shark live but isn't what you woukd call good, so are many other animlas. They are not social creatures so they aren't good to each other. When you are 'good' you gain advantages by being one of the group and your brain rewards the behavior with a chemicall reaction... you are pretty much a biological robot doing what you are instructed to do by instint and chemical reactions to reward behavior. Wow, I fell like an athiest trying to explain things to a religious person, oh the irony. Science, its a bitch. You happiness is an illusion of chemical responses.
There are many articles out yhere, here is the first one that came up in google. In layman's terms, here is an article discussing the chemical reactions in our brains that motivate us. Number 3 may be of special interest : 3. Oxytocin: “The Bonding Molecule” Oxytocin is a hormone directly linked to human bonding and increasing trust and loyalty. In some studies, high levels of oxytocin have been correlated with romantic attachment
www.psychologytoday.com/.../the-neurochemicals-happiness
@bluenose1872 God made abortion compulsory if the husband was jealous. He killed the firstborn of Egypt. He commanded several times to kill children.
@Jersey2 Because you need to be controlled by a deity to behave well? I don't need that.
@bluenose1872
@Jersey2
https://oi64.tinypic.com/31277f7.jpg
@jacquesvol no, simply because I feel God in my life.
@jacquesvol cool chart bro. I am actually not a bible reader. And yes, I am well aware it is a collection of stories selected by a council in 300AD or so as I was taught this in Catholic school.
I understand the function of neurotransmitters in the human brain perfectly well, thank you. My point is WHY do you need a purpose beyond the fact that you exist? If we really do exist for "no reason" then so what? Moral constructs are an ever-changing dynamic of society.
And if we were created to be the tortured playthings of some supernatural being, why is that so much better? Religious people can be amoral assholes. Your religion doesn't make you a better person than me.
@cpzpbx3 Look, it is simple. If we don't exist for a greater reason then how and why are we existing. Children, no human race is doomed some that is a dead end. Love, love is bigger bullshit than God if He doesn't exist since it is just chemicals in our brain giving positive feedback for a behavior like Pavlov's dogs. Reality then is not what you feel since it is just some feel good chemicals to produce a behavior to insure the continuation of a species that is going nowhere since the universe has a finite life. Like I said, people are just biological robots. Given them those chemicals for putting their hand in fire and they would do it gladly. Life is complete bullshit with a greater purpose, it is just chemical motivators for our species.
My typing sucks and the ipad doesn't help. Should read "Children, no, the human race is doomed so that is a dead end". ... So many typos.
Also, those "illusions" are literally 100% of your every thought and feeling. So how are they illusions? It's a tangible thing causing a reaction in your body.
It is rather ironic that you denounce human existence without God as being based on "illusions" when your God is, in fact, one of the most widespread illusions in the world.
Thanks for putting it in "layman's terms" for me, but I'll be graduating next year with a doctorate in pharmacology. Neurotransmitters and the CNS have been a big part of my studies since year one.
@cpzpbx3 then it is all illusions. But I do believe in God, so for me I have a soul, a purpose and freewill. Otherwise, yes, it is all an illusion... love, society, happiness just chemicals to prompt me to do things for the survival of a species that cannot survive. Meaningless.
Then you should know this... Study harder, lol
I'm sorry you're so perturbed by the fact that your brain is wired with chemicals that make you who you are. I see exactly what you're saying, I just disagree. Oxytocin is far from an "illusion" it's reality. It's tangible. Why does having a soul make life more meaningful to you? It feels the same regardless. It doesn't change anything. Reality is what it is, regardless of your personal understanding of it.
The only difference between you and I is that I'm not wasting my entire life counting on what I believe comes after it.
I guess I just don't feel the need to know "why" I exist in order to enjoy my existence. I will never know for sure where humans came from, and I have to be okay with that because it wouldn't matter if I wasn't. I could pretend I knew, but I still wouldn't know. Nobody does. Not even you... as much as you like to think you do. Even scientific theories, while far more plausible than Creationism, could be flawed and/or missing key details. So I just live. I enjoy my life. Lots of dopamine flowing through this brain I guess. XD
@cpzpbx3 You seem to think that I am perturbed. It is just a fact. It just is. I accept that. Watsing my life you say, counting on an afterlife... no, but I do beleive it. If it isn't true than it doesn't matter how I or you spent out lives as they will have no more signifiance than bateria that libe 100 million uears oago on dinosaur dung. If there is no God then we are all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, it is all meaningless. I am sorry that reality distrurbs you, but it is what it is.
I believe in evlolution by the way. Darwin is one of my favorites. If God doesn't exist, I don't look for why we exist yhen as there is no why. I then look to how, and that is what I stated.
The thing is, I'm not disturbed by reality. I don't need a "divine purpose" to find my own relevance to my existence. For some reason you feel that you do, and that is where we differ.
The only thing that separates us from bacteria is self-awareness. I am okay with this fact. I don't need to feel like humanity is existentially significant, and frankly I don't understand why you do. We exist solely within the confines of the reality around us. Life is complicated enough without obsessing over having a purpose. I'm really not saying you're "wrong" I just firmly disagree.
@cpzpbx3 I don't believe i. god because ai want to or need to, I just do as I feel God in my life. Truth be told I suck as a Christain but I do have a strong belief. Perhaps it is just all in my head but to me it is real.
Good conversation. Thanks.
Liberals: "You should have the right to choose to kill your unborn child!"
Liberals on freedom of speech and politics. "OMG Donald Trump supporters should all be raped. Racists should be killed."
Conservatives -
"The right to life is something we can't compromise on! Abortion is wrong!"
"He killed someone, he deserves to be killed too, standardize the death penalty!"
@ColinHarvey liberals: the only people who would look at an unborn child, then at a man who raped and strangled a woman, and decide the murderer's life is the important one worth protecting.
@RationalMale
That's a strawman fallacy
@jacquesvol Nope.
"All life is precious."
"Let those dirty refugees suffer and die because they're Muslims."
@cpzpbx3
Liberals: Republican war on women! Oh and who the fuck cares if rapefugees are assaulting women? That's bigoted if you bring it up.
Let's not even mention the fact that many of these refugees ARE women, because that might be detrimental to the logic you use to demonize them as a whole.
@cpzpbx3 Actually about 75% of them are men. :D
@cpzpbx3 And let's be real, if they were actually fleeing danger, not running to welfare, they would be resting in Turkey, or another nearby nation, not trying to run to Germany for benefits.
You are not informed enough to be having this conversation, and I lack the time or energy to educate you. So you just keep living in fear and hating things you don't understand, if that's what makes you happy. Good day.
@cpzpbx3 I have a Bachelor's in Political Science, with minor in International Affairs.
What's your education? I don't think you're educated enough to talk about such things.
@cpzpbx3 - Or did you run out of talking points and you're too stupid to think for yourself?
@RationalMale In all seriousness, I was thinking of getting a BA in PoliSci to be a columnist. How is the job market? Where did you go to school?
I like hearing from conservatives on here, because usually they have more rational then some of the progressives, who rarely think on these topics.
@ColinHarvey I can assure you I'm not stupid. I quite simply lack the energy to argue with an angry man who clings to a predisposed notion of the degree of intelligence a person possesses based solely upon the political affiliation he THINKS they have.
@cpzpbx3
That's fair.
@ColinHarvey
Those are the same conservatives who insist to permit any looney to buy an AR15...
@jacquesvol
... I own an AR15...
It's not as scary as you think, trust me, they come as.22's too.
@ColinHarvey I've fired one. I don't dislike guns, and it's not scary by itself... but not every mentally-unstable lunatic with an inferiority complex needs one, either.
@cpzpbx3 so let's screen people and make sure they don't get guns, or go near kids or get married or get a house or insurance or any of that pressing stuff if we deem them crazy, right?
@cpzpbx3 Another liberal paradox. Donald Trump suggesting we ban foreign muslims, due to terrorist attacks by muslim immigrants/children of muslim immigrants is unreasonable bigotry, since you cannot judge people like that..
Anyone who disagrees with you, on the other hand, is probably a lunatic who shouldn't own a gun, or a racist who should be fired from his job and have his career ruined.
@jacquesvol Liberals: the sort of people that would sentence a 18 year old to community service for violently raping a 12 year old girl, because he was 17 at the time... and then turn around and say that only lunatics want guns, the police will protect you.
dailycaller.com/.../
By the way... 9mm fmj actually penetrates farther into walls/buildings than most.223/5.56mm ammunition.
@ColinHarvey why not? You have to take a test to be licensed to drive a car, do you not? I'm just saying that if you're being treated for major depressive disorder or schizophrenia, you probably are the last person who needs a gun. Just like people who are visually-impaired either can't get a license or have license restrictions. And I literally own guns myself. So you're barking up the wrong tree, anyway.
Judging people based on a severe diagnosed mental illness which makes them a danger to themselves or others is quite different than judging them based upon their race. I feel like I shouldn't have to say that.
Finally, I dislike Islam as much as I do any other religion. They're all nonsense to me. However, it's hard to blame 1.6 billion people for the actions of a few. That's just simple math. You're far more likely to be killed by a Christian than by a Muslim in this country. Simple statistics.
We should ban Beretta m9's, cause they look scary too, in that case.
Finally, assuming that I believe a rapist, regardless of age, should be sentenced to community service is reaching, and frankly asinine. I'm actually very much for the death penalty. But you might have actually found that out if you had asked me... you know, before you just assumed to know precisely where I stand on every single social issue based upon where I stand on one.
Quit putting your feelings all over things. Not everything in the world has to be one way or another.
@cpzpbx3
If I put you in a dishwasher will you clean up that mouth? There could be children around.
@ColinHarvey and you've now resorted to what I can only assume are nonsensical insults, I guess because you no longer have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
@cpzpbx3
Well I think the discussion ended a few lines ago, I'm just trying to add some pizazz to keep it going.
@cpzpbx3 You need a driver's license to operate a car on public roads. You don't need a driver's license for a car on private property--just as you do not need a license to carry a gun on private property.
Nor do you need a license to drive a moped on public streets in many states...
@cpzpbx3
That's what I'm saying. Crazy people don't need to be around society they need to be locked up away from young ones, guns. I think we need more rights for doctors to 51/50 people. Even ADHD is on the scary level.
@ColinHarvey It is ironic to consider... if someone is so mentally imbalanced, or such a dangerous criminal that society would be at risk if they had a weapon... why on earth are they walking around?
What good is a car if you can't drive it on public roads?
If you can't prove that you can be responsible with a gun, you probably shouldn't have one in your home, either. Especially if you have children. It shouldn't be that big of a deal to someone who is mentally sound and is willing to be screened. Unless you know that you're an idiot or a nut job, then what do you have to worry about? Just get screened, learn proper safety measures, and get whatever gun (s) you want. I made sure I learned before I got one even though it wasn't a requirement. I fail to see the issue.
I mean most of that is just common sense. Why wouldn't you WANT to have a lesson or two in gun safety before you bring one home?
Plenty of imbalanced people are walking around. Clinically depressed people don't need to be locked up... but they still probably don't need a gun. This is not a difficult concept. Most adults could stand a psych eval anyway, I don't think it's too much to request one before purchasing a firearm.
Obviously if someone really wants one they'll get one regardless, but for the average person I don't think it's outlandish to require a little education and evaluation before you purchase something that is not a toy and that has an almost sole purpose of killing other people or animals. You're acting like I'm saying you should have to give your left testicle to buy a gun or something. Just pass a psychological evaluation and let someone teach you a thing or two about what you're buying. It's not that hard.
@cpzpbx3 Simple example is that the IRS was just recently targeting conservative groups for audits.
Law enforcement agencies have already given out "terrorism watch" training guides saying that if someone quotes the constitution, it is a suspicious sign.
If it was up to half the country, if you voted for Donald Trump, that alone would be a sign that you're mentally unstable and should not be allowed to own a gun.
@cpzpbx3 no that makes total sense. I think a liscense is a good idea - especially in connection with a mental hygiene certificate from a doctor. And an electronic record. Sure health insurance will go up but I mean you're a risk to civilians, especially with kids and a gun. I'd go ahead and say you shouldn't have kids if you're in a state where you can't even handle a gun. I think sterilization or something maybe incarceration but like good incarceration like with friendly cell mates and stuff struggling with the same thing.
@cpzpbx3
Conversely I would state: It's just common sense that we should ban muslims from traveling to the USA. Fort Hood, San Bernadino, 9/11, Boston Marathon... until the government can prove no more jihad attacks will be carried out, why would you NOT want to ban muslim travel to here? It's just common sense.
@cpzpbx3 If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, shouldn't they be banned from owning things like knifes, dangerous chemicals, or cars? We've already seen what they can do.
Mass knife attack in China kills 29, injures 130.
www.cnn.com/.../
Angry black woman in vegas drives into Strip to deliberately hit dozens of pedestrians
www.cnn.com/.../
Acid attacks are common in south east asia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_throwing
Where do you draw the line? Maybe we should be like Great Britain, and plastic swords need to be kept under lock and key?
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...stic-swords-police.html
@ColinHarvey adults should have a routine checkup anyway, with all of these mental illnesses going untreated. The impact on health insurance would be less than insignificant--it is literally just like having a checkup before you get a job in a place like a hospital. I had to have one before I started working. You're making it into this huge deal, when the only reason you should care is if you would be deemed mentally unfit for gun ownership if such a requirement were implemented.
First off, the plural of knife is knives. Knives don't generally misfire, or go off if a safety isn't on. They are also used for everything from cutting cake to building things... What other purpose do guns have?
And yes, mentally unstable people who's mental impairment could affect their driving should not be given a license. This already happens in many instances. So I'm not sure what your point is.
Also, who you vote for in an election is not a good indication of your mental acuity. Whether or not you are fit for gun ownership should be determined by a mental health professional and a gun expert, not "half the country".
@cpzpbx3
I'm agreeing with you geez, I think we should put all people and their mental disorders on a list so that companies and the government know who to target in taxes and hiked fees, we're both fascist here, come on, I'm helping you out!
@ColinHarvey Cute, but you missed your mark. Are driver's license requirements fascist too?
All I said was you should be educated on how to handle a gun, and cleared from serious psych issues, before being handed a firearm. People should care more about their mental health anyway. Like I said, you have to have a physical checkup to work in a hospital--which makes sense. What's the difference? Are you opposed to it because you're afraid you might be deemed unstable?
@ColinHarvey I never said anything about gun owners paying higher taxes. I AM A GUN OWNER MYSELF. What part of that is escaping your ubderatnsding?
Ugh. Understanding.
@cpzpbx3
The part where you don't account for the fact that we elect corrupt officials put in power via the iron triangle a series of bureaucracies where self indulgence in say, private prison systems is seen an ascertainable dilemma on a daily basis for both leaders of bureaucracies, the companies in contract and the politicians in whom they put their faith.
If you wrote and implemented the laws the conditions would be different. But you don't, they do.
@ColinHarvey well if that's your reasoning, then we should all be against imposing any restrictions on anything ever. Including abortion. Because we can't trust legislators. Right?
@cpzpbx3
Correct, people always bitch and moan about how congress never gets anything done - I argue that's because it was designed never to get things done, we don't need them passing dumb laws every twenty minutes that no one bothers to read like the EU.
There are a lot of laws that shouldn't exist.
Besides, it was the Supreme Court that was responsible for Roe v Wade.
@ColinHarvey So you agree that there shouldn't be a law against abortion?
@cpzpbx3
Of course, the other guy was pro-life not me. I don't have a vagina, I should have no say anyways.
@ColinHarvey I disagree about men having a say. Women don't typically have abortions if the guy is around, and every situation is different... but I don't think fathers have enough rights as it stands now. Of course, that's another topic.
@cpzpbx3
https://oi67.tinypic.com/2b9jxf.jpg
brianjameswatson.files.wordpress.com/.../img_1808.jpg
@cpzpbx3
Personally, I'd never have this issue because I don't slut myself off. So I could care less whether others wear an abortion on their conscious. Legalizing it just seems to be what everyone wants so I'm not interested in having an opinion on it, as it does not apply to me.
@ColinHarvey it may not apply to you directly, but it affects society as a whole. Personally, I think many women who have abortions are not women who have any business being mothers in the first place. Also, an extra million or so kids per year crammed into the already overflowing foster care system would put a real financial strain on us as a country.
I don't like abortion, I don't think anyone really does, but it simply needs to exist. Whether I would ever need one or not (I haven't, as I was over the moon about being able to conceive at all after being told I couldn't. Abortion is the last thing on my mind.) is irrelevant to this fact.
@ColinHarvey and just to clarify, you don't have to be a slut to get pregnant or to impregnate someone else. You're actually more likely to get pregnant in a monogamous relationship.
@cpzpbx3
But the people in monogamous relationships are not the kind of people that are getting abortions as a generality. I agree that people getting abortions are not the type of people that should be having kids.
@ColinHarvey
An AR15 isn't scary, for those who are behind it. If the barrel is pointing in my direction it's scary. I know what I'm speaking about, I faced a loaded Beretta 9mm submachine gun and the guy had unsaintly intentions. (He got away with some $100K or 150K, I heard later)
@jacquesvol Flip side is, Europe and Mexico have been proving that gun control doesn't really stop horrible things from happening. In both nations, gun control is extremely strict, yet people are getting explosives, automatic weapons, etc.
Mexico is a war zone between drug gangs. That's like saying gun control in Afghanistan doesn't work.
I Europe there are gun incidents , yes. Several western countries insisted on opening the Iron §Curtain. That opened East block military stocks for gangsters. Not a normal situation either. Before 1990 gun incidents were isolated crimes. (Or IRA terrorists armed with guns and funds from Irish Americans )
Opening the Iron Curtain started a lot of problems in Europe.
Both import problems thus with an US push behind them.
Then the US started wars in the Middle East and Libya and it got worse. Again the US.
@jacquesvol The terrorists massacring people in Europe aren't angry Com-Block people... XD
No, those Jihadists are
-Armed with weapons from the old East block and
-Angry like mad at European countries who got forced through NATO into participating in the US genocides against Muslims.
Resolution is impossible because pro lifers are retards, you can't debate with retards.