"Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. Don't like drugs? Don't do them. Don't like sex? Don't have it. Don't like your rights taken away? Don't take away anyone else's." amirite?
doesn't matter, i dont see what sex has to do with civil rights, other than maybe age laws. She makes a good point. This post is..i cant even find words for how much i disagree with some of it. drugs are dangerous and serve no positive purpose so they shouldnt be legal.
I'm speaking of all of them. I'm straight edge and therefore have zero tolerance for any of them.
I also dont agree on the abortion one.
But the gay marriage one makes sense, the only people complaining about it are the people that will never get one so why do they get a say in the issue.
I know the world isnt black and white but with today's technology i believe that there could be numerous medical alternatives that could give someone an appetite without the use of pot.
I think the main problem with pot these days is the stuff put into it. If pot was legal, the government could regulate it and (hypothetically) make it safer. In the end it's just a plant, whereas the scarier stuff like meth is made in a lab. I feel like its inherent quality of being natural makes it different from other drugs.
I'm not reading all of the other comments, so forgive me if I repost something. But anyway, some drugs do serve a purpose. What about prescription drugs? And even if you aren't talking about those, there is a thin line between some prescription drugs and illegal drugs. A codeine addiction can be much more harmful than smoking pot every now and then.
I dont think there is. I think its pretty clear which ones should be legal. For instance, I've used tylonal all my life and its never caused me any problems and ive never became addicted to it, but if were to use meth there would be obvious faults in my health. The same goes with pot, if i were to smoke pot my entire life my lungs would suffer now wouldnt they?
I'm aware. Usually when people talk about lung damage, they jump to cancer though. The most you're going to get from smoking pot is a bad cold. It doesn't cause blackening of the lungs like cigarettes do. Even heavy marijuana smokers show no sign of emphysema because you inhale much less smoke than the avergae cigarette smoker.
I dont like jumping to any one problem because there are way too many out there to even consider. But to be honest, despite whatever health risk factors they are, what i really cant stand about it is that some people think they cant have fun without it. I mean really you're going to risk going to jail to get high? is it really worth it? I mean make some friends and actually go enjoy life as it is.
I don't use it to have fun; I use it to relax. I don't enjoy seeing people acting like the idiotic, stereotypical stoner. They're the ones who get caught because they're acting stupid. People know how to be responsible and functional when stoned. Don't condemn us all because one person is an idiot.
I dont buy that excuse either by the way. Its the same with all the kids that drink every weekend. They think they're badass for doing it and act like they can only have fun while doing it. I think its bullshit. I can relax and have fun without being under the influence of anything.
I actually do have friends who smoke pot. Do I agree with it? No, but I'm not going to harass them about it, i just make it clear its not to be done around me.
That's terrific for you. That still doesn't justify you wanting to ruin it for everyone, though. If someone wants to smoke pot every now and then to relax and chill out, what in the world makes you think you have any right to stop them?
they dont consider alcohol a drug actually. and there are laws against alcohol (like dwi laws and the age law). but alcohol is a substance that reacts like a drug at least thats what they tell us at every single stupid stay drug free things we have once a year in school which btw doesn't help half the druggies in our school and no im not one of them
o well the gay teachers told us it was a substance not a drug. sad thing is they're teachers. and people who work with people addicted to drugs and stuff so sorry for my mistake
I am aware of that which is why i disagree with the post. The OP is saying that just because you dont like drugs you shouldnt want to take the right to do them away from someone else.
Btw, California is trying to make pot legal which is probably why drugs are mentioned.
no its saying you if you don't like drugs, you dont have to do but you can't tell someone else not to cuz they will anyway and it's their fault when they get arrested
I dont think so because if thats what it is about then that last statement makes no sense whatsoever.
"Don't like your rights taken away? Don't take away anyone else's." everything before it is about rights that are questioned everyday about whether they should be legal or not. That last statement is showing that just because you dont like something, you shouldnt take the right to do it from someone else who does.
its saying that you have your rights and so does everyone else and you dont have the right to take away anothers and if you wouldn't want you're rights taken away that you shouldn't take away someone elses
Thats exactly what I was trying to get across to you. thats why i disagree, some things just shouldnt be legal, i dont care if you think its your "right" or not.
ok but its stupid to say that someone can't do something cuz you don't like it. like somone can't go to one store cuz you don't like it. or because you're against gays means that everyone else should be too
thats not what im saying, im against drugs because its dangerous and serves no purpose. Thats not the same thing as me saying it shouldnt be legal merely because I dont like it.
And im not against gays, i think its incredibly unfair that in a country where all man is supposedly equal, that they dont have the right to get married along with everyone else. Two men or two women getting married hurts no one.
thats what im saying if someone is against gay marriage (i didn't mean that you are its more if you were) they don't have the right to say that two gays can't get married. and the drug thing i mean it's their fault that they're doing damage to their body but nobody can really tell them to stop becauses more than likely they won't.
Oh i know they won't, i understand its addictive and they have their own free will, i just think that deciding that maybe it should be legal is a bad idea, it will only make people think it is not harmful.
why does age always have to be brought up when putting someone down? i know people many years older than them and im smarter and more mature than they are, and im sure many people can relate.
This post is about thing that do not harm others. It therefore does not apply to child molestation, murder, or hard drugs (a heroin addict will be much more likely to harm others, not to mention the suffering his family is going through). The point of this post is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not harm others.
I completely agree with you on all points except abortion. If having the baby could kill the mother, that's understandable. If a woman gets raped, that's understandable because it's not her fault she's pregnant. But if someone who has voluntary, unprotected sex gets an abortion, then they are just killing a baby.
I don't personally like abortion very much either, but keep in mind that if it's made illegal women will just do it anyways. Half of all abortions worldwide are performed illegally. The only difference if it's illegalized is that the woman has a higher chance of dying in a back alley abortion. I think that pro-lifers should be happy that the current rules only limit it to the first trimester, when the fetus is just a bundle of cells that doesn't look human, can't feel pain, and doesn't have a heartbeat.
Yeah If abortion was completely outlawed we would have way bigger problems. Not only people getting dangerous abortions, at that point there would be more babies that people would want to adopt. Skyrocketing population+lower success rate.....on another note, whenever I read your comments I imagine Morgan Freeman's voice xD
That's a good point. I'm personally against it' but I don't that that a law making all abortion illegal would be effective. For example, no one would expect a woman to give birth to a baby who has no realistic chance of living if she is likely to die in the process, and at what percentage chance would the cutoff be. And if there were an exption for rape, women would make false accusations to get an abortion.
I don't consider what I was talking about to be a baby. Like I said, at three months or less, it's basically a bundle of cells that doesn't look human, can't feel pain, and doesn't have a heartbeat. It is something that has the potential to become a baby in the same way that I have to potential to attend and graduate college. If everything goes right, I will graduate from college and the baby will be born. But if I died right now for whatever reason, the paper wouldn't say that a college graduate was killed. I don't LIKE the idea of abortion, but I respect that a mother has the right to choose during her first trimester when the fetus is just a bunch of cells. This is one of the few big issues where I think that the rules we have in place now are good.
I know that, and I'm pro-choice myself, but something about the whole "in cases of rape or incest, it's okay" thing gets on my nerves. It's like saying "you can't do it if you want to, only if you want to and if I say okay."
It's possible that you have a good point, but your post was unclear. You're pro-choice, but you don't want people to say that rape victims can have abortions?
No, I'm saying, what's the difference? How can you make rules like that? "No, you can't kill it, don't you fucking kill it, it's a living-- Oh, wait, it was an accident? Lol k, go ahead and kill it, idc anymore."
Think about it this way; if a kid is playing baseball and he breaks someone's window, he is responsible for the window. If somebody picks him up and throws him through the window, it wouldn't make sense to make him fix it.
So sex is the woman's fault? It takes to tango. Also, why are you talking about sex like it's someone's "fault"? Sex is not a bad thing. Babies shouldn't be handed out as punishments for irresponsible sex. That is not fair to anyone.
I don't think baseball is evil either, but the kid is still responsible for the broken window. Also, I think that any guy who gets a woman pregnant then doesn't stick around is scum, but I have no control over the fact that the man won't get pregnant.
I agree the woman is responsible for the fetus. She should take responsibility for her own actions by getting an abortion so she can finish her education and get a substantial career.
Its more difficult, but a pregnant woman can still get an education. Even if she doesn't think she can support the baby, there are plenty of good people willing to adopt an infant.
Actually at around 10-12 weeks an infant is actually pretty recognizable as a human and has a nervous system so the whole they're not human and can't feel pain thing doesn't make sense and honestly is just flat out wrong
"Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16118385
Guess who is just plain wrong now?
Hey, I deleted my comment not because I think I was wrong but because I'm formulating another more generalized comment about the post. I might respond to yours later.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it; people who favor marijuana prohibition, for the most part, have no idea what they're talking about outside of what their parents/schools have told them. Guess what; they do have a "scientific" solution for those cancer patients other than SMOKING pot... a distilled THC pill called Marinol. However, pills are slow, so they're working on a rapid delivery system similar to an inhaler. The thing that's funny about this, is that while they're telling us on one hand that pot is sooo much more dangerous now because it's stronger(higher THC content), the pharmecutical alternative Marinol is PURE THC. Oh, bit that's not dangerous, because big business makes money on it.
You know what professions support legalization? Law enforcement and doctors. You know who contributes the most to keeping it from passing? ALCOHOL MANUFACTURERS. It is NOT about safety... it's about money.
Civil unions don't guarantee the same rights as a marriage does. A married couple can visit their spouse in the hospital and make major medical decisions in case of emergency. A civil union doesn't offer that.
Honestly though, the only thing I don't understand is why people won't let gays marriage. I think abortion should be legal, but i can slightly understand why some are against it. I think SOME drugs should be legal, but again, i get why some are against it. However, where exactly does the bible say gay marriage is wrong? AND where exactly does it say EVERY person who gets married is christian? Marriages shouldn't follow the rules of one religion, especially if its a dumb rule. Why is it that cousins can marry, you can be a polygamist, and in some countries you can marry animals, yet two people who love each other can't get married beause a line in some book that not everyone in the world follows slightly hints that gay marriage is wrong? i just don't understand.
Actually, it does say in the bible, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22). But I completely agree with you (I am very for gay marriage being legal), it's stupid to outlaw something because of what one line in one holy book says.
That is an honor code that is neither relevant to the present or understood in context. My father signed a piece of paper, saying that he would not dance, drink, pierce his ears, or listen to secular music. That is also honor codes, based on interpretations of the Bible.
Leviticus was written for the new Jewish nation, which was tiny and facing enormous enemies, which meant Israel needed to grow in population, and fast. Back then, 3000 years ago, people believed that the whole of the child was contained in the sperm, and that the woman was just the incubator for the baby. Therefor, ejaculating outside of a woman was considered murder, as the "child" inside the sperm would die. Sex not used for reproductive purposes was outlawed for this reason. Leviticus also forbids contraception, masturbation, oral and anal sex, and "pulling out" before ejaculation.
Clearly, the world does not have the same problems that Israel had. Thus, Leviticus 18:22 does not apply.
I have heard of them. There are also things called rights which are very important. Additionally, there is also a concept many people call "using complete sentences" which you might want to research.
People use alcohol and tobacco to relax and have fun or chill out, but it's still legal. Pot is less harmful on the body but it's illegal. Why? Tobacco companies pay politicians big money so pot will be illegal and less people will smoke it.
Tobacco companies do not pay politicians big money so pot will be illegal. Why? Perhaps it's because the tobacco companies would simply grow it and sell it themselves if marijuana were legal. Why go through the trouble of growing it yourself when you can buy it legally and already packaged? Just a thought.
gays have the same rights as everyone else. there's no law for straight people that says "you can marry whoever you love"
straight guys can't marry eachother either.
Civil union rights vary from state to state. In a marriage, the rights are the same nationwide. It's supposed to be separate but equal, but as we learned from the civil rights movement, that doesn't cut it for too long.
now think how many people had to translate that shit by hand and how it would only take one person to in the middle of writeing this long ass book to just be like gays oh hell no fuck them
easier said than done. its ridiculous that if you live in california you are getting TAXED for getting a sex change when you dont even want one.. this isnt about letting people "keep their rights" its about keeping ours and not being fooled./
okay i dont think all the other drugs should be allowed but i mean pot has so many medical benifits and its a antidepressent imagin how many familys that could save if instead of angry and depressed dad came home from the caffe with a big smile on his face abortion i am pro choice but i mean i think special cases make more sense like rape okay its all good if it never happened to you but think that your unmarried and walking around prego and people talk and say what a slut you are that you dont even know who the father is that your a devil woman for having a baby out of wedlock i mean its like whatever but there is no reason in the world that gays should not be able to get married i dont care what it says in the bible one seperation of church and state and two look at king james version of the bible than read the new english one and tell me how many translation fails there are now think this book has been around for over two thousand years and people didnt always have printing presses.
It's because many people murder and commit acts of terrorism "in the name of god" when in fact they go directly against what his or her religion says; a good example,"Love the sinner,hate the sin",but many Christians go directly against that.
Omg get the message already, I don't actually think murder is right, I'm just trying to get the point across, just because you think something is right that doesn't make it right. People think they can just do whatever they want and when someone says they should stop they say that the other person is taking away your right. It's not a right to have a gay marriage, same way it's not a right to murder.
Are terrorists hurting you? Are they harming your family or sending you threatening emails? If no, then shut up. So it's ok just because they don't bother you, And fyi, ya, some gays have been assholes to me.
No shit that terrorists hurt you. It has made people so horrified! It killed thousands of people. Have you not read this post? DONT TAKE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AWAY! Gays can do whatever they want. It's love, let them be. Everyone was born equal.
Murder and terrorism were never rights. The way I see it, if two people of the opposite who hate each other can get married, two gay people who love each other should be allowed to get married. If people in prison still have the right to marry, law abiding gay citizens should have the right to marry who they love.
I make judgments based on a person's choices and actions, not based on uncontrollable factors like race, gender, or sexual orientation. I also do not try to take away anyone's rights no matter how much I disagree with them.
People find the reasons for the things mentioned in the post to be illegal obvious. Abortion people see as murder (but as long as I don't do it I guess it's okay), drugs already are illegal and kill people, families, and communities, and sexup to a certain pointcould very well be taking away someone's rights. If you are an adult, go ahead make your personal choice on that, I'm not saying sex should be illegal, but there is plenty of reason for all of these things to be illegal. If there wasn't we would be having this debate right now.
The same argument was used during 1850's and 1860's by pro-slavery people. "Don't like slavery? Don't buy any slaves. But don't say we can't have any."
But banning abortion is infringing on a woman's right to govern her body, life, and future. A fetus is better off dead than being born into a world where the government owns her body, controls her fate, and punishes her for refusing to give up her hopes and dreams to take care of a baby.
You'd rather have a dead baby than a woman whose "hopes and dreams" so to speak, get put on hold for 9 months or so? Abortion definitely infringes on that child's right to live. It's not just the woman's body. The baby has a body as well. That baby has a life and a future.
If you believe that the government is controlling a woman's fate by not allowing her to kill her child, you underestimate the courage and strength of women, Ms. Feminist.
Giving birth to a child is not a temporary inconvenience but a lifelong commitment. Millions of women are forced to give up their education, careers, and ambitions to take care of children. Not only do they never reach their potential but they are thrust into a life of poverty that they might never overcome. But don't take it from me. Ask one of the millions of impoverished homeless teenage mothers in America if they think their dreams and hopes are less important than the life of a six celled organism.
Who are you to say they would be better off dead? A woman has the right to dress, speak as she chooses and have sex with whoever she wants. The government does not own her body. She needs to take responsibilty for her actions.
No woman is free if the government can force her to bear a child against her will. That is a gross violation of her God given rights. A clump of cells is not more important the liberty and autonomy of all females to argue otherwise is misogynistic. Individuals do need to take responsibility for their actions and getting an abortion can help them do just that. Sometimes, abortion is the best way to deal with those circumstances.
I am not misogynistic (I had to look that up, thanks for teaching me a new word) I just think it's terrible that someone's life must end so that another can live more comfortably.
Yes. We give up some of our rights so that we may live safely. I believe that if a woman chose to have sex, she should not have the unborn child killed.
If you believe abortion is murder, you must also believe that a woman who gets an abortion is a murder and therefore must go to jail and even be sentenced to death. If abortions became illegal many more women would die in back alley illegal abortions. You have a choice make abortion legal and kill fetuses or make abortions illegal and kill women. Neither choice stops death. So whom should we kill? Women or fetuses?
Do you think illegal abortions are performed behind warehouses by quacks with clotheshangers? In 1972 for the US, 39 women died from illegal abortions. Every year, over a million fetuses are aborted in the US. So who should we kill? A women or 20 thousand fetuses?
"Approximately 585,000 women die every year, over 1,600 every day, from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth." An estimated 20 million unsafe abortions are performed worldwide every year, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 women." http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/gen...en/women96.htm.
"Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million" http://www.prochoice.org/about_..._abortion.html
I said in the US. For your last source, the estimates ranged as high as 1.2 million, which means they could be anywhere from 100,000-1.2 million. And after 1973, the number of abortions rose from about 800,000 annuallly to 1.5 million annually, then started to drop in the early 90's.
You think I don't care? I would rather a woman who chose to have sex knowing full well of the risk of a pregnancy be forced to live in discomfort for some months than a fetus who has never done anything to anyone nor experienced life yet be terminated. I'm sorry if it sounds insensitive, sexist, or foolish. I don't stop caring about people once they're born, I just think everyone has the right to life.
My original post relating this argument to pro-slavery people in the 1800's was a bit ridiculous, but imagine what people will think in several hundred years. Our argument may seem ridiculous. Maybe in hundreds of years, I'll seem like an extreme sexist bigot, or maybe you'll seem like an advocater for murder.
Please don't assume that I hate women or that I'm an idiot.
I don't think dying in a back alley abortion or getting executed for murder counts as a "living in discomfort for a few months". Have you ever gone through childbirth or taken care of a child? If you had, you wouldn't call that a temporary discomfort either. I noticed that you never actually address the huge numbers of women who die from illegal abortions. This makes me sad but doesn't surprise me. Anti-abortionists are pretty accustomed to completely ignoring the sufferings of women. I don't think you hate all women. You probably admire and respect many women in your life. But I do think it's really sad that you think the life of a week old fetus is more important than the welfare and freedom of a woman.
Dying in a back alley abortion or getting executed for murder don't result from giving birth to a child. While discomfort is an understatement, the process of creating and birthing a baby is usually temporary, whereas death is permanent. I didn't mention the large number of women who die from illegal abortions because I was talking about inside the US. I don't like abortion, but I can't pretend to know how life is in a third-world country.
And I think it's sad that millions are willing to sacrifice their babies for themselves.
It may not be a result of having a baby but it is a result of making abortion illegal, or considering it akin to murder under the law.
You can't just make generalizations like people get abortions because they only care about themselves and don't feel like taking care of a baby. Sometimes women can't afford to take care of a baby. Sometimes women are not mature enough to handle the emotional stress of bearing a child. Many women get an abortion to they can provide better for the children they already have; that sounds like the opposite of selfish to me. You can't say women get abortions because they're selfish. You don't know every woman and her situation so you have no right to judge anyone.
If a women cannot provide for a child, she shouldn't create one and kill it part way through.
I think it's strange that you've been arguing about someone's rights the entire time, but say I don't have the right to have an opinion about someone involved in a controversial subject.
You have the right to have any dumb opinion want to. But neither of us has the right to control a woman's body and future. I never claimed to have the right to force a woman to have (or not have) an abortion.
Other people would be more affected by a drug user than someone who got an abortion. ESPECIALLY if the person who got an abortion never told anyone.
I recently JUST found out my sister got an abortion when she was a teenager... Do I view her any differently? No.
Do I wish she would've kept the baby? No.
Is my family different because of her? No.
Hypocrite. It's your opinion, just like mine. Were both bigots I guess, In fact, because everyone in the world is bias to their own opinion, were all bigots.
I agree, but using this logic you could make everything legal. Don't like murder? Don't do it. Don't like public nudity? Don't do it. Don't like seeing cow carcasses in the street? Don't look at them.
(different anonymous): The major difference is that you can only stop someone from doing something if it's harmful to the public. Like murder would be harmful to the public. Abortion, gay marriage, and lots of forms of drugs aren't harmful to the public. Murder is.
I don't know what to think about this post...I agree with the last line "Don't like your rights taken away? Don't take away anyone else's", but all the examples suck. Gay marriage was never a right, therefore it's not being taken away from anyone. Drugs do harm others, and shouldn't be legal. No one is trying to ban sex.
i think the part about gay marriage is they have the right to marry who they want and the sex one could be that just because you don't believe in sex doesn't mean that other can't. and the drugs isn't a great example but its a choice that someone makes and just cuz you don't like them doesn't mean that some people won't make the mistake of doing drugs. but i don't think the drug one was a good example.
Actually, a few years ago a law was passed that made gay marriage legal in the state of California, until it got revoked by Prop 8 in the 2008 election. Therefore it was a right that got taken away.
Faggot. Little babies don't like abortions but they can't fight to not get aborted. You fucking idiot go kill yourself, and i don't care if you don't want to this isn't a democracy, it's a republic. People run government, and the people want you to do your mom.
America is not a PURE democracy, it is, in fact, a republic. A pure or direct democracy would mean that citizens would vote on every single solitary issue instead of voting for leaders to make the policy decisions. However, that is the only truthful statement in PedoCastrollaccount's comment.
It's not marriage though, Marriage is clearly defined as one man and one woman. Give them some sort of "gay fuck in the but bond" or call it something else, but it's not marriage.
A bigot is clearly defined as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." You are a bigot. Clearly, you have not respect for homosexuals, individual freedom, or America.
I agree with all of these except the abortion one-- people that don't like abortions don't like them because they believe it's a baby, and it's wrong to kill a baby. It doesn't matter if you kill the baby or if someone else does. Just like you wouldn't be okay with, "You don't like murder? Don't kill people. But don't take away other people's rights."
Abortion doesn't count as killing a "baby"...I could see if they waited till the baby was born, decided they don't want it anymore then kill it, but come on now, really?
I wasn't trying to quote the declaration of independence (which by the way says "all men (not people) are created equal"). I was just stating my opinion.
ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. u know why?? becuase ppl say "but wat about the mother its her bodyits HER life."
but in reality ppl dnt realize or stop to think "wat about the baby?"
its the BABIES LIFE TOO no one understands tht. ppl need to understand that its not just the mother its the baby too a baby is born and alive one the sperm reaches the cell. so b PRO LIFE.
that depends on the situation. for example if the woman was raped she's not gonna want the baby. but if she wasn't and knew that "hey i could get pregent" than yeah i could see why it would be wrong to some people but it's better to get rid of the baby than to bring into a world where it's either never gonna know it's parents or isn't loved by them. and if they can't afford it i can understand them not wanting to keep it than have to worry about changing it or feeding it.
If you use a condom and it breaks or you're on the pill and it fails you did not choose to get pregnant. If you take all the precautions and they don't work abortion can be the last resort. Though abortion should not be used as regular birth control because of the serious health implications.
Are you seriously suggesting that a person who doesn't want kids should never ever have sex at any point during their life? That seems way extreme, especially considering the amount of birth control available. Also, only some forms of sex can get you pregnant so you don't have to abstain from all of them.
You actually expect people to not have sex? Sex is an important part of an adult relationship. What about married couples who aren't ready for kids? Sex is not just for procreation
So you'd expect a woman to have a major surgery just to keep from getting pregnant? What if she wanted kids later, just not now? She would have to go under the knife AGAIN just to be able to have children. You also expect her to go through with a pregnancy and potentially ruin her body for a baby she doesn't even want?
The alternative for a women who wanted to screw around and not get pregnant is to have a series of abortions throughout her life. One time surgery sounds better to me. Also there is no dead fetuses. As for wanting to have kids later, you could go thru with the second surgery, have sperm or the zygote implanted in the uterus so they can still have the baby without risk, or adopt. If more people adopt, there wouldn't have to be more abortions. The fact of the matter is, the only times there aren't better options (still arguably) is in cases of rape or danger to the mothers life.
If you're only having sex with your long time partner you are not "screwing around." That surgery costs a lot of money. So does invitro. And you know what? Adoption ain't free either. While abortion does cost money, it costs much less than all of those things. The fact of the matter is, if more people used birth control correctly, the amount of abortions would drop considerably. Expecting people to be celibate or get their tubes tied is ridiculous. Tubal ligation is a major surgery. Consenting adults have every right to have sex.
I'm not saying they don't or shouldn't. Sex is great. But people need to be responsible with it. Sure birth control is great, but we learned in 8th grade health class that the only fool-proof way of not getting pregnant is abstinence. Also while sex is a loving act, it is meant for procreation. There are many ways around this of youre not ready. Once you have procreated tho, you have a responsibility to finish the job. And putting a child up for adoption doesn't cost anything. And if she later wanted to have kids, adopting would be no more expensive than actually giving birth. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have sex, but that they shouldn't kill babies just for that privilege. And chances are that these people will have some permanent birth control surgery anyway once they are done having kids so it's really irrelevant if it costs money. If they later want kids and don't want surgery, there are plenty of kids who want parents.
If you use birth control you are being responsible. Putting up a kid for adoption may not cost anything, but I think it's cruel to ask a woman to give up her life for 9 months and ruin her body for a baby she didn't even keep. The thing about having the surgery after you're done having kids is that they are finished having kids. They will not need to pay to have the surgery reversed. If a person gets the surgery before they have kids and decides that they want to have their own children then they have that surgery reversed. They have to pay not once, but twice. Also. insurance will cover those types of procedures after you have children, but not before. People who have had kids get to pay little to nothing for their reproductive surgeries.
Sex is not just for reproduction. If it was, people would not be able to orgasm from things other than vaginal intercourse. Think about it.
You also talk about how these people would be "long-term partners". Well if they don't want to have kids and dont want to get their tubes tied, tell the guy to get clipped. It isn't a big or expensive operation, it's fool-proof, and it's reversible. Everybody wins
A guy getting "clipped" is not fool proof. What if he doesn't go back for the regular to make sure his sperm count stays low? I actually know a kid who was born after his father got a vasectomy. It happens.
With choice one you take care of the problem in a way that hurts no one, unless something goes wrong (but all procedures have the possibility to go wrong). What if the child dies on it's own? Were you even aware that the majority of abortions are "natural" abortions, also known as a miscarriage.
There is nothing about looking sexy. After being pregnant for so long a woman gets attached to that little clump of cells and is less likely to give away the baby. Then you end up with a baby in a family without the means to take care of it.
Since it has not been proven that life begins at conception there really is no reason to deny a woman an abortion. It's the life of a clump of cells or the life of a woman who we know is alive.
First, like I just said birth control isn't fool-proof. If was the most responsible choice there would be no unwanted pregnancies from those people so abortion would be irrelevant. What happens when she forgets the pill or it fails? You have a baby. Now you have three options: kill the baby, give it away or keep it. Let's assume she doesn't want to keep it. With choice one you kill a living creature whose right to live should without debate outweigh that of the mother to look sexy. With choice two you accept the consequences to our actions, keep the life of a child intact, and offer the possibility to have a child to someone who can't have one of their own. The only net benefit of abortion is looking sexy. Are we really that vain of a society that a women's looks should take precedence over a life? For people that their tubes tied, if they don't want to have kids then make that choice before you ruin your life or your child's. Also THEY CAN ADOPT A CHILD!!! This option gives everyone what they want. The parents get to have a child and still look sexy. They can fool around all they want and never have to worry. And the child gets a home. In every case there are better options.
Lot's of people make a decision not to have kids but get pregnant anyway. If you plan on having heterosexual vaginal sex at any point in your life, there is a chance you can become pregnant. Besides, abortion is a way of "dealing with the consequences".
I do have an account. I'll friend you on one condition; we mustn't get into any religious arguments. I will not express my religious beliefs, because I don't know what will offend you or not. I hate arguing, so let's just agree not to get into that business. Deal?
I think he is too, I've had far too many arguments with him over the issue of gay marriage. He gets proven wrong all the time and still continues to rant and rave about things that dont really make sense
This post is about thing that do not harm others.(Although the one about abortions might be off)
And i think you realized this too.. however the word "gay" probably made you stop in your tracks and feel that it was really important to post your post.
Especially when it DOESN'T apply because murder does harm things.
Don't like child molestation? Don't do i--
Oh wait.
Interesting point, but I have a rebuttal for these things. No one really suffers from from gay marriage and such.
(+Me): People suffer from drugs. Jus' sayin'.
Well, I wasn't referring to that one XD
Lol don't like rape don't do it don't like murder don't do it lmao op has dumb logic
Thats because she is a fourteen-year-old girl.
No one's trying to make child molestation legal and a civil right.
It was a play on the logic. Don't be so srs.
Pedobear is
doesn't matter, i dont see what sex has to do with civil rights, other than maybe age laws. She makes a good point. This post is..i cant even find words for how much i disagree with some of it. drugs are dangerous and serve no positive purpose so they shouldnt be legal.
I'm speaking of all of them. I'm straight edge and therefore have zero tolerance for any of them.
I also dont agree on the abortion one.
But the gay marriage one makes sense, the only people complaining about it are the people that will never get one so why do they get a say in the issue.
I'm straight edge too but sometimes pot can help cancer patients with their pain or bring back their appetite. The world isn't black and white
I know the world isnt black and white but with today's technology i believe that there could be numerous medical alternatives that could give someone an appetite without the use of pot.
I think the main problem with pot these days is the stuff put into it. If pot was legal, the government could regulate it and (hypothetically) make it safer. In the end it's just a plant, whereas the scarier stuff like meth is made in a lab. I feel like its inherent quality of being natural makes it different from other drugs.
Do you know what else is natural? Arsenic, Cocaine, Cyanide, Black Mold, and plenty more. Saying it's natural means nothing.
Why we people spend large sums of money to develop new treatments when an inexpensive drug that works already exists?
Sounds good.
I'm not reading all of the other comments, so forgive me if I repost something. But anyway, some drugs do serve a purpose. What about prescription drugs? And even if you aren't talking about those, there is a thin line between some prescription drugs and illegal drugs. A codeine addiction can be much more harmful than smoking pot every now and then.
Oh, Im not talking about prescription drugs unless they are abused.
But like I said, there is such a thin line, it's hard to distinguish which ones should be legal and which ones shouldn't.
I dont think there is. I think its pretty clear which ones should be legal. For instance, I've used tylonal all my life and its never caused me any problems and ive never became addicted to it, but if were to use meth there would be obvious faults in my health. The same goes with pot, if i were to smoke pot my entire life my lungs would suffer now wouldnt they?
Not really, it doesn't cause cancer. Inhaling anything is generally bad for you, but there are vaporizers and you could always just eat it.
I didnt say it caused cancer, but inhaling smoke into your lungs is harmful i dont care if people say its better than cigarettes.
I'm aware. Usually when people talk about lung damage, they jump to cancer though. The most you're going to get from smoking pot is a bad cold. It doesn't cause blackening of the lungs like cigarettes do. Even heavy marijuana smokers show no sign of emphysema because you inhale much less smoke than the avergae cigarette smoker.
I dont like jumping to any one problem because there are way too many out there to even consider. But to be honest, despite whatever health risk factors they are, what i really cant stand about it is that some people think they cant have fun without it. I mean really you're going to risk going to jail to get high? is it really worth it? I mean make some friends and actually go enjoy life as it is.
I don't use it to have fun; I use it to relax. I don't enjoy seeing people acting like the idiotic, stereotypical stoner. They're the ones who get caught because they're acting stupid. People know how to be responsible and functional when stoned. Don't condemn us all because one person is an idiot.
I dont buy that excuse either by the way. Its the same with all the kids that drink every weekend. They think they're badass for doing it and act like they can only have fun while doing it. I think its bullshit. I can relax and have fun without being under the influence of anything.
So can I, and I do. I don't let it consume my life.
Actually, I have a qurestion. Would you be friends with someone if they smoked pot? Keep in mind they won't smoke around you or pressure you to do it.
I actually do have friends who smoke pot. Do I agree with it? No, but I'm not going to harass them about it, i just make it clear its not to be done around me.
Alright. Just making sure you aren't one of the douchey straightedge people.
No, im not because they respect my beliefs enough not to do it around me, so I know they care.
That's the way to be. [:
haha thanks.
That's terrific for you. That still doesn't justify you wanting to ruin it for everyone, though. If someone wants to smoke pot every now and then to relax and chill out, what in the world makes you think you have any right to stop them?
Because there's no reason for anyone to use it to "relax and chill out". thats bullshit.
um most/all most all drugs are illegal that why people are arrested for having drugs
alcohol is a drug, and last time I checked, it was legal.
I could be wrong though, you know. sarcasm
So is caffine.
and caffine is legal. So saying that ALL drugs should be legal is a bit unreasonanble.
Most people are a bit unreasonable. No sense in arguing with them.
true that.
they dont consider alcohol a drug actually. and there are laws against alcohol (like dwi laws and the age law). but alcohol is a substance that reacts like a drug at least thats what they tell us at every single stupid stay drug free things we have once a year in school which btw doesn't help half the druggies in our school and no im not one of them
What the hell are you talking about? Of course alcohol is a drug, it's a depressant!
o well the gay teachers told us it was a substance not a drug. sad thing is they're teachers. and people who work with people addicted to drugs and stuff so sorry for my mistake
Usually drugs=substances. I'm pretty sure it was common knowledge.
I am aware of that which is why i disagree with the post. The OP is saying that just because you dont like drugs you shouldnt want to take the right to do them away from someone else.
Btw, California is trying to make pot legal which is probably why drugs are mentioned.
no its saying you if you don't like drugs, you dont have to do but you can't tell someone else not to cuz they will anyway and it's their fault when they get arrested
I dont think so because if thats what it is about then that last statement makes no sense whatsoever.
"Don't like your rights taken away? Don't take away anyone else's." everything before it is about rights that are questioned everyday about whether they should be legal or not. That last statement is showing that just because you dont like something, you shouldnt take the right to do it from someone else who does.
its saying that you have your rights and so does everyone else and you dont have the right to take away anothers and if you wouldn't want you're rights taken away that you shouldn't take away someone elses
Thats exactly what I was trying to get across to you. thats why i disagree, some things just shouldnt be legal, i dont care if you think its your "right" or not.
ok but its stupid to say that someone can't do something cuz you don't like it. like somone can't go to one store cuz you don't like it. or because you're against gays means that everyone else should be too
thats not what im saying, im against drugs because its dangerous and serves no purpose. Thats not the same thing as me saying it shouldnt be legal merely because I dont like it.
And im not against gays, i think its incredibly unfair that in a country where all man is supposedly equal, that they dont have the right to get married along with everyone else. Two men or two women getting married hurts no one.
thats what im saying if someone is against gay marriage (i didn't mean that you are its more if you were) they don't have the right to say that two gays can't get married. and the drug thing i mean it's their fault that they're doing damage to their body but nobody can really tell them to stop becauses more than likely they won't.
Oh i know they won't, i understand its addictive and they have their own free will, i just think that deciding that maybe it should be legal is a bad idea, it will only make people think it is not harmful.
why does age always have to be brought up when putting someone down? i know people many years older than them and im smarter and more mature than they are, and im sure many people can relate.
i'll be 18 next month you douchebag.
Why is my lifestyle choice funny to you?
Then what is so funny
Okay whatever you make no sense.
This post is about thing that do not harm others. It therefore does not apply to child molestation, murder, or hard drugs (a heroin addict will be much more likely to harm others, not to mention the suffering his family is going through). The point of this post is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not harm others.
Exactly. Your rights end where the rights of others begin.
I completely agree with you on all points except abortion. If having the baby could kill the mother, that's understandable. If a woman gets raped, that's understandable because it's not her fault she's pregnant. But if someone who has voluntary, unprotected sex gets an abortion, then they are just killing a baby.
I don't personally like abortion very much either, but keep in mind that if it's made illegal women will just do it anyways. Half of all abortions worldwide are performed illegally. The only difference if it's illegalized is that the woman has a higher chance of dying in a back alley abortion. I think that pro-lifers should be happy that the current rules only limit it to the first trimester, when the fetus is just a bundle of cells that doesn't look human, can't feel pain, and doesn't have a heartbeat.
Yeah If abortion was completely outlawed we would have way bigger problems. Not only people getting dangerous abortions, at that point there would be more babies that people would want to adopt. Skyrocketing population+lower success rate.....on another note, whenever I read your comments I imagine Morgan Freeman's voice xD
That's a good point. I'm personally against it' but I don't that that a law making all abortion illegal would be effective. For example, no one would expect a woman to give birth to a baby who has no realistic chance of living if she is likely to die in the process, and at what percentage chance would the cutoff be. And if there were an exption for rape, women would make false accusations to get an abortion.
But they're still killing a baby. Is that baby any less of a baby if it was made on accident?
I don't consider what I was talking about to be a baby. Like I said, at three months or less, it's basically a bundle of cells that doesn't look human, can't feel pain, and doesn't have a heartbeat. It is something that has the potential to become a baby in the same way that I have to potential to attend and graduate college. If everything goes right, I will graduate from college and the baby will be born. But if I died right now for whatever reason, the paper wouldn't say that a college graduate was killed. I don't LIKE the idea of abortion, but I respect that a mother has the right to choose during her first trimester when the fetus is just a bunch of cells. This is one of the few big issues where I think that the rules we have in place now are good.
I know that, and I'm pro-choice myself, but something about the whole "in cases of rape or incest, it's okay" thing gets on my nerves. It's like saying "you can't do it if you want to, only if you want to and if I say okay."
It's possible that you have a good point, but your post was unclear. You're pro-choice, but you don't want people to say that rape victims can have abortions?
No, I'm saying, what's the difference? How can you make rules like that? "No, you can't kill it, don't you fucking kill it, it's a living-- Oh, wait, it was an accident? Lol k, go ahead and kill it, idc anymore."
Think about it this way; if a kid is playing baseball and he breaks someone's window, he is responsible for the window. If somebody picks him up and throws him through the window, it wouldn't make sense to make him fix it.
So sex is the woman's fault? It takes to tango. Also, why are you talking about sex like it's someone's "fault"? Sex is not a bad thing. Babies shouldn't be handed out as punishments for irresponsible sex. That is not fair to anyone.
I don't think baseball is evil either, but the kid is still responsible for the broken window. Also, I think that any guy who gets a woman pregnant then doesn't stick around is scum, but I have no control over the fact that the man won't get pregnant.
I agree the woman is responsible for the fetus. She should take responsibility for her own actions by getting an abortion so she can finish her education and get a substantial career.
Its more difficult, but a pregnant woman can still get an education. Even if she doesn't think she can support the baby, there are plenty of good people willing to adopt an infant.
*two
I love you!
Actually at around 10-12 weeks an infant is actually pretty recognizable as a human and has a nervous system so the whole they're not human and can't feel pain thing doesn't make sense and honestly is just flat out wrong
I've done research and that's not what I saw... Can you show me a link?
"Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16118385
Guess who is just plain wrong now?
How about you read more than just the first sentence. The rest of the comment actually adresses what you just said.
The world would certainly be less entertaining without them.
Hey, I deleted my comment not because I think I was wrong but because I'm formulating another more generalized comment about the post. I might respond to yours later.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it; people who favor marijuana prohibition, for the most part, have no idea what they're talking about outside of what their parents/schools have told them. Guess what; they do have a "scientific" solution for those cancer patients other than SMOKING pot... a distilled THC pill called Marinol. However, pills are slow, so they're working on a rapid delivery system similar to an inhaler. The thing that's funny about this, is that while they're telling us on one hand that pot is sooo much more dangerous now because it's stronger(higher THC content), the pharmecutical alternative Marinol is PURE THC. Oh, bit that's not dangerous, because big business makes money on it.
You know what professions support legalization? Law enforcement and doctors. You know who contributes the most to keeping it from passing? ALCOHOL MANUFACTURERS. It is NOT about safety... it's about money.
Educate yourselves, or stfu.
It's always about the money. Thank you for being smart. The world needs more people like you.
Exactly. It's all government propaganda and bullshit. Screw The Man.
Thank you!
http://www.amirite.net/416883
Remember all are equal, except woman. It's not like they have souls. Hahaww.
Marriage is a right that everyone of legal age has, but if you're gay that right is taken away. Just sayin'
whatever happened to civil unions?
Civil unions don't guarantee the same rights as a marriage does. A married couple can visit their spouse in the hospital and make major medical decisions in case of emergency. A civil union doesn't offer that.
I know we had some different version in California for a while with the same benefits as marriage.
Honestly though, the only thing I don't understand is why people won't let gays marriage. I think abortion should be legal, but i can slightly understand why some are against it. I think SOME drugs should be legal, but again, i get why some are against it. However, where exactly does the bible say gay marriage is wrong? AND where exactly does it say EVERY person who gets married is christian? Marriages shouldn't follow the rules of one religion, especially if its a dumb rule. Why is it that cousins can marry, you can be a polygamist, and in some countries you can marry animals, yet two people who love each other can't get married beause a line in some book that not everyone in the world follows slightly hints that gay marriage is wrong? i just don't understand.
Actually, it does say in the bible, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22). But I completely agree with you (I am very for gay marriage being legal), it's stupid to outlaw something because of what one line in one holy book says.
That is an honor code that is neither relevant to the present or understood in context. My father signed a piece of paper, saying that he would not dance, drink, pierce his ears, or listen to secular music. That is also honor codes, based on interpretations of the Bible.
Leviticus was written for the new Jewish nation, which was tiny and facing enormous enemies, which meant Israel needed to grow in population, and fast. Back then, 3000 years ago, people believed that the whole of the child was contained in the sperm, and that the woman was just the incubator for the baby. Therefor, ejaculating outside of a woman was considered murder, as the "child" inside the sperm would die. Sex not used for reproductive purposes was outlawed for this reason. Leviticus also forbids contraception, masturbation, oral and anal sex, and "pulling out" before ejaculation.
Clearly, the world does not have the same problems that Israel had. Thus, Leviticus 18:22 does not apply.
(Ple...
thank you for informing me, hahhaha. But good, i'm very glad you are a normal person who has no problem with gay marriage. much appreciated.
I was saying that before some person came and argued with me on here (or you did, since you said you had no problem with it).
Ah yes, just allow everyone to do what they want even if it hurts them, instead of helping them. Gotcha...
This post is too black-and-white. It's not that simple.
It is that simple. What makes it so complicated?
The fact that some people in this world still have a thing called "moral values", not sure if you've heard of them.
I have heard of them. There are also things called rights which are very important. Additionally, there is also a concept many people call "using complete sentences" which you might want to research.
Some things, in some cases, do not apply. It's just a little controversial the way I see it. Maybe I'm not interpreting it the right way :/
I like turtles
I like bunnies.
People use alcohol and tobacco to relax and have fun or chill out, but it's still legal. Pot is less harmful on the body but it's illegal. Why? Tobacco companies pay politicians big money so pot will be illegal and less people will smoke it.
Tobacco companies do not pay politicians big money so pot will be illegal. Why? Perhaps it's because the tobacco companies would simply grow it and sell it themselves if marijuana were legal. Why go through the trouble of growing it yourself when you can buy it legally and already packaged? Just a thought.
gays have the same rights as everyone else. there's no law for straight people that says "you can marry whoever you love"
straight guys can't marry eachother either.
Civil union rights vary from state to state. In a marriage, the rights are the same nationwide. It's supposed to be separate but equal, but as we learned from the civil rights movement, that doesn't cut it for too long.
How can I rake those rights away if you don't have them in the first place?
To all of you who like this post. You might like this website. http://www.lp.org/. They can help you reach you goal for America.
Favorite. Post (about modern life) Ever
Fuck yeah!!
I think this post is beautifully true. Live and let live I say.
now think how many people had to translate that shit by hand and how it would only take one person to in the middle of writeing this long ass book to just be like gays oh hell no fuck them
Exactly!
easier said than done. its ridiculous that if you live in california you are getting TAXED for getting a sex change when you dont even want one.. this isnt about letting people "keep their rights" its about keeping ours and not being fooled./
I would never get an abortion, I am waiting until marriage for sex, and the only drug I would ever do is pot, but I agree with this post completely.
Whoa. So. Many. Comments!
I love this post. <3
*but
How can I take those rights away if you don't have them in the first place?
Don't like crimes? Don't commit them... wait what?
okay i dont think all the other drugs should be allowed but i mean pot has so many medical benifits and its a antidepressent imagin how many familys that could save if instead of angry and depressed dad came home from the caffe with a big smile on his face abortion i am pro choice but i mean i think special cases make more sense like rape okay its all good if it never happened to you but think that your unmarried and walking around prego and people talk and say what a slut you are that you dont even know who the father is that your a devil woman for having a baby out of wedlock i mean its like whatever but there is no reason in the world that gays should not be able to get married i dont care what it says in the bible one seperation of church and state and two look at king james version of the bible than read the new english one and tell me how many translation fails there are now think this book has been around for over two thousand years and people didnt always have printing presses.
Thank you for saying that. Really, I totally agree. If it doesn't affect you, you should be all for keeping those other people happy.
oh btw i know its a little late but i am sick of hearing the flaws so dont lke the logic dont use it
What does religion have to do with murder and terrorism?
It's because many people murder and commit acts of terrorism "in the name of god" when in fact they go directly against what his or her religion says; a good example,"Love the sinner,hate the sin",but many Christians go directly against that.
Omg get the message already, I don't actually think murder is right, I'm just trying to get the point across, just because you think something is right that doesn't make it right. People think they can just do whatever they want and when someone says they should stop they say that the other person is taking away your right. It's not a right to have a gay marriage, same way it's not a right to murder.
Are terrorists hurting you? Are they harming your family or sending you threatening emails? If no, then shut up. So it's ok just because they don't bother you, And fyi, ya, some gays have been assholes to me.
Somehow, I am not surprised that gays hate you.
No shit that terrorists hurt you. It has made people so horrified! It killed thousands of people. Have you not read this post? DONT TAKE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AWAY! Gays can do whatever they want. It's love, let them be. Everyone was born equal.
Dont like murder dont do it, right?
...no, if you don't like murder, you should definitely murder people.
drugs aren't a right
I think this post is beautifully true. Live and let live I say.
Don't like killing homosexuals, don't do it!
Don't like terrorism, don't be one. Don't like animal abuse, don't do it. Don't like murder, don't do it. But don't take away my right to.
Sound familiar?
Murder and terrorism were never rights. The way I see it, if two people of the opposite who hate each other can get married, two gay people who love each other should be allowed to get married. If people in prison still have the right to marry, law abiding gay citizens should have the right to marry who they love.
It's not a right to murder and be a terrorist...
Well just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can tell me not too, what are you, religious?
Thats what queers sound like
(Oblivious):
Your a bigot too then, you don't think your wrong either. Fucking hypocrite
I make judgments based on a person's choices and actions, not based on uncontrollable factors like race, gender, or sexual orientation. I also do not try to take away anyone's rights no matter how much I disagree with them.
Yeah, don't like rape, don't do it. Don't like murder, don't do it. Don't like babies on fire, don't burn them. This logic is so flawed
Your logic is flawed. What do those things, which are illegal for obvious reasons, have to do with anything mentioned in the post?
People find the reasons for the things mentioned in the post to be illegal obvious. Abortion people see as murder (but as long as I don't do it I guess it's okay), drugs already are illegal and kill people, families, and communities, and sex
up to a certain pointcould very well be taking away someone's rights. If you are an adult, go ahead make your personal choice on that, I'm not saying sex should be illegal, but there is plenty of reason for all of these things to be illegal. If there wasn't we would be having this debate right now.The same argument was used during 1850's and 1860's by pro-slavery people. "Don't like slavery? Don't buy any slaves. But don't say we can't have any."
You don't have any rights that infringe on the rights of others. That is why makes slavery is not a right and bearing arms is.
Someone who supports gay rights AND the right to bear arms? Congratulations on thinking for yourself instead of following the herd.
Thank you! Long live the Libertarian Party!
Yes, but I do believe that abortion is infringing upon the right to life.
But banning abortion is infringing on a woman's right to govern her body, life, and future. A fetus is better off dead than being born into a world where the government owns her body, controls her fate, and punishes her for refusing to give up her hopes and dreams to take care of a baby.
You'd rather have a dead baby than a woman whose "hopes and dreams" so to speak, get put on hold for 9 months or so? Abortion definitely infringes on that child's right to live. It's not just the woman's body. The baby has a body as well. That baby has a life and a future.
If you believe that the government is controlling a woman's fate by not allowing her to kill her child, you underestimate the courage and strength of women, Ms. Feminist.
Giving birth to a child is not a temporary inconvenience but a lifelong commitment. Millions of women are forced to give up their education, careers, and ambitions to take care of children. Not only do they never reach their potential but they are thrust into a life of poverty that they might never overcome. But don't take it from me. Ask one of the millions of impoverished homeless teenage mothers in America if they think their dreams and hopes are less important than the life of a six celled organism.
Who are you to say they would be better off dead? A woman has the right to dress, speak as she chooses and have sex with whoever she wants. The government does not own her body. She needs to take responsibilty for her actions.
No woman is free if the government can force her to bear a child against her will. That is a gross violation of her God given rights. A clump of cells is not more important the liberty and autonomy of all females to argue otherwise is misogynistic. Individuals do need to take responsibility for their actions and getting an abortion can help them do just that. Sometimes, abortion is the best way to deal with those circumstances.
I am not misogynistic (I had to look that up, thanks for teaching me a new word) I just think it's terrible that someone's life must end so that another can live more comfortably.
Sacrifices are necessary to retain liberty .
Yes. We give up some of our rights so that we may live safely. I believe that if a woman chose to have sex, she should not have the unborn child killed.
If you believe abortion is murder, you must also believe that a woman who gets an abortion is a murder and therefore must go to jail and even be sentenced to death. If abortions became illegal many more women would die in back alley illegal abortions. You have a choice make abortion legal and kill fetuses or make abortions illegal and kill women. Neither choice stops death. So whom should we kill? Women or fetuses?
Do you think illegal abortions are performed behind warehouses by quacks with clotheshangers? In 1972 for the US, 39 women died from illegal abortions. Every year, over a million fetuses are aborted in the US. So who should we kill? A women or 20 thousand fetuses?
@785467 (innocentbunnys): Your statistics are in a word, BULLSHIT. Here are the facts:
"A WOMAN DIES EVERY EIGHT MINUTES due to complications arising from unsafe abortion" http://www.who.int/reproductive.../en/index.html
"Approximately 585,000 women die every year, over 1,600 every day, from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth." An estimated 20 million unsafe abortions are performed worldwide every year, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 women." http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/gen...en/women96.htm.
"Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million" http://www.prochoice.org/about_..._abortion.html
I said in the US. For your last source, the estimates ranged as high as 1.2 million, which means they could be anywhere from 100,000-1.2 million. And after 1973, the number of abortions rose from about 800,000 annuallly to 1.5 million annually, then started to drop in the early 90's.
So how many women must die needlessly every year before you start giving a damn? Or do you just stop caring about people lives once they are born?
You think I don't care? I would rather a woman who chose to have sex knowing full well of the risk of a pregnancy be forced to live in discomfort for some months than a fetus who has never done anything to anyone nor experienced life yet be terminated. I'm sorry if it sounds insensitive, sexist, or foolish. I don't stop caring about people once they're born, I just think everyone has the right to life.
My original post relating this argument to pro-slavery people in the 1800's was a bit ridiculous, but imagine what people will think in several hundred years. Our argument may seem ridiculous. Maybe in hundreds of years, I'll seem like an extreme sexist bigot, or maybe you'll seem like an advocater for murder.
Please don't assume that I hate women or that I'm an idiot.
I don't think dying in a back alley abortion or getting executed for murder counts as a "living in discomfort for a few months". Have you ever gone through childbirth or taken care of a child? If you had, you wouldn't call that a temporary discomfort either. I noticed that you never actually address the huge numbers of women who die from illegal abortions. This makes me sad but doesn't surprise me. Anti-abortionists are pretty accustomed to completely ignoring the sufferings of women. I don't think you hate all women. You probably admire and respect many women in your life. But I do think it's really sad that you think the life of a week old fetus is more important than the welfare and freedom of a woman.
Dying in a back alley abortion or getting executed for murder don't result from giving birth to a child. While discomfort is an understatement, the process of creating and birthing a baby is usually temporary, whereas death is permanent. I didn't mention the large number of women who die from illegal abortions because I was talking about inside the US. I don't like abortion, but I can't pretend to know how life is in a third-world country.
And I think it's sad that millions are willing to sacrifice their babies for themselves.
It may not be a result of having a baby but it is a result of making abortion illegal, or considering it akin to murder under the law.
You can't just make generalizations like people get abortions because they only care about themselves and don't feel like taking care of a baby. Sometimes women can't afford to take care of a baby. Sometimes women are not mature enough to handle the emotional stress of bearing a child. Many women get an abortion to they can provide better for the children they already have; that sounds like the opposite of selfish to me. You can't say women get abortions because they're selfish. You don't know every woman and her situation so you have no right to judge anyone.
If a women cannot provide for a child, she shouldn't create one and kill it part way through.
I think it's strange that you've been arguing about someone's rights the entire time, but say I don't have the right to have an opinion about someone involved in a controversial subject.
You have the right to have any dumb opinion want to. But neither of us has the right to control a woman's body and future. I never claimed to have the right to force a woman to have (or not have) an abortion.
I agree with most of these, but I disagree with the one about abortion because the person getting the abortion isn't the only one effected.
Okay then, who else is affected? No one.
Other people would be more affected by a drug user than someone who got an abortion. ESPECIALLY if the person who got an abortion never told anyone.
I recently JUST found out my sister got an abortion when she was a teenager... Do I view her any differently? No.
Do I wish she would've kept the baby? No.
Is my family different because of her? No.
Does the baby have any rights?
i agree everyone is MADE with the right to live. so they should be born to live out their right.
I agree with your post exactly.
Abortion after fetus development= murder, murder is a right?
Once the fetus develops into a baby, it isn't called abortion anymore.
Hypocrite. It's your opinion, just like mine. Were both bigots I guess, In fact, because everyone in the world is bias to their own opinion, were all bigots.
False. I think you are getting confused between being in intolerant, hateful, and prejudiced and being opinionated,
I agree, but using this logic you could make everything legal. Don't like murder? Don't do it. Don't like public nudity? Don't do it. Don't like seeing cow carcasses in the street? Don't look at them.
(different anonymous): The major difference is that you can only stop someone from doing something if it's harmful to the public. Like murder would be harmful to the public. Abortion, gay marriage, and lots of forms of drugs aren't harmful to the public. Murder is.
troll
:) Can I love this post?
S/he
his/her
...wow...
that's what i'm sayin, mayn.
I don't know what to think about this post...I agree with the last line "Don't like your rights taken away? Don't take away anyone else's", but all the examples suck. Gay marriage was never a right, therefore it's not being taken away from anyone. Drugs do harm others, and shouldn't be legal. No one is trying to ban sex.
i think the part about gay marriage is they have the right to marry who they want and the sex one could be that just because you don't believe in sex doesn't mean that other can't. and the drugs isn't a great example but its a choice that someone makes and just cuz you don't like them doesn't mean that some people won't make the mistake of doing drugs. but i don't think the drug one was a good example.
srry meant wasn't a good example
Actually, a few years ago a law was passed that made gay marriage legal in the state of California, until it got revoked by Prop 8 in the 2008 election. Therefore it was a right that got taken away.
While I was referring to the vast majority of the world where gay marriage has never been legal, you're technically right.
Whatever. You can rarely achieve profundity in the character limit of an amirite post.
Faggot. Little babies don't like abortions but they can't fight to not get aborted. You fucking idiot go kill yourself, and i don't care if you don't want to this isn't a democracy, it's a republic. People run government, and the people want you to do your mom.
this is a democracy...
America is not a PURE democracy, it is, in fact, a republic. A pure or direct democracy would mean that citizens would vote on every single solitary issue instead of voting for leaders to make the policy decisions. However, that is the only truthful statement in PedoCastrollaccount's comment.
It's not marriage though, Marriage is clearly defined as one man and one woman. Give them some sort of "gay fuck in the but bond" or call it something else, but it's not marriage.
A bigot is clearly defined as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." You are a bigot. Clearly, you have not respect for homosexuals, individual freedom, or America.
Would his be a good time to bring up the argument that abortion takes away the rights that a baby has?
Is now be a good time to mention that banning abortion would take away a woman's right to govern her body, self, and future?
No,no i would not.
I agree with all of these except the abortion one-- people that don't like abortions don't like them because they believe it's a baby, and it's wrong to kill a baby. It doesn't matter if you kill the baby or if someone else does. Just like you wouldn't be okay with, "You don't like murder? Don't kill people. But don't take away other people's rights."
Abortion doesn't count as killing a "baby"...I could see if they waited till the baby was born, decided they don't want it anymore then kill it, but come on now, really?
I'm just saying, that's the opinion of people that oppose abortion. That it's a baby even before it's born.
All people are BORN equal.
I believe you mean, all people are CREATED equal.
I wasn't trying to quote the declaration of independence (which by the way says "all men (not people) are created equal"). I was just stating my opinion.
Holyshiz. I love you. Will you marry me?
ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. u know why?? becuase ppl say "but wat about the mother its her bodyits HER life."
its the BABIES LIFE TOO no one understands tht. ppl need to understand that its not just the mother its the baby too a baby is born and alive one the sperm reaches the cell. so b PRO LIFE.
that depends on the situation. for example if the woman was raped she's not gonna want the baby. but if she wasn't and knew that "hey i could get pregent" than yeah i could see why it would be wrong to some people but it's better to get rid of the baby than to bring into a world where it's either never gonna know it's parents or isn't loved by them. and if they can't afford it i can understand them not wanting to keep it than have to worry about changing it or feeding it.
A woman isn't free if the government can control her body, future, and welfare by forcing her to have a child against her will.
It was her choice to get pregnant (usually). That is what freedom is. Freedom is also living with the consequences of those choices
If you use a condom and it breaks or you're on the pill and it fails you did not choose to get pregnant. If you take all the precautions and they don't work abortion can be the last resort. Though abortion should not be used as regular birth control because of the serious health implications.
Abstinence bro
Are you seriously suggesting that a person who doesn't want kids should never ever have sex at any point during their life? That seems way extreme, especially considering the amount of birth control available. Also, only some forms of sex can get you pregnant so you don't have to abstain from all of them.
You actually expect people to not have sex? Sex is an important part of an adult relationship. What about married couples who aren't ready for kids? Sex is not just for procreation
Get your tubes tied (it's cheaper than abortion) and there's always adoption the loving option
So you'd expect a woman to have a major surgery just to keep from getting pregnant? What if she wanted kids later, just not now? She would have to go under the knife AGAIN just to be able to have children. You also expect her to go through with a pregnancy and potentially ruin her body for a baby she doesn't even want?
The alternative for a women who wanted to screw around and not get pregnant is to have a series of abortions throughout her life. One time surgery sounds better to me. Also there is no dead fetuses. As for wanting to have kids later, you could go thru with the second surgery, have sperm or the zygote implanted in the uterus so they can still have the baby without risk, or adopt. If more people adopt, there wouldn't have to be more abortions. The fact of the matter is, the only times there aren't better options (still arguably) is in cases of rape or danger to the mothers life.
If you're only having sex with your long time partner you are not "screwing around." That surgery costs a lot of money. So does invitro. And you know what? Adoption ain't free either. While abortion does cost money, it costs much less than all of those things. The fact of the matter is, if more people used birth control correctly, the amount of abortions would drop considerably. Expecting people to be celibate or get their tubes tied is ridiculous. Tubal ligation is a major surgery. Consenting adults have every right to have sex.
I'm not saying they don't or shouldn't. Sex is great. But people need to be responsible with it. Sure birth control is great, but we learned in 8th grade health class that the only fool-proof way of not getting pregnant is abstinence. Also while sex is a loving act, it is meant for procreation. There are many ways around this of youre not ready. Once you have procreated tho, you have a responsibility to finish the job. And putting a child up for adoption doesn't cost anything. And if she later wanted to have kids, adopting would be no more expensive than actually giving birth. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have sex, but that they shouldn't kill babies just for that privilege. And chances are that these people will have some permanent birth control surgery anyway once they are done having kids so it's really irrelevant if it costs money. If they later want kids and don't want surgery, there are plenty of kids who want parents.
If you use birth control you are being responsible. Putting up a kid for adoption may not cost anything, but I think it's cruel to ask a woman to give up her life for 9 months and ruin her body for a baby she didn't even keep. The thing about having the surgery after you're done having kids is that they are finished having kids. They will not need to pay to have the surgery reversed. If a person gets the surgery before they have kids and decides that they want to have their own children then they have that surgery reversed. They have to pay not once, but twice. Also. insurance will cover those types of procedures after you have children, but not before. People who have had kids get to pay little to nothing for their reproductive surgeries.
Sex is not just for reproduction. If it was, people would not be able to orgasm from things other than vaginal intercourse. Think about it.
You also talk about how these people would be "long-term partners". Well if they don't want to have kids and dont want to get their tubes tied, tell the guy to get clipped. It isn't a big or expensive operation, it's fool-proof, and it's reversible. Everybody wins
A guy getting "clipped" is not fool proof. What if he doesn't go back for the regular to make sure his sperm count stays low? I actually know a kid who was born after his father got a vasectomy. It happens.
With choice one you take care of the problem in a way that hurts no one, unless something goes wrong (but all procedures have the possibility to go wrong). What if the child dies on it's own? Were you even aware that the majority of abortions are "natural" abortions, also known as a miscarriage.
There is nothing about looking sexy. After being pregnant for so long a woman gets attached to that little clump of cells and is less likely to give away the baby. Then you end up with a baby in a family without the means to take care of it.
Since it has not been proven that life begins at conception there really is no reason to deny a woman an abortion. It's the life of a clump of cells or the life of a woman who we know is alive.
First, like I just said birth control isn't fool-proof. If was the most responsible choice there would be no unwanted pregnancies from those people so abortion would be irrelevant. What happens when she forgets the pill or it fails? You have a baby. Now you have three options: kill the baby, give it away or keep it. Let's assume she doesn't want to keep it. With choice one you kill a living creature whose right to live should without debate outweigh that of the mother to look sexy. With choice two you accept the consequences to our actions, keep the life of a child intact, and offer the possibility to have a child to someone who can't have one of their own. The only net benefit of abortion is looking sexy. Are we really that vain of a society that a women's looks should take precedence over a life? For people that their tubes tied, if they don't want to have kids then make that choice before you ruin your life or your child's. Also THEY CAN ADOPT A CHILD!!! This option gives everyone what they want. The parents get to have a child and still look sexy. They can fool around all they want and never have to worry. And the child gets a home. In every case there are better options.
Lot's of people make a decision not to have kids but get pregnant anyway. If you plan on having heterosexual vaginal sex at any point in your life, there is a chance you can become pregnant. Besides, abortion is a way of "dealing with the consequences".
I saw this on tumblr before...
OP took it from someone/some place else, that's why there are quotation marks, so hushh.
don't like murder? Don't do it = like murder? Go for it!
You don't have the right to murder because it takes away someone's right to live.
haha kite runner refrence anyone?
Don't like murder? Don't murder. Sucks for you if you get murdered, but you can't do anything at that point, amirite?
I wouldnt be surprised if that's what he's doing...
He's not. He may be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church though
I live in Nashville, (well Brentwood) Tennessee. Where is the WBC?
I knew your stupid self would show up at some point during this,and i bet amishpancakes will too.
I live in the Brentwood area as well. What school do you attend?
Good one, buddy. I'm not dumb.
Excuse me? I have no idea what you're talking about. I just read that you live in Brentwood, and I live in Franklin. I go to USN.
Oh I go to MBA. Whatup school who got rocked in X-country.
Hahaha yes, that's true. We suck. Whaddup school that got rocked by Ensworth?
:'( it's too painful to comprehend.
So, why don't you go to a Christian school?
Because BA isn't a Christian school. Haha.
I don't know.
My grandfather is Jamie Tillman. Know him? He is the Director of the high school at MBA.
I don't know him, but I think I've heard the name somewhere. In what grade are you?
10th. Really? I'm surprised. He knows everyone haha.
What grade are you in?
9th. Honestly, it's so weird that you live within like twenty minutes of me... that never happens.
Haha yeah it's awesome. Do you have an account? Wanna friend me?
I do have an account. I'll friend you on one condition; we mustn't get into any religious arguments. I will not express my religious beliefs, because I don't know what will offend you or not. I hate arguing, so let's just agree not to get into that business. Deal?
Alright. As much as it pains me-deal.
I think he is too, I've had far too many arguments with him over the issue of gay marriage. He gets proven wrong all the time and still continues to rant and rave about things that dont really make sense
No soy un trasgo.
GAY MARRIAGE IS MURDER OF LOVE
Are you gay? The guy in the picture looks homo to me.
I didn't, but the same logic can be applied.
Evidence?
No evidence is needed. Only the superior Biblical knowledge of the almighty scrantoncity!
This post is about thing that do not harm others.(Although the one about abortions might be off)
And i think you realized this too.. however the word "gay" probably made you stop in your tracks and feel that it was really important to post your post.
Especially when it DOESN'T apply because murder does harm things.
Nice try though, maybe next time?
I'll take whoever's rights I want.
As will I. Go make me a sandwich
No. I have to go back under my bridge.
You don't have the right to do that. I tookm your rights away remember? Go make me a sandwich
I don't have the right to make you a sandwich.
that isn't a right it's a privilege. Now go make me one
I had no privileges in the first place.
You are the worst troll i have ever met
Why thank you.