The voters have decided that mchalla3 is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Child of Rage The FULL Documentary - YouTubeShocking, Horrifying, Fascinating The full documentary.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-Re_Fl_L4&feature=related
Also by mchalla3+138If social services must check a would-be parent's background before they can adopt a child, then people should get licences before they are allowed to have their own children, amirite?
Also about Education+141Ted Mosby probably told his kids a longer story about how he used to walk to school, amirite?
Also by mchalla3+37If every 00's kid is a spoiled brat that has no respect for adults, then every 90's kid is a self-righteous asshole, amirite?
Also by mchalla3+291Abstainers: you don't look down upon people who are responsible and use birth control, amirite?
Also about Education-8The purpose of government school is to turn the student into a worker bee, not a leader or entrepreneur, amirite?
Can't afford condoms or birth control = can't afford kid = can't afford sex.
Simple as that.~
Condoms and birth control are free at planned parenthood.
Teach safe sex, NOT abstinence. We have thousands of years showing that humans are incapable of it.
If people want to have sex, fine, but they shouldn't complain about getting pregnant if they don't practice safe sex.
haha the vote up on this comment is +69 XD
Because you will get pregnant. And die.
Or, just hear me out, learn to have sex RESPONSIBLY! gasp Strange concept, I know, but here's the deal. Don't have sex with someone you barely know, and always make sure you're using birth control. Condoms by themselves are pretty safe, but they CAN fail (or perhaps your partner is allergic to latex), so look into supplementary birth control as well and see which one would work best for you.
Or use two types of birth control
Or use all of them
Yeah, that's what I meant when I said "supplementary". However, I should remember that not everyone would know what that means,(and I did word it awkwardly :/) my bad. I pretty much meant what you said, another method IN ADDITION to the condom, not in place of.
Those are always a good idea, but if you can't afford to have a baby, then you shouldn't be having sex. There's always the possibility that both will fail. It's stupid that teens can't just wait.
Now poor people can't have sex? That's terrible. Poor poor people!
Poor people have family. Poor people have the same access to adoption agencies as the rest of us. There are also many poor people who find a way to support themselves and their child.
Poor people also have rights. Like the right to control their own bodies, lives, and futures. You can't be in control of you body, life, and future if the government forces you to give birth against your will.
NEWSFLASH: a baby isn't part of you're body. it is its own living self with its own DNA. so to end its life before birth is selfish, and it should not be confused with a woman having control of her own body.
(YOU AGAIN?????): News flash: though the fetus has separate DNA, it is a physical extension of the woman's body. Since it is inside the woman's body, it's life is in her domain. To put it simply, what goes on inside a woman's vagina is absolutely none of you damn business.
Since when has a separate life been a mere extension of a body? Think about what you're saying. Life. A life! An equal human being with equal rights as the mother. To kill it is to commit murder! As far as it not being my business, I certainly consider it my right to defend a Childs life.
(You again): and this is why i say that when you really cannot handle a baby, don't have sex. its the easiest way to be 100% sure you wont get pregnant. wait a few years before you have sex. its not that hard to keep your pants on.
No matter how much you blame the woman, she still has the right to control her body.
(You again): There is no way to preform an abortion without involving the woman's body. Regulating abortion is regulating woman's ability to control her body. A fetus and the mother share a physical connection: the umbilical cord. That's why I said the fetus is a physical extension of the woman.
By your logic, a woman has the right to do any thing she wants to her body. Should women be encouraged to cut themselves simply because it's their body and they can? Now I know that example is very different from abortion, and I know youll insist that a woman isn't hurt by abortion (though mentally and emotionally she can be). But abortion is even worse because a baby is the one getting hurt!
A woman can't legally do anything she wants to her body. For example, she can't shoot heroine into her body. However, a woman has a right to privacy and the government has no right to intervene in her private family affairs or personal health unless it's something to do with drugs or violence that will endanger the rest of society. The government just can't control woman's bodies like they control property taxes; it's just not right. A woman's body is not hurt by abortion most of the time. There are sometimes complications, but abortion has proven to be far safer than childbirth. Also, abortion would be far more dangerous and fatal if it were illegal.
I agree that, unfortunately, some women will always murder their unborn babies, legal or not. My main point is about ethicality, not legality. It's easier to disregard laws than morals. Im not saying that the government should have control of women's bodies, I'm saying that since women do control their bodies, they should have the decency not to abuse that privilege by killing their fetus.
What if they had a really compelling reason? For example, what if the woman wanted an abortion so she could dedicate all her time and energy to her life long dream of becoming a surgeon and opening a free health clinic for refugees in Afghanistan? And what about a 13 year old girl who is far too young and too scared of pregnancy, childbirth and what all the other middle schoolers will say about her? I know these examples are a little far fetched but still think there are some acceptable reasons to have an abortion
with the thirteen year old, I am saying that they shouldn't have had sex in the first place, except when they couldn't control it, like rape.
What's that got to do with anything? The thirteen year old should still be able to get an abortion even if she was stupid.
If some guy broke both his legs trying to jump off his roof into a swimming pool, you can't just say "well you shouldn't have jumped off your roof in the first place" and then not give the guy medical treatment. The guy may have been an idiot but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be helped.
I don't think 13 year olds really understand sex and the consequences. Besides, in many states it's automatically considered rape if the girl or boy was that young. At that age, you are not old enough to give informed consent.
I myself am thirteen and I know what sex is, and I know about the consequences. While I agree with the point you are trying to make, I also believe that people should face their actions and deal with what happened.
I think getting an abortion is a way of dealing with the consequences and facing their actions, not away of avoiding them
But it shouldn't be about "dealing with the consequences" anyway. Babies aren't punishments that we hand out to naughty girls to teach them a lesson about responsibility.
Premature motherhood can be emotionally traumatizing and permanently damaging. We shouldn't make any girl go through with that if she doesn't feel ready, even if she was irresponsible about sex.
Abortion is absolutely aversion of a problem, not facing it. And we aren't the ones handing out babies as punishment. The girls bring that upon themselves when they decide to have sex. Mistakes happen, condoms break, the pill fails. If a girl can't handle pregnancy/motherhood, she shouldn't have sex, simple as that.
Blaming people for having sex won't save children, help the young mothers, or make the lives of the mother and the baby any better. If you ask me, blaming women is just cruel and sexist.
We can reduce abortions. We can do so by improving the adoption system, making birth control more available, increasing sex education, and making childcare more affordable.
Saying bad things about women who have sex is just hurtful and stupid and won't stop abortions at all.
I completely understand that. I'm not saying that they're sluts or whores or anything like that. It's their life, and their decision to have sex. But with that decision comes the possibility of pregnancy. And if a girl DOES get pregnant, it is her responsibility to carry that baby; that life. As for your accusation of sexism, I'm a girl. Don't try to tell me that a single sexually active woman in the world doesn't know that pregnancy is a possibility. Everyone knows that, and even if they use protection, they have sex knowing that pregnancy could result. That said, they should only have sex if they can handle the consequences.
So in a nutshell, I'm not mad that people have sex. I'm mad that they act shocked find out they're pregnant ("WHAT?? I mean yes I had sex full well knowing it was a possibility, and yes the condom may have broken, but I am shocked and enraged!") and get an abortion as a result.
I'm not going to continue this discussion because you are far more threatened by the idea of women having sex than you are of women getting abortion. I don't want to hear anymore about it being a woman's responsibility to have babies.
Umm.. Didn't I just explain that I am not in any way against sex? That would be ridiculous. I strongly oppose abortion, not sex. Our conversation has digressed from abortion to the cause of it. Are you leaving the fight because you don't have a strong enough case in favor of abortion? Because I certainly have a strong enough case against it...
Then why don't you state your case for abortion instead of saying bad things about women who have sex?
Fine: abortion is killing an innocent life. The instant that sperm and egg fuse, the resulting mass has it's own DNA, seperate from the mother. Yes it is physically attached to her, but it is in no way a part of her body. Killing it is murder.
If all killing is murder, why isn't war murder as well. If abortion were simply murder there would be no debate about it. But it's not murder. It's more complicated than that. Sperm and eggs have their own set of DNA as well. That doesn't mean the death of a sperm cell is a murder.
There is no way to preform an abortion without going through the woman's body. Therefore, regulating abortion is regulating a woman's body. No one has a right to regulate a woman's body like property taxes or wall street sales. What happens within a woman's body happens in her domain. That's why it you can't kill an embryo if it exists in an artificial incubator but you can kill an embryo if it exists within the woman's body.
So long as it is contained by the woman's flesh and blood, it is under her control. If it were otherwise, women would be denied the fundamental right to control their own bodies, lives, and futures. What is life without those basic freedoms?
First of all, your comparison of abortion to war is flawed, because 1) babies can't defend themselves. 2) soldiers' goal is safety and to save innocent lives, not take them. Next, sperm is part of a man and eggs are part of a woman. Why? Because it's their DNA, their own gametes with their own alleles. Babies are entirely different because they are a fusion of two different sets of genes: its own being, its own person, its own life. As we have established and agreed upon earlier, a woman does not and should not have the right to do whatever she wants to her body (heroine example). Abortion is the same way. You say 100% of abortions involve the mother? shockingly enough, 100% involve the baby too.
Saying war is murder is an over simplification, just like saying abortion is murder. The part about sperm and eggs having their own DNA is true. A gamete has half the genetic information the mother or father has. Every gamete is different. That's not really whats important. It's not about what is considered human, it's about what is considered humane. Forcing women to give birth against their will is not humane and neither is causing thousands of women to die or be injured in back-alley illegal abortions. Whereas heroine addicts are a threat to public safety, allowing women to control their future, health, welfare won't turn them violent psychopaths like heroine might.
It's the governments fault that back-alley abortions occur? Um, the women are the ones doing it, therefore bringing any injuries or consequences upon themselves. As for "forcing" women to give birth, they were the ones that had sex (yes, I know we've addressed this before, and I'll say again that I have nothing against having sex or the women who choose to) but they get themselves pregnant, it's not like the government forces a baby into them. You seem to think the government is to blame for everything! And I know that you are a feminist, but did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the women you defend aren't all perfect, good-intentioned individuals? I agree they still have rights. I'm a girl myself and want equal rights as men, but abortion is not a right that should belong to women just because the situation that THEY got THEMSELVES into is inconvenient. Your quote about "humane not human" worries me, because there is absolutely nothing more inhumane than taking an innoc...
A woman's body is her temple. It is not the property of her husband or the plaything of her boyfriend, and it is definitely not the slave of the government. The government can regulate heroine and commerce and property taxes all it likes but it can not control the very flesh and blood of its people. Every free citizen has the right to control her body, life, and welfare. The right doesn't disappear when the woman has sex or irresponsibly. That right cannot be taken away*. When the government infringes on the woman's rights by violating her privacy and by declaring a woman's womb to be the jurisdiction of the the government, it is the government, and not the woman, who is at fault.
*not talking about taking people's rights away with criminal trials, that's completely different.
The legal side of this whole debate is insignificant next to the moral side. That's really what I want to convey here, not just argue about the governments power. that's more of a political debate than a debate about whether or not abortion is ethical. I say that it's murder. Killing. Ending a life. Simple as that. Curious thought: if a pregnant woman gets killed, it's considered a double homicide. And since homicide is not in any way ethical, why is abortion any different?
(YOU AGAIN?????): Thank you
As a summary: You really shouldn't be having kids when you can't afford them. why? because you are giving your unborn child a suckish life.
abortion is and should only be used when it is rape or something like that.
:D did i get everything? i was only skimming
What is it with you and "bodies, lives, and futures"? It seems you can't understand that there are certain actions that require that people sacrifice some of their freedom concerning their "bodies, lives, and futures", such as having sex. You can have all the sex you want, of course, but it is possible that you will get pregnant. And you're saying that no one should ever have to deal with something they don't want to deal with, because according to you, we should all have complete control of our "bodies, lives, and futures".
News flash, in the real world, you have to deal with the product of your actions, not just get rid of all bad consequences that hinder control of your "bodies, lives, and futures".
Being poor is an obstacle that some people just have to face in life. Maybe, instead of having all the sex they want, they can focus on an education or career, so that they can afford to have a baby. Cuz honestly, it's pretty selfish to risk bringing a kid into
this world knowing that you can't or won't support it.
Oh so now it's selfish that poor people want children? How terrible! Imagine actually wanting to have a family! Your rights do not disappear when you have sex or when you get pregnant. Certain rights are inalienable, meaning that the government can't take them away no matter what.
I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions; I'm saying that getting an abortion is sometimes the most responsible, logical, and ethical course of action.
Your reasoning confuses me. If it's selfish to bring a kid into this world knowing that you can't or won't support it, then abortion is a selfless act.
It's not selfish for them to want, it's selfish for them to carry through with it. We can't all have what we want all the time. No, your rights don't disappear; however, a new set of rights emerge that accompany the new child you have brought into the world, and his or her rights should be inalienable as well.
It's selfish to CONCEIVE a child knowing you won't support it; it's more selfish to kill the child BECAUSE you won't support it. There is always adoption, but the one that would hurt less emotionally is to just not risk it to begin with.
AAHHH, stop fighting! its a total waste of time! >.<
Ah, it's the old women who want abortions are selfish/slutty/evil/bitchy argument. Way to be original. Lots of different types of women get abortions some of them are sweet honorable kind women and some are irresponsible immoral bitchy women. You can't really generalize that all of them are selfish bad people when you don't know their reasoning behind getting an abortion.
Personally, I think it's selfish to force other women to endure childbirth and motherhood when they are not prepared because the idea of killing wee little fetuses makes you squeamish.
Fetuses are babies; humans that are not fully developed. Killing them before they get a chance at life, just for the sake of convenience, is a very selfish thing to do. Every child deserves a chance at life. I'm not saying that all women who get abortions are slutty/evil/bitchy. I don't know where you keep pulling these random derrogative terms from. Cuz I know you ain't quoting me.
Oh, and by the way, 93% of abortions are for the woman's convenience and nothing else. That is sick.
I agree entirely. That's why I made the post.
I agree with you. there's no reason why teens can't wait. i mean really, are we humans with intellect or puppies in heat?
Or, just have gay sex! If you're a hot guy and are interested, please contact me.
Why didn't they think of that...
Because you will get pregnant. And die.
(Ciara!!!): "If you have sex, you will die die die!" Nigahiga
Wh...what? No...no SEX? That is preposterous and downright insane.
Well, you always have your hand! And it's completely risk-free.
Risk-free? Masturbation is dangerous. That shit might get in your eye.
lmao why would you be aiming at your face?
If I told you, I'd have to kill you.
@995215 (DanielJames): but sperm has vitamins....
Or your mouth.
Teenagers have always and will always have sex, telling them not to isn't going to work. Which is why I have a problem with abstinence only sex education. People need to know how to protect themselves if they do choose to have sex they need to know about stds and protection against them and they need to know the different methods of birth control available to them. I know it sounds stupid, but at my school we were taught abstinence only sex ed (Christian, all girls) and half the girls had no idea how their body worked, or how someone gets pregnant (other than the basic sex=baby).
Get sterilized and forget the birth control AND the condoms!
"Abstinence rocks!" <--- lulz
If you've had sex you'd know that abstinence sucks, and just have safe sex. It's honestly not that hard.
It's called the reply button
Why? I didn't need to send it to them, it was a general statement.
what if the condom and birth control fails? and they are outruling abortions... i think.
Condoms + the pill + pulling out + the morning after pill. If you still get pregnant after all that, then that baby was meant to happen
i guess. i dont really know that much about the subject, being only. (i know everyones gonna hate me forever now.) 12. LE GASP.
Plus, if you've had sex, you wouldn't be saying abstinence rocks
didn't you also say you're 12? So yeah I'd hope you're a virgin. But I didn't say everyone is like that, just most the 15-18 year old virgins on here that get into arguements more often than not have this super arogant attitude about it. And assume just because someone. That doesn't wait til marriage is sexually they're irresponsible and stupid. I lost my virginity when I was 15, to someone I loved. Our break up was mutual, better friends than lovers. Had a one night stand with a guy I'd known for years after that. And have been with my current bf since I was 16, I'm now 21. I'm allergic to latex. So no condoms. I take my pill every day. I'm std free. No kids. Graduated high school. Beauty school. Make $50-200+ per client usually. I DON'T want kids, buuut I'm going to continue having sex.
(:)): you sound like a pretty responsible person to me, so i'm NOT going to assume anything, dont worry.
and hey, that could change if you ever decide to get married.
just follow the seven S's, Safe Sex Sucks So Screw Someone Special
(pokerface111(: obviously, 'just keeping your legs shut', doesn't work. I can guarantee all teen parents know having sex can potentially get them pregnant. Abstinence is not the solution, teaching safe sex is. 100% safe sex, is what they need to be taught, because if you ask a majority of teen parents will tell you they had unprotected sex ONCE, they'll swear up and down they normally use protection. All it takes is one time. And yeah I understand that even birth control is not 100% but failed birth control is only a minor percentage of teen pregnancy. Also, if you're a virgin you have no place saying 'its not hard, just don't do it.'
(hm.): Well, if we're virgins wouldn't we know from experience it's not that hard to not do it?
I think she means you have no right to shove your morals down other peoples throats. I don't think she meant that you don't know what being a virgin is like.
I know, I'm just saying, when we say, "It's not that hard", we really mean it. To some of us, it's just not that hard.
i second this.
It's like a non-snooty telling a smoker to "just stop, it's not that hard anyways". Besides, with virgins, you either have strong willpower, which is a gift OR nobody wants to fuck you
Or we just have lower sex dirves. It's different from a non-smoker telling a smoker to just stop, first of all, they've already started and are already adicted to nicotine which is harder than not doing something in the first palce. If a sex addict feels like they can't stop, that's different from someone actually being able to keep it in their pants.
Well, being a virgin, you don't even have the slightest inkling of how good sex feels, or what it can do to a relationship. And it IS like a non-smoker telling a smoker to just stop. You'd understand if someone had ever given you a true orgasm
ahaha afuckingmen. It really irritates me when these little virgins try to argue like this and you know they think they're better than anyone whose not a virgin.
Anyways, to the argueing virgin, statistically teen moms did not get pregnant the first time. So this debate has nothing to do with a virgin saying 'its not hard' to say no. And just because someone enjoys sex it, by far, does not make them a sex addict.
(hm.): im a virgin, and i do not think i am better than anybody who isnt :P
in fact, i look forward to the peanuts on the plane. (post of the day.)
Because you will get pregnant. And die.
(Ciara!!!): Sorry could you say that again?
LOL wat kinda solution is that? just don't have sex xD clearly written by someone who has never experienced the wonderful pleasures :D
no, what I'm saying is that if you're a virgin you have no idea what sex is like, obviously. That's like someone who's never smoked a cig in their life telling someone with a habit, 'well why don't you just quit? I don't smoke, its not hard.'
(hm.): Oh I see. I agree that's really stupid.
Haha I just said that before I read your comment >.>
Because you will get pregnant. And die.
Can someone please vote this up or down? its at 666 right now, and that's creeping me out...
Or get your tubes tied.
SERIOUSLY! there's a commercial during teen mom/16 and pregnant that says go to a certain website for ways to not get pregnant. how about keeping your legs shut >.>
where's the fun in that?! D=
The "fun" is not becoming a parent before adulthood.
Not all sex gets you pregnant
Okay? I'm well aware of that. But unless you're medically unable to concieve, and said sex is done vaginally (which I'm sure is what OP is refering to) all sex CAN get you pregnant, and that's the point.
But it's avoidable with the right combination of birth control and there are alternatives to having children such as plan-B pills, abortion, and adoption. What you should worry about more is STDs but you and your partner can get tested to make sure you don't have any.
You can never be 100% safe with birth control. Also, I just want to throw in that I think using abortion as birth control is disgusting (and I am not arguing about it). But hey, it's a person's own decision if they want to risk having sex and I'm not saying it's bad, just that it's a lot safer to wait until you're old/mature enough to deal with a pregnancy. And now I'm ending this little debate, because it's pretty pointless, amirite? You have a nice day.
Have a nice day!
thats what the plan B pill is for