Welcome to Canada! Where you can choose to abort or not and the government still pays for everything!
Why are people saying "if you don't want kids don't have sex."
Contraception. I know it's not completely failproof, but if you use at least two forms of it, you should be good to go. If people are taught about safe sex, then there's no reason to teach people to just not have sex. I don't want kids, so I use contraception. It's a relatively easy idea to grasp, and it's been around for a while. Not many people are going to stay virgins their entire lives, whether they want kids or not. So there's no point in people not being taught about how to avoid pregnancy because it just leads to abortions being used as a form of contraception, which I see as morally wrong but it's still their choice.
You're right, but people usually get abortions when their contraceptives fail. (or if they're too stupid to use them. Yes stupid).
So who's fault is it if their contraception fails, is it still "keep your legs closed" now? Do you want everyone to stay abstinent?
It's the contraception's fault if it doesn't work... and I never said people should stay abstinent, quite the opposite. People can have as much sex as they want to, providing they're over the age limit and it's not rape. Because it's none of my business, and it's none of any one else's business who's having sex with whom. And on top of this, I don't mind people getting abortions. It's their choice. Not mine. I'm not going to have to raise that child, carry it, have to look at it every day if it's a child produced by rape. I won't have to deal with it. They will. And it's better if they choose to abort the baby if they don't want it than having to look after a child they know they can't afford or won't love, or will resent. Yeah, the child could go into care. But really? Since when has that been good? There are a lot of corrupt care homes, and corrupt foster parents. And not enough people want to adopt! So, if the parent knows they can't or won't be able to raise it, then yes, they should be allowed to abort babies as long as it's before it has formed into a baby.
Tl;dr--choices for everyone.
I'm not sure you understand the healthcare bill.
Even in places where healthcare is universal, it's still not payed for by the government. Taxes go up. The new healthcare bill just forces everyone to have healthcare.
I think that whether an abortion is permitted or not depends on the reasons for having the abortion.
If the mother doesn't want the child because she can't afford it, or because her family doesn't approve of it, an abortion should not be allowed. She should bring the life into this world, and the government should help her get the child adopted.
If the mother wants an abortion because having the child would put her life in danger, or if the child has a very serious illness that they could detect in vitro, then I think an abortion can be allowed. You're protecting the life of the mother, in the first scenario, and in the second, you're putting a child out of the misery of a painful life, perhaps unable to express their feelings to others. In the instances of rape, as has been mentioned repeatedly, if the mother would suffer extreme psychological trauma if she were to carry the child, abortion would be allowed, for the same reason as the first scenario.
Not all abortions are created equal. It's not the mother's sole decision, just because she is the one carrying the child. That being said, there are still many cases where abortion can, and should be permitted.
It's her body. She should be able to do whatever she wants with it. The government (US at least) doesn't even have money. They shouldn't waste that precious money on some kid that nobody wanted.
@cherryblaster I think if a woman can't afford to raise a child, she should have the choice to abort it. The child's not going to have a good quality of life if the mother is in poverty, and will most likely grow up to have a low paying job and live in poverty too. Many women find it too painful to give their children up for adoption and don't want to be parted. Why would any woman want to watch her child live a terrible life because she doesn't have much money?
All abortions are created equal. In each and every case a mother decides to terminate her pregnancy and the pregnancy is terminated. Unless it's a forced abortion, every one is the same, and every reason to get one is perfectly valid.
It's unbelievable that people on here believe that some people just take up space in the world. Everyone has a purpose and at least one person that cares about them.
Just because someone cares about them doesn't mean they have a purpose.
Nobody made her had sex.. Unless is was rape which accounts for a fraction of a percent of pregnancies.
Sure, lets just ignore that fraction and not put it into consideration because who cares about the well-being of rape victims.
Also it takes two people to have sex. *Them.
We can't make everyone happy, because there are still people who believe lynching black people is okay. Do we give them the okay to do so? No, we use common sense.
Common sense is letting people control their own damn bodies, because there really is nothing else a person has control over. Take away someone's own body and they have nothing.
Well, abortion is legal which means we are ignoring the fraction of people who don't believe in it. We can't make everyone happy.
Good point anon.
And yes I know two people have sex, thank you captain obvious, but I said "she" because the female is the one getting the abortion.
The government should not pay for everyone's mistakes. Take Responsbility for your actions.
They are. That's why there's abortion. So you can "take responsibility for your actions."
Exactly. If you don't want to take care of someone else's mistake, then let them get rid of their mistake.
The kid would just be a burden. The parents don't want it, no one adopts it, it just takes up space in this world. What if it's bitter when it grows up and is a serial killer? Just get rid of it while you can. The world has enough people already and it doesnt need more.
so you're saying a lot of the orphans wish they were aborted? i think many are happy to be alive, despite their situation.
No. They don't wish they'd been aborted because they know the world, they know life. But cells in the womb? They don't know earth. They don't know life. They wouldn't miss anything.
Yes it is. You made a mistake, you do whatever you can to fix it and get rid of the problem. That's how you take responsibility. You fix your own problems instead of making others pay for you.
The point of responsibility is realizing you made a mistake and doing whatever you can to fix it. In this case, it would be getting rid of the problem you caused.
I'm trying to be as polite as I can, but how do you know no one would adopt the baby? There are SO many infertile couples out there who desperately want to adopt a baby. Newborns are in high demand. I've never heard of a pregnant woman who is actively trying to adopt out her unborn baby and working with an adoption agency NOT be able to find a family who wants to adopt her baby, especially if she is taking care of herself and healthy. There are always many couples waiting to adopt per every one newborn baby who is given up for adoption.
I guess but I think we should go to all the orphanages and make sure EVERYONE gets adopted before we start seriously saying abortion should be illegal. And like I said, we have enough people. A million things can go wrong with any child. Any child can grow up to be a murderer. If you can stop even one from killing others, you did well. Like hitler for example. His mom was going to abort him but her doctor convinced her not to. And that whole infertile couples thing....honestly, I say if you're ready to resort to adoption, you must be pretty desperate. Just hire a friend to have sex with your husband, and she can give you the kid when it's born.
There are millions of orphans on this earth. I'm having a hard time believing someone who wants an orphan can't find one.
Lol "get rid of your mistake" is not taking responsbility for your actions.
If the government won't let me speed, they should reimburse my airplane ticket and pay me for the day of work that I missed.
Speeding is illegal because it's dangerous and puts other drivers at risk. There's nothing illegal about having sex.
That doesn't make any sense. The government isn't paying for a child that you forced upon them, they would be paying for a child that they forced upon you by not letting you get an abortion.
I never said sex was illegal. I'm saying that if the government is going to pay someone back for the inconvenience of a child that they had no control over, it should pay me back every time I can't get away with something I want to do.
Not the government's fault she fucked.
@anon I like how the male is completely absolved from any responsibility for the presence of a child. It's her fault that she's pregnant. Obviously her partner had no obligation to wear a condom, or if she was raped, that was her fault too. In fact, she probably led him on! Because, as everyone knows, immaculate conception exists...
It's the government's fault that she can't take care of the problem herself.
Do you expect everyone to be abstinent or...?
Here's an easy way if you can't pay for a child; keep your legs closed.
How come it's always the fault of the woman? The ONLY reason she is pregnant is because SHE can't keep her legs closed. Nobody lays any responsibility on the man, and the blame is thrown immediately on her.
What if it was rape? She was forced to spread them.
Or we can make abortion safe and affordable this way people who don't want to worry about not being able to afford a child will have an alternative method.
And what about pregnant women who are addicts or alcoholics? They know their baby has a great chance of developing incorrectly. Should they have to live with that struggle? Or what about incest babies, if abortion is made illegal, that child is going to have to deal with whatever that may cause.
It's not inhumane to have it. But it would be a burden. It'd have to rely on others to take care of it it's entire life. It's not gonna make a difference in the world.
Men can still contribute to paying for a child.
So poor people can't ever have sex responsibly? That sounds fair and logical.
So your argument is that it is inhumane to have a baby if you know it will be disabled, and the solution to this inhumanity is to kill it?
Last I checked men can't get pregnant.
The first comment didn't say anything about it being a woman keeping her legs closed...
The government also wont let me kill my 2 year old sister. They should have to pay for everything. Food, Clothing, Bedding, College. EVERYTHING.
Your 2 year old sister is self aware, feels pain, and has an established life outside of the scientific definition of life.
Edit: I see the comment about you kidding now.
Please tell me you're joking
It is their life. The mom and dad created the fetus. If they decide that they don't want to bring the fetus into the world, it's their choice.
I know I'm not going to change your opinion on this, but remember you're not going to change my opinion. It's just a civil right people should have like same sex marriage and religion.
Here's what I think. You can't kill your grandfather, but a doctor probably could if the family allowed it. A doctor probably could perform an abortion if the woman allowed it. I think we should be able to do what we want with our bodies. If she doesn't want to do that to herself, she shouldn't have to. We have a population crisis anyway. We don't need more people.
My grandpa is in a coma. He is not self-aware and cannot feel pain. Does that mean that he is no longer in the scientific definition of life? Could I kill him?
Abortion should be a choice. It's the mother's child, not the government's or the church's.
If you're his next of kin yes. And no that doesn't mean he is no longer the scientific definition of alive. What I meant with that comment is that your sister is alive outside of the scientific term "life" she has a life in the same context as when people say "get a life"
I think the point of the illogical ness of this post is that because it is so illogical for government to have to provide all of those things, it would make more sense to allow the abortion.
It is her child. It is NOT her life.
But it's not even a body yet. You don't get an abortion in like, your third trimester or something. And really we Don't need more people. Chances are, the kids just gonna be a regular kid. He's not gonna be the next Steve Jobs. He's just gonna take up space on this earth. His mother didn't even want him so he's just taking up space.
You can do whatever you want with your body. You cannot so whatever you want with another person's body. It is as simply as that. If its not your life, you cannot end it. You SHOULD not end it.
And using population crisis as an argument for abortion does nothing but degrade the value of human life.
I don't know. If somehow a regular, middle-aged person got shrunk down and were somehow connected by flesh to my internal organs, and I do NOT want him there, it makes me 100% able to rid that pest by any means I want. If I want to take it out via surgery I can. If I want to brutally kill that sentient being I still can. Because in the end it's my "property", just like I can kill an unwanted intruder in my house even if he was drunk and stumbled upon my home on accident. My property, my rules.
Because a child is self-aware, and is not in a few months going to stretch beyond restoration/rip open its mother's vagina. A foetus is biologically human, but it is not socially a person. It's okay to kill a human, but not a person. The two terms are easily confused because all the humans anyone knows are people, by virtue of the fact that people know them.
true. But the problem is that you continue to see a fetus as an item. If an artist creates a work of art, he is entitled to destroy it if he so desires. But the issue is that a fetus is not an item, but a life. And it doesnt matter that the parents created it. Life is life. They have no right to end it.
Because one doesn't have fingers and toes and lungs and a few other organs. The other is fully developed, more than just a few cells, and has seen the world outside the womb.
@ ShamWowGuy Actually, the mother does have th right to the foetus's life. It's dependent on her and owes her a life debt. Technically, I owe my mom a life debt too, but the law prevents her from acting on that as long as I know what's going on.
That's exactly the point. If a fetus and a child are both in debt to the mother, then why is it okay to kill one but not the other?
Wait, so is there a magic number of days in the fetus where it's now considered alive?
Well it's not magic, but yes, there is. I think it's when the heart starts beating or something, or when it's been proven that the nerves work and the brain shows a chemical/electrical response to stimulation.
Oh... Well my closest uncle was a complete vegetable for 3 months, and his heart couldn't beat on its own and didn't respond to anything. He made it and survived, but you're saying it would've been fine to kill him? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious)
No. Your uncle is already a person because he was already born and had effects on people etc. After three months, a foetus is not a person yet, but has proven that it can be as long as it has the nutrients. It's heart beats on it's own and such (Your uncle's once did, so that still counts.).
It's always been alive. The sperm and egg were alive, so obviously the fetus isn't dead. But the way I see it is that my left arm is alive in the same way but no one's going to yell if I cut it off.
Yes, im kidding. I'm trying to illustrate that this logic is... illogical at best.
But can you honestly justify taking a life because they are not self-aware or able to feel pain? The fact of the matter is that simply because a child is dependent upon the mother, does not give the mother a right to ITS life. In the same way, people depend on medication, feeding tubes, etc to stay alive. And yet, no one else has the right to choose whether they live or die.
If you don't want to pay for the cost of raising a baby or it's adoption, you shouldn't be having sex.
And please don't mention rape, that happens less than 2% of the time.
Let's talk rape. If it only happens 2% of the time (which I doubt is true, anyway) that is still two women out of one hundred impregnated with their rapist's child. What about them? They are people too. Don't they matter? It's not their fault they are pregnant, and, if they are financial unstable how do you suppose these women pay for their children form then on out? The average cost of raising a child is over 200,000 dollars. How are they supposed to afford that without wrecking both their own and their child's life?
That argument "If you can't afford a child, don't have sex" should really only be used on young people like teenagers. If you're in your 20's, 30's, etc. and in a steady relationship/married, you shouldn't be expected to not have sex just because you can't afford a child.
They should be able to get an abortion, so no one has to pay for them.
And what if a couple already has children? And now they cannot afford to bring another child into the family, without putting not only the new baby, but the whole family into poverty? Should they have to go through that? That's not fair for anyone. I believe having more kids than you can properly support is pretty selfish.
Not everyone in the 20s and 30s has a lot of money.
Also just because you reach a certain age doesn't mean you have all your shit together.
OH they have a child? And they can't afford another one?
And so they had sex and whoopsie, the women get's pregnant?
Well, that may be a tragedy, but you have yet to prove that it is everyone else's problem and why everyone else has to pay for the couple\s misfortune.
Whatever your arguments may be, why should everyone else have to pay?
To the person above, you're right, you can't expect a married or older coupl enot to have sex. But no one is forcing them to, and if they get pregnant, why should everyone else have to pay?
They may have a sincere problem on their hands, but its their problem, their decision to have sex, so they should should find a way themselves to find the money.
They shouldn't expect the government to take other people's money on the basis "we're in our late twenties, so we just had to have sex. Now pay because we totally didn't realize we might have a baby on our hands."
And as for the person on below. Great, you've established the fact that being raped and unintentionally impregnaated is terrible.
Now prove to me how that is everyone else's problem to take care of.
My grandmmom lost her house worth over 350,000 last year because of the cost of cancer treatments.
Boo hoo, so I should expect the residents of her state to pay for her house. Right?
Brunetterox915: Anyone that is in their 20s or 30s has their lives established enough that they should keep the baby anyway. It is one thing for a teenager to get an abortion, but for an adult... it makes me sick.