Before it was legal, women died from trying to get an abortion! So what if it is a healthy baby? A woman is should be allowed to do whatever she wants with her body. It would be like me not letting you do something you wanted to do to your body. Anyway, you're a guy, swimlax, and shouldn't be even in this discussion. It's sick that men think they can decide a woman's fate. You don't even know what it is like to be pregnant!
It's incredibly sexist that you think I don't have a say in the life of an innocent baby who could be killed simply because II have never been pregnant. The baby is every bit as alive as the woman and if she gets an abortion, she is a cold blooded killer and it doesn't take a certain gender to see that.
Also, learn to use the reply button.
Oh, that's cool. I didn't know you could remember what it was like to be aborted! Tell me about it, please.
And Roe v. Wade is not necessarily bad because of allowing abortion, but because it made abortions so easy to get in any given situation.
And explain to me why easy abortions is a bad thing?
"No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg."
92% of abortions are done on healthy women to kill healthy babies.
Yeah, that statistic doesn't shock me.
You're still not explaining to me why easy abortions are a bad thing.
Most soldiers who died were perfectly healthy. It doesn't mean war needs to be illegal.
Easy abortions are a bad thing because the average expecting teenager or any woman who finds that she is pregnant, despite their ability to properly give birth to a healthy baby, will abort their child with little trouble. Before easy abortions, adoption was used more frequently and thus, lives were saved.
You're not getting the point. People don't get abortions because "hey! an abortion clinic! I haven't gotten an abortion in a while guess and i don't have an appointment until 6 so guess i'll go!"
People get abortions because they can't handle a child. They have the right to do whatever they want with their own pregnancy. I don't see the need to make them jump through a billion hoops and make them miserable. The right is theirs; it's a waste of time to make it harder. Sure, more lives were saved, but personal freedom was more infringed upon. Abortion debates are exactly the decision between lives or the right to make your own bodily choices.
People get abortions because "lol sex is way better without a condom and we were drunk and i don't want baby lol lol"
Personal freedom was certainly not infringed upon. They abused their personal freedom by getting pregnant, they put up with the consequences. You don't have the right to kill someone else for your mistake.
I'm not saying make it harder, I'm saying let them deal with their own lack of abortion. They want an underground abortion? Fine, but that's the only way they're going to get it.
Someone cannot be trusted to make civil choices with "their own body"(which is also housing a living thing) when they got pregnant in the first place.
You know, I think rape is a thing. I vaguely remember there being such a thing as broken condoms too.
By the way, I think type-2 diabetes treatments are immoral and should be banned. Idiots ate candy all day long, so they deserve to deal with their fatass disease and suffer. If someone can't be trusted to put the damn chocolate bar down, they can't be trusted to control their bodies. Because if it isn't my problem, the solution should be illegal.
Rape and broken condoms account for a very small percent of abortions and in the case of broken condoms, adoption exists.
I am not an expert on type 2 diabetes, but I know it's different from abortion in a hugely important way: if you are treated, you are only helping yourself. If you geet an abortion, then you are helping yourself at the cost of an innocent life.
I mean, fighting the civil war was a big help to myself, but human lives were lost, unfortunately. My family using oil is for our own benefit, but innocent people in the middle east have died over oil conflict.
Those are both things I wish didn't have to happen, but as of right now it is nearly impossible to get by without oil and hopefully we will move past it.
Are you a sick person? Sure, you believe in pro-choice and I love that. But your thoughts on Type 2 diabetes are horrifying. Food and fatness happen, and letting someone die without treatment for getting fat is ridiculous. That was seriously an absurd and thoughtless reply.
I was not being serious! I don't think type 2 diabetes is immoral. It was a satirical comment designed to point out how hypocritical it is to think the same thing for abortion. It worked, didn't it? If you think saying that is absurd, then you'll surely not say the same thing for abortion, right?
Swimlax, get a life. Sex is fun and people get drunk. That's life. Like you haven't stuck your penis into a girl without a condom on it (and who would want a baby from you, you who don't even respect a woman's rights and body!) Learn to accept women and how about you waddle around nine months, throw up, pee constantly, and then have a small bowling ball come out of your penis. Then maybe your view on abortion will change.
I would gladly do it to save a life, and then I would put it up for adoption if I don't want it because I deserve to deal with my consequences.
If you're pro-life because babies are innocent and abortion is murder, then you should be pro-life 100% of the time. It shouldn't matter how she got pregnat, the baby is innocent.
I'm pro-choice. I believe a woman should be forced to give birth and I don't think babies should be considered a punishment for having sex. People should have babies when they WANT to. Babies should be celebrated and planned. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she shouldn't have to sacrifice sex.
Don't tell me what to believe. Sometimes a mother and baby are both dying and in order to save one life the other must die.
Babies aren't a punishment for having sex, they are a result of having unprotected sex. If you can't deal with the result, don't deal with the cause. You don't need to sacrifice sex. We have condoms, birth control, adoption, and ways other than murder that will prevent you from having a baby.
So you're a little pro-choice?
You know, sometimes people have protected sex and still get pregnant. What about them? Should they have to deal with the consequence (punishment)of having a baby?
That's such a rare case that it really shouldn't be counted on in the grand scheme of things. But, yes. They should have the baby and give it up for adoption because sex was meant to reproduce and when it accidentally does that, you can't just kill.
I'm sure as long as their baby is cute and white it will get adopted easily. The sad thing is, most babies are not white (though the vast majority are cute) so the chances for adoption are scarce they shouldn't even be counted in the grand scheme of things.
Do you have any source to back that up?
I'm just going by what I've heard, but when I get home and on a computer I'm sure I'll find something to back me up. Can you back up saying so few abortions are the result of failed contraception?
46% used no contraceptive, many others used it incorrectly
"That's such a rare case that it really shouldn't be counted on in the grand scheme of things"
It seems like it's more rare for people to get an abortion when they used no protection at all if less than half of the people used contraceptives. Using it incorrectly still counts if they did not know they were using it incorrectly. Their ignorance should not force them to have to give birth.
A white or Latino baby is 7X more likely to be adopted than a black baby.
"Their ignorance should not force them to have to give birth", actually, it should. Ignorance is no excuse.
"Most of the adoptive parents in this data set were white"- your source.
How can ignorance not be an excuse? They believed they were using it correctly but they weren't. Why should they be the ones who suffer the consequences when they're taking the best precautions not to get pregnant that they know how to take?
Why does race of the adoptive parents matter? My point still stands. White babies are more likely to be adopted by they only make up roughly half of babies waiting to be adopted.
They should be more educated. Pregnancy isn't something that happens when you mess up, pregnancy is what happens when you have sex. You need to know how to stop it or it won't be stopped.
White babies are only more likely to be adopted by white parents. There could be completely opposite results in a study of mostly black parents.
Yes, they should have been more educated, but they weren't. It's not their fault if they believe they were correct. They honestly believed that they knew how to stop it. They just happened to be wrong.
Or maybe the parents in that study were mostly white because it was easier to find white participants who had gone through with adoption? People do tend to stick with their own race when adopting, so if fewer black parents are adopting then fewer black babies will be adopted.
It's their fault for not being educated.
That's a lot of "what if".
How is it their fault? They looked for ways to protect themselves to the best of their ability.
It's only one "what if." What if most people who adopt are white? The answer is that since 99% of people adopt within their race (I'm not making that statistic up, I read it when looking for which race is more likely to adopt) then fewer black babies will get adopted. It's simple math.
If that's the best they can do, they shouldn't have sex.
It's a big what if! There's just a big of a chance that more black people adopt.
and for the record, I only know three people who were adopted and they are all black with white parents. Small population, but it's hard to believe 99% adopt within their race.
And why shouldn't they have sex? They were protecting themselves the best they knew how, just like the couple that used the condom correctly. What makes them so different? They tried their best and they still failed, just like the other couple.
1% of people adopting within their race was a bit off. It's 8%, but that's still a lot less than the 100% of the people you know who were adopted. So 1 in eight children are adopted by people of a different race. The question is now what race are most children who need adopting and what race are most of the families who adopt?
The hard thing is that the small majority of children in need of adoption are minorities while the slightly larger majority of people looking to adopt are white. It doesn't add up.
If someone rides the subway the wrong way because the don't know any better, the conductor doesn't stop and turn around for them; they have to deal with what their ignorance caused by getting off and taking the time to find a train back.
I'm not willing to go any deeper into the problem of adoption because, quite frankly, I don't care. You make the baby, you have it. Bottom line.
I didn't think subways could just do a U-turn and head back the other way? The conductor doesn't do that because he can't. But when someone finds out that they're lost and need to find the way home, just about any decent human being would stop and give them directions.
But it's not a baby yet.
No decent human being would help them at the cost of another's life.
And yes, it is a baby already. It has been scientifically proven because everything is either alive, nonliving, or dead. Are you willing to call that fetus nonliving?
But is it at the cost of life that's equal to human life?
I never said it wasn't alive. I just said it's not a baby. It's a fetus. It's very much alive. But it is not a baby.
All life is equal to human life. All life is equally great and sacred and does not deserve to be killed. That goes for the smallest fruit fly, the most dangerous snake, and certainly a fetus that could develop to become the next Albert Einstein or John Lennon.
So you're a vegan and you've never killed a spider or a roach that you found in your house?
That fetus could also become the next Hitler. You can't put worth on something just because of what it could potentially be, especially when their is no proof of that potential.
It's a dog eat dog world. Killing is okay for food because we are omnivores. I have never killed an innocent bug simply to kill it unless I had to.
Actually, potential is all we really have as humans. Should we go kill all the schoolchildren? After all, they could all be the next Hitler.
Abortion is killing in self defense. The fetus is invading the woman's body and she doesn't want it there, so she kills it.
We don't kill things because of what they can potentially be either. We give things a chance once they've been born, not before.
An inconvenience is not reason enough for killing.
What's the difference between being born and going through puberty? It's just a stage in life.
Ask any woman to describe pregnancy. They will call it much more than an inconvenience.
Yeah, the FIRST stage of life.
Compared to innocent death, pregnancy is an inconvenience.
How is the first stage any different?
So you know what it's like to be pregnant?
Considering the fetus hasn't even reached the first stage of personhood I would say that says a lot.
This isn't a personal matter, it's fact: Any sane person would rather be pregnant for 9 months than have their life ended as a fetus.
It's not "personhood" that's important. It's ALIVE and thus MURDER to make it NOT ALIVE.
How would you know? You've never been pregnant and you can never be pregnant, AND you don't know what a fetus wants or whether or not it even wants anything at all.
Yeah, it's murder. Just like killing a fly is murder. Or setting mouse traps. But you know what? Just like killing a fly and baiting mice to their doom, abortion is justifiable.
I know for a fact that I would rather suffer through 9 months of hell right now and live than die within the first 9 months of life. It's not that hard of a decision.
So you're valuing a human life the same as a mouse now? It seems to contradict your earlier argument, but abortion IS justifiable. Just not enough of the time to make it completely legal.
Except a fetus can't make decisions...
You're the one who said all life was equal, even the life of a fly. If you're okay with mouse traps and not abortion you are a bit of a hypocrite. And abortion is either always wrong, or it's never wrong. The circumstances don't change the value of the fetus's life, right? Even if the mom is about to die, why should her life be chosen over the life of the fetus?
You are, without a doubt, the biggest strawmanner I have ever seen.
1. I never said I was okay with mouse traps
2. The circumstances do matter. Albeit rare, rape causes pregnancy and it is not fair to force the mother to carry the baby.
3. If a mother is dying, her life should be chosen over the fetus because it is unlikely that the fetus will survive, so they would both die.
So you don't set mouse traps and you defend the lives of helpless little mice?
Circumstances do NOT matter. No matter how the fetus was conceived it is equal to all other fetuses. If it's okay to kill a rape fetus then it is okay to kill any fetus. If it's not okay to kill a fetus conceived on accident then it is not okay to kill a rape fetus.
What if it's not unlikely that the fetus will die? Babies are delivered prematurely to save the mother's life all the time and end up living.
I have not twisted around any of your arguments. You're the one who said all life was equal. I'm just trying to see if you mean all life all the time, or all life depending on the situation.
All life is equal, but sometimes it's necessary to kill. Such as for food, when it will save a life, or when the fetus was wrongfully conceived and would torture the rape victim. And yes, all you have done is twist my argument:
"All life is equal"-/->"It's never ok to kill anything"
Or when a woman doesn't want to have a baby.
If it's okay to kill sometimes then all life is not equal.
If a woman simply doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't create the baby in the first place. Sometimes it is ok to kill given the circumstances even though life will unfortunately be lost. It is so unfortunate, that it should be avoided at all costs and not just whimsically to undo a grave action.
She didn't intend to create the baby. She intended to have sex. Consenting to sex does not equal consenting to being pregnant. Unfortunately, the life of the little fetus is lost, but given the circumstances, it's justified.
Actually, see, it does. Sex is for reproduction and if you're not mature enough to recognize that and its risks then you're not ready for sex. It's not okay to kill for someone who wanted to have sex and got its intended result against her selfish will.
Sex is not just for reproduction.
The intended result for that specific woman was to enjoy sex and not get pregnant. When something unintended happens (getting pregnant) it's not selfish to get an abortion. And calling it selfish is totally ridiculous. Women take abortion seriously and only get one of they feel they need one. It's not something people really do on a whim in a sudden burst of selfishness.
Sex, by definition, is for reproduction. Doing it for enjoyment is cheating your brain's evolutionary reward system. Reversing the effects of sex because you merely want the enjoyment and not the responsibility would be okay, except that you are essentially choosing your enjoyment of sex over a life.
The question is now, "Is that life more important than sex?"
We choose to eat meat over life everyday. Not that we don't need meat, we do. But we don't need it everyday, and we sure as hell don't need it twice a day. What makes wanting to have sex for enjoyment worse than wanting to eat meat everyday? Both are unnecessary.
Because meat is NECESSARY. Although it may be overused, at least it's something necessary that is overused. Also, you're assuming that eating meat all the time is okay, therefore, since it's analogous to sex/abortion, sex/abortion is okay.
Actually, humans could live perfectly healthy lives on a vegan diet. All you have to do is replace meat with rice and beans and you get all the key proteins meat provides. So no, meat is not necessary, it just tastes good so we eat more of it. Just like sex feels good so we have more of it. Eating meat all the time is okay, just like having sex/abortions is okay.
We are omnivores and evolved to be so, so we could not get all of the proper vitamins from things other than meat. They may be supplements, but they are not proper substitutes. Just like abortion is no substitute for abstinence or proper precaution.
Who said anything about supplements? Eating nothing but rice and beans instead of meat will give you all the "meat" nutrients you need. It's a simple fact. Rice and beans are more than the perfect substitute for meat.
Abortion is the perfect substitute for abstinence and precaution actually. Just like eating rice and beans produces the same result as eating meat, abortion produces the same result as abstinence or contraceptives: no babies. Is it a morally acceptable substitute? Maybe, maybe not. It really all depends on who you ask.
Abortion does not produce the same result. Abortion produces dead baby while contraceptives produce no baby.
But it's a fetus, not a baby. It's only a baby once it's been born.
Once again, that's nitpicking. They're simply different stages in life, such as "toddler", "teenager", and "senior"
That's not nitpicking. The fetal stage is a stage of prenatal development, not a "life" stage. Yes, a fetus is alive, but it isn't a life. Flowers are alive, but they're not a life. If that even makes sense...
Actually, they are a life. Animals have life and are a life, plants are a life, and fetuses are a life. That's why they are able to be killed.
They are a life in the literal sense. I was trying to say that they're more a life in the sense that a plant is a life. It's alive, meaning it can be killed, but it's not intelligent. It can't even be compared to animal life.
A fetus can be killed, but so can many other organisms. My skin cells are always dying. The spinach I eat in my salad had to die so I could eat it. And sometimes, a fetus has to die. They're all equal and really not a big deal.
Sometimes a fetus has to die, yes. But not nearly as often as Roe v. Wade allows. Or any abortion law in the near future would allow. Only for if the mother's life is in danger and maybe if the pregnancy is a result of rape. Not if you're a teenager who got drunk, not if you didn't have any condoms and thought pulling out was okay, and not if you think sex is more fun without condoms.
Why do the circumstances matter? What did the fetus of the party girl do to deserve to live?
Nothing. Every one of them deserves to live. It's just that naturally, it won't live if the mother's life is in danger so it's better to save one life. And now this is going in circles.
But you didn't just say a woman could get an abortion if she will die. You said women who were raped could get an abortion too. What makes the fetus different? Rape fetuses and accident fetuses are the same; it's impossible to tell one from the other unless someone told you which was which. What makes one abortion okay and not the other?
The circumstances. I'm done with this argument, it's going in circles and you're not listening to what I'm explaining. The point is, abortions should not be allowed for normal circumstances. It gets complicated beyond that.
I'm listening, I promise. You just don't seem to understand that a fetus is a fetus and if you save one because it's a life and it deserves to live then you need to try to save them all for that very reason.
Roe v. Wade was not the beginning of women having abortions. It was the end of women dying from abortions.
Yeah, but it was the beginning of innocent fetuses dying from abortions. Before it was legal, abortions were taken more seriously and only resorted to when needed. Now, 92% of abortions are done on healthy women to kill healthy babies.
Would you prefer the fetus to feel pain or the woman? Why shouldn't women be getting abortions in any given situation? It's their body and therefore their choice. People should stop attempting to say that abortion us murder.
I would prefer the woman for being irresponsible and getting a baby against her will(in most cases, of course)