I didn't say it would end the debate, I just said it is at that point that I would support banning abortion, if the government would pay for the transplant of the fetus into an artificial womb.
If Plan B were available OTC, then there would be the opportunity for the "mulligan" without an abortion happening. Guess which group has more opposition to making such availability a reality, pro-choicers or pro-lifers. If every twelve year old knew the material in the book "Taking Charge of Your Fertility," unplanned pregnancies, along with the abortions that follow so many of them, would drop precipitously, IMO. I believe this would also be the case if there were free, easy access to all birth control options, including those that don't require the man to wear anything. Again, look to which group opposes such measures to see why I find their stances on this issue more than a little hypocritical.
No, you don't. A paper ban would be exactly as effective as the current ban on illicit drugs, which any high school aged child can acquire.
A paper ban might save as many lives as Schindler did during WWII. To me that is worth it. It might save many more. Look what this man wrought: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6_nFuJAF5F0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> It's very hard to compare how laws will affect behavior. Smoking a joint is very different from seeking an abortion. How much would drug use grow were it NOT illicit?
WebMD states that Plan B became available available to women 17 and over without a prescription in 2009. It is available with a prescription to women under 17. Personally, I question the wisdom of giving large doses of hormones to women without the consult of a doctor. This is especially true when the patient is an adolescent. As for free birth control, that sounds good, but who is going to pay for it? The government, particularly at the state level, is strapped. There are groups like Planned Parenthood that provide these products at a low cost for people who can demonstrate financial need. If you are having sex for recreation rather than procreation, seeking these out is part of exercising personal responsibility.
when is a fetus a person? people need to stop trying to tell woman what they can do with their bodies.
Little, if any, in my opinion. And the savings in literally billions of dollars wasted on the "Drug War" and thousands upon thousands of lives wrecked for being thrown into overcrowded prisons for doing something no more harmful than alcohol, if that, and numerous other reasons for legalizing drugs like mar1juana make it a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. Does that mean we can change the subject?
Is that what I tried to claim because I thought I asked this. You made an assertion without providing any statistics to back it up. You don't exactly have a reputation for being an honest broker. Post the statistics of blacks from first world nations to prove your point or just admit you have no freaking clue what you're talking about.
Well, I disagree based on personal thoughts. I have NEVER gone one toke over the line, Sweet Jesus but I might were it legal. I've long been an advocate for decriminalization of mar1juana for the exact same reasons you've cited.
actually the onus is on your side to define when it is not a person, since you want to permit its destruction
Even if abortions performed by unlicensed individuals in unregulated facilities claimed the lives of already living, breathing women in the pursuit of saving a paltry number of "lives?" Talk about missing the forest for the trees. But today, having an abortion could be as easy as taking a pill (RU-486). Given that we have seen exactly how ineffective drug prohibition is, I don't think you can count on much more than reluctant adherence to abortion laws. Unfortunately, such a prohibition would dramatically increase the risks to women and, as we saw during our last era where abortion was prohibited on paper, many would die as a result of such a prohibition. Not much, but that is just based on the history of places like Holland, which have done some decriminalization. Most of the "increase" we would see would be due to reporting bias (people being hesitant to accurately report drug use to telephone surveyors) rather than increased drug usage. For God's sake, any teenager in this country can acquire any illicit substance they want at virtually any time. Claiming that wide swaths of people who WANT to use drugs already refrain as a result of current drug laws is the height of naivete.
Choice. There still is the matter of doing the RIGHT THING by those innocents. If someone should CHOOSE to invoke more risk in their own life, that is their CHOICE. Has a place like Holland, before decriminalization, put as many drug criminals behind bars as we have in the US? I doubt it. Different legal climate, I think. I have never had a soul offer to sell me pot and I've been around since before the Rockets came to Houston. It's not necessarily about wanting to. Casual is not recreational is not habitual. There are all kinds of gradations.
Yes, we can choose to make sure that all medical procedures in this country are performed by licensed medical professionals in regulated facilities or we can choose to go BACK to a situation where this is not the case. I, along with the majority of people in this country, choose the former. Just as it is their choice not to bring an unwanted child into the world. I would see it as exceptionally rare for someone to, out of the blue, just offer to sell illicit substances to someone. I'm not saying there are dealers on the street corners just offering drugs to passers by, but anyone in America who wants to acquire illegal drugs can, with very little trouble. In fact, kids have an easier time getting illegal drugs than alcohol, according to recent studies. Here you go, the WSJ thinks the war on drugs is a failed policy (too long to repost in a non-drug war thread, but if you would like to continue this discussion in another thread, I will be happy to post it in its entirety). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324374004578217682305605070.html
I will continue to call you out on your incredibly weak logic. You claim you are for "choice", but you're nothing but a hypocrite if you don't offer the baby a choice to live. And now this stupid point you raise about how you are not for bringing unwanted children into the world -- well don't you think it's a hell of a lot easier to try to fix that point either by adoption or by counseling or other means than to just kill the baby? I'm astounded by your atrocious logic, especially for a man who claims to be "highly educated".
Good luck with that. As always, I will take your comments with a grain of salt the size of a deer lick, given your history. It isn't hypocritical at all, it isn't a "baby" and even if it were, babies don't begin making their own choices for quite some time. It is a "fetus" and its choices are made entirely by the woman in whom it is developing. Actually, it would be FAR easier to make sure there are adequate, ubiquitous contraception options and real, honest sex education throughout our society. I would be perfectly OK with counseling regarding adoption so long as the pregnant woman weren't required to pay for it, but ultimately abortion must remain an option so that every single medical procedure in this country is carried out by a licensed physician in a regulated facility. You obviously don't recognize logic and it is hardly a "claim." I have an MBA and I am currently a PhD candidate.
