I'm notorious for busting condoms. Good thing I don't live in the US and my girlfriend had access to the morning pill. People who oppose abortion should be forced to pay triple taxes to fund the welfare state and expanded prison system they seem to demand.
Why shouldn't someone just assume responsibility for their own actions and either raise the child or adopt it out? Neither is intrinsically part of any welfare state or expanded prison system. Are you really suggesting to require one segment of a tax-paying society to be particularly responsible. I think you are just kidding but mainly "just" kidding because it is not feasibly enforceable.
Why do you do this? You have done it before and I don't get it or see how it helps you. I understand giddy was posting from a moral high horse but your response is always to try to go higher? I think abortion is killing a life and I definitely agree with you that we need to reduce the need for abortions, not superficially ban them. I also was a strict vegan who moved to vegetarian, who moved to whatever I am now (mostly vegetarian but don't really care about avoiding anything other than chicken because it makes me sick...ian) so I am going to be more on your side than others but I just don't get this. Of course, I don't need to get it and my opinion doesn't really concern you but if you don't mind responding I am interested.
How about knowing that you have no business making babies, buying condoms, and buying a pill the next day for your girlfriend when the damn thing breaks on you? I think it would be more irresponsible for me to screw at will and demand government subsidies for the babies I would not be able to adequately raise.
So you do not support the morning after pill, or a birth control pill? What problem did you have with his post?
Good Lord, it's 2008 and you just used a 'not' joke in an attempt to win an internet debate -bonus- you didn't even use it right. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VT8uiT_rZ5k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VT8uiT_rZ5k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Watch and learn.
I was not. If you read what I wrote it was a practical consideration. I didn't/don't judge anybody who chooses differently-- case in point MY DAUGHTER. I am just of a certain opinion that they are complicating their lives unnecessarily and it may lead to regrets.
Have you consider the possibility that if you have no business making babies, you have no business having sex? It is an extreme option I know, but one you don't seem to even have on your radar. Yes it would.
He sought to make someone who opposes his decision (to have sex) that results in an undesired outcome (a child) financially responsible for the outcome (welfare state and expanded prisons). That's just ridiculous and punitive.
I just read an article about this in a Christian magazine that puts it better than I could: “The abortion issue cannot be ignored,” he says. “Here’s where you can see where both parties have something to contribute. The Republicans want to overthrow Roe v. Wade, and the pro-life people would cheer that, and they should. The other side of the story is this: Seventy percent of the abortions in this country are presently driven by economic forces. You have an 18-year-old woman who works at Wal-Mart at minimum wage—she has no hospitalization, she has no opportunity for maternity leave, she has no access to daycare when the baby is born, she’s in dire straits. If you’re going to be pro-life, you cannot only be concerned about the unborn; you have to be concerned about after they’re born. Are we going to have universal health care so she doesn’t have to worry about paying her hospital bill? Are we going to raise the minimum wage, because presently that woman cannot pay for her rent, let alone take care of herself and a child? Are we going to provide daycare for her, so she can continue to be employed? Are you willing to give her a maternity leave so that she doesn’t have to either lose her job or have an abortion?” -http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_article.php?id=7618 And I think Obama said he opposed the late-term abortion bill because there was no exception included for health of the mother. (He doesn't believe "mental distress" qualifies as health of the mother). But he is anti-abortion, and pro-active as far as wanting to mend the root causes of abortion, and not just make it illegal. Also here's a few interesting facts: Abortion Facts * Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. * Almost half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. * The most frequent reasons given by women seeking an abortion are that a child would limit ability to meet current responsibilities and that they cannot afford a child at this point in their lives. * Unintended pregnancy has increased by 29% among poor women while decreasing 20% among higher-income women. * Women below the federal poverty level have abortion rates almost four times those of higher-income women. * Between 1996 and 2000, while abortion rates for all other groups fell, abortion rates among poor and low-income women increased. * The majority of women having abortions are in their 20s or younger. Source: Guttmacher Institute, "An Overview of Abortion in The United States" Overturning Roe Vs. Wade Will Not End Abortion in America * Overturning Roe Vs. Wade, a long time goal of the pro-life movement, would not end abortion in the United States, it would simply send the decision to the states. * If states with more than 45% "pro-life" sentiment chose to outlaw abortion, this would only impact 16 states accounting for 10% of abortions nationwide, or less than 100,000 abortions a year. * Women in these 16 states would still be able to travel to seek an abortion in another state, or seek an illegal abortion, making the impact likely less than a 10% reduction in abortions nation-wide. * States with the highest abortion rates in the country, like California and New York, would be unlikely to outlaw abortion in their states. Source: Catholics United Study "Reducing Abortion in America: Beyond Roe v. Wade" Studies Show that Economic Support for Women and Families Reduces Abortion * In a recent study released by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good finds that social and economic supports such as benefits for pregnant women and mothers and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions in the United States over the past twenty years. * Economic assistance to low income families is correlated with a 20% lower abortion rate. Across the entire United States, this translates into 200,000 fewer abortions. * In the 1990s, states with more generous grants to women, infants and children under the age of five as provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program had a 37% lower abortion rate. * Higher male employment in the 1990s was associated with a 29% lower abortion rate. * The abortion rate has declined most rapidly from 1990-1996 when there was an economic boom under President Clinton. While rates have continued to decrease, they have declined less rapidly in recent years when poverty rates have been climbing. Source: Joseph Wright and Michael Bailey, "Reducing Abortion in America : The Effect of Economic and Social Supports" (Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good) and The Guttmacher Institute "An Overview of Abortion in The United States" Legal Status of Abortion Does Not Necessarily Impact Abortion Rates * Nearly half of all abortions in the world are performed in countries that have made abortion illegal. * The lowest abortion rates in the world - less than 10 per 1,000 women of reproductive age - are in Europe, where abortion is legal and available. * By contrast, in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, where abortion law is most restrictive, the regional rates are 29 and 31 per 1,000 women, respectively. * These countries are also much poorer than the U.S. and provide fewer social services; and a larger proportion of their population lives in poverty. * In Western European countries, in contrast, where more social services are provided and fewer women live in poverty, the abortion rates are consistently the lowest rates in the world. Source: Guttmacher Institute, "An Overview of Abortion in The United States" http://www.prolifeproobama.com/index.htm
I've been having sex for 20 years. I think my "decision" to have sex is a moot point. Cat's already out of the bag on that one. I think you missed my point, giddyup, but don't let that prevent you from building your Strawman.
What Strawman? You create a life that you hadn't planned on and you want permission to destroy it rather than be held to account for helping it find it's place in this world-- whether through your own accomodation or through some arrangement of adoption. I'm not talking about losing your virginity; I'm talking about living with the realization of the consequences of your choices-- even ones that you make repeatedly. I didn't miss your point at all. I wish you'd recognize the reality of your "decisions."
I wouldn't mind Palin so much if she would just never speak, and I never had to look at her face, and if I only had the fortune to never know that she existed.
I understand your points, and I am in no position to judge anyone's business in the bedroom. I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible here. My point is to consider the child involved. After the initial 9 months... put the child up for adoption. Why not? If responsible enough to have a biology experiment, why not be responsible enough to see it to fruition. All I am saying, is give that life a chance. I'm not being any more judgmental than to say this (and I would call it rationalizing): I feel if someone lacks the proper judgment to have unprotected sex or use no birth control, they shouldn't end a prospective life to avoid their own lack of responsibility in the matter. I'm NOT saying they must raise the child... in fact they might have already proven they have no ability to raise a child, or advise anyone on the subject since it seems they don't understand that when a penis and vagina make contact past a certain point there is a very good chance that both gender's gonads may actually work and produce life as intended. That's not judgment, that's evaluating the scientific understanding, and responsibility, or judgment of the parties involved. It's basic science that sperm + egg = possible eventual fertilized egg unless a precautionary measure is taken. Even if they've "dodged bullets" before, the law of averages takes over... Face it, we all know not only "kids" making "mistakes" get abortions out of an attempt to avoid an "inconvenience" or hide their sexual encounter with their parents. The whole world knows where babies come from by some point in their lives... maybe some people should tell their own kids that as soon as they are interested in the opposite gender, they can possibly make a kid of their own if they're not careful. Perhaps they shouldn't expect someone else to do this explaining. If they don't have parents... well educate them after seeking that info out and confirming it. Schools could easily determine if children have parents at home... and most USED TO send out notes and get permission to teach kids these things. Nothing wrong with that in my book. My own son (8 yrs. old) has already begun to talk about the opposite gender... I maintain a dialogue, and as it progresses I explain what he wants to know. He won't be broadsided about "where babies come from" any time as long as I can help it. I understand though that not all kids have parents so involved, or parents at all. I agree that the "abstinence only" approach is flawed... but... food for thought: Outside of one very prominent virgin around 2000 years ago, or artificial means of fertilization, no one has ever become preggers by not "doing it." There is something to be said for abstinence. But falling short of fully explaining the possible consequences of having intercourse is, to me, inexcusable for parents, guardians and educators/counselors that are aware of the lack of a parent in a child's life. Look... my parents never had sex ed in school... but they did alright. My Dad was from a broken home, so a my dad's uncle took the responsibility of filling him on the birds and bees. My mom on the other hand was so sheltered in a home with both parents she practically knew nothing other than on a wedding night it was possible to wind up pregnant (she didn't... thankfully my dad and her discussed, and planned to have me later on). My point is this... there is no guarantee that parents will tell their children about sex... but all parents should... being that the world is imperfect, some level of sex ed is needed. I went through sex ed in school... but I already knew from what my dad had explained... and guess what? He was more informative and correct than all those doofus boys in the locker room at school. And the education at school was more text book and clinical to me... Dad's explanation kept my attention... it made sense. Don't think in my life as a teen with raging hormones I didn't try and line up a willing girl? I did. I won't lie... but my parents intervened and "made" me take a girl they approved of to Prom instead. Was I mad at age 17? Sure. I was a red blooded American male . But I'm glad they held me accountable. I'm glad in my case I was a virgin until my wedding night... But so what? I had many friends that tried to do that, and didn't make it. So? Everyone has different lives. I know that much. Again, I admit to trying to consummate other relationships... I was pretty close in a few instances, literally... but I somehow remained "pure" (I use the quotes because I sure didn't feel pure -but that was me... I'm not casting aspersions here, trust me... my life has several issues... I'll not try and claim any holier than thou positions). Anyhow, again my point is this... Given a few changes in my life's events, I could have easily had an "unwanted" or "unplanned pregnancy" on my schedule of life. I didn't though. But I understand that stuff happens. I understand that some have those things happen. I also am just willing to bet that most people that have sex know that pregnancy is a possibility. I would also venture a guess that many "flings" were later regretted, especially if no birth control was used.... people will freak out for at least a month afterward hoping they don't get positive test results, or the "call" that says, "I'm late" (let's be real, even married couples experience that one). I could just as easily state that many abortions are later regretted... people have admitted as much... But the scenarios I'm speaking of are PREVENTABLE... and CONTROLLABLE for the most part. I know there is a minuscule .01% chance of pregnancy using the pill. I know that there is a minimum 3-5% chance of pregnancy using a condom... but is that taught outside of a OB/GYN office? don't remember that part in school. But I would count rape and incest as NOT controllable. That's my only "judgment" on the issue. As much as a fetus cannot pre-determine the circumstances of it's conception... and only post-pubescent people ("adults") can, I would hope those "adults" would be more fair to the innocent fetus/child. And in the cases that are uncontrollable, I can see the argument to have a "choice" in those situations. I can only hope that no one ever is faced with those moments, however, again, I cannot pretend the world is perfect. But in the cases where people know they are doing something that could make a baby, it is not needed to make it a game of Russian Roulette... those people SHOULD and COULD take precautions, or ABSTAIN until they can take those precautions. Humans are not animals that cannot produce cognitive reasoning. Humans can control their drives long enough to THINK and take the steps to prevent a fetus from having to be destroyed as an "inconvenience." It's disgusting to suggest that willing partners, adults especially, can't wrap up or take a pill, or wait until those steps are taken. Why punish a fetus/child that is the result of nature doing what it does? I know people are going to "do it" for reasons other than "making love" inside the "confines of marriage." And I make no apologies for humanity. I just ask that abortions be limited to uncontrollable scenarios. Dowhutchlike... just be responsible... and should a baby result, be fair. That is all. Therein lies the "choice" I agree with. I cannot tell you what I would choose, or impose as a choice, since I am not a women in that situation. I can say that if you play with biology, in a setting with known possibilities, don't be surprised if you're called on by nature to prove that certain laws still apply. There is always 100% more chance of a woman getting pregnant if she's had vaginal sex as opposed to not having vaginal sex, that much is true. Non-vaginal sex, by comparison, has it's percentages of risk as well. But that is another topic, generally unrelated to a possible abortions, aside from one thing leading to another (as it often does ). (As an aside: There is a 100% chance you will never marry a person you don't date... so be careful choosing your dates, ladies and gents. ) I hope I am clear. I know many "pro-choicers" may take my position on this. I know many "pro-lifers" that may very well have just written me off the list. I think overturning Roe v. Wade is an avoidance of the issue of why they happen in the first place.
