Abortion in Canada

[Romy]

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

A little off topic here then.

Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old?

(Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?)

Birth has always been the "legal" start of life, but in the long run, its 9 months. There's no point to changing it, but if the legal definition were to change, people could vote at 17 years 3 months, drive at 15 years 3 months, etc. Not a big difference.

 

Well, you said abortion should only be allowed in case the mother's life is at risk.

 

 

Let me ask you this- would you say it's okay to murder a born baby to save their mother's life?

Here, it's not even save her life, it's practically remove a life threat. Murdering just for that seems immoral, wouldn't you say? Why agree to that then?

[obfuscator]

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

A little off topic here then.

Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old?

(Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?)

Birth has always been the "legal" start of life, but in the long run, its 9 months. There's no point to changing it, but if the legal definition were to change, people could vote at 17 years 3 months, drive at 15 years 3 months, etc. Not a big difference.

 

Well, you said abortion should only be allowed in case the mother's life is at risk.

 

 

Let me ask you this- would you say it's okay to murder a born baby to save their mother's life?

Here, it's not even save her life, it's practically remove a life threat. Murdering just for that seems immoral, wouldn't you say? Why agree to that then?

 

It's absolutely not ok, because there is no way that murdering a born baby can save a mother's life.

 

In the event that the mother will die from carrying a baby, an operation is performed to save the life of the mother. An unfortunate side effect is that the child will die.

[Romy]

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

A little off topic here then.

Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old?

(Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?)

Birth has always been the "legal" start of life, but in the long run, its 9 months. There's no point to changing it, but if the legal definition were to change, people could vote at 17 years 3 months, drive at 15 years 3 months, etc. Not a big difference.

You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Why is it okay to have an abortion when the mother's life is at risk, if abortion is murder, and isn't okay to murder a born baby if doing so eliminates such a case?

 

Well, you said abortion should only be allowed in case the mother's life is at risk.

 

 

Let me ask you this- would you say it's okay to murder a born baby to save their mother's life?

Here, it's not even save her life, it's practically remove a life threat. Murdering just for that seems immoral, wouldn't you say? Why agree to that then?

 

It's absolutely not ok, because there is no way that murdering a born baby can save a mother's life.

 

In the event that the mother will die from carrying a baby, an operation is performed to save the life of the mother. An unfortunate side effect is that the child will die.

[obfuscator]

Quotes were messed up but I'm going to assume this is what you meant to say:

You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Why is it okay to have an abortion when the mother's life is at risk, if abortion is murder, and isn't okay to murder a born baby if doing so eliminates such a case?

 

Abortion: A surgery where the only intent and purpose is to cause the death of an unborn child.

 

Life-saving surgery: A surgery to save the life of a mother unable to have a child which unfortunately results in the termination of a pregnancy. Here, murdering a child is not the intent, rather an unfortunate side effect. One life is ended, another is saved. It sucks, but is sometimes necessary.

 

The reason this doesn't translate to a born baby is because there is no situation where the only way to save the life of another human is to murder an innocent child.

[Romy]

Quotes were messed up but I'm going to assume this is what you meant to say:

You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Why is it okay to have an abortion when the mother's life is at risk, if abortion is murder, and isn't okay to murder a born baby if doing so eliminates such a case?

 

Abortion: A surgery where the only intent and purpose is to cause the death of an unborn child.

 

Life-saving surgery: A surgery to save the life of a mother unable to have a child which unfortunately results in the termination of a pregnancy. Here, murdering a child is not the intent, rather an unfortunate side effect. One life is ended, another is saved. It sucks, but is sometimes necessary.

 

The reason this doesn't translate to a born baby is because there is no situation where the only way to save the life of another human is to murder an innocent child.

 

But the life-saving surgery gurantees the child's death. Any action taken, that the one taking it knows and is certain that will result in someone's death, shouldn't be considered murder?

 

 

Also, hypothetically speaking, say there was a "life-saving surgery" that would kill a living child- If I know you well enough, you'd firmly oppose that (and for a good reason). Why not oppose a life-saving surgery that kills the fetus?

[obfuscator]

Quotes were messed up but I'm going to assume this is what you meant to say:

You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Why is it okay to have an abortion when the mother's life is at risk, if abortion is murder, and isn't okay to murder a born baby if doing so eliminates such a case?

 

Abortion: A surgery where the only intent and purpose is to cause the death of an unborn child.

 

Life-saving surgery: A surgery to save the life of a mother unable to have a child which unfortunately results in the termination of a pregnancy. Here, murdering a child is not the intent, rather an unfortunate side effect. One life is ended, another is saved. It sucks, but is sometimes necessary.

 

The reason this doesn't translate to a born baby is because there is no situation where the only way to save the life of another human is to murder an innocent child.

 

But the life-saving surgery gurantees the child's death. Any action taken, that the one taking it knows and is certain that will result in someone's death, shouldn't be considered murder?

 

 

Also, hypothetically speaking, say there was a "life-saving surgery" that would kill a living child- If I know you well enough, you'd firmly oppose that (and for a good reason). Why not oppose a life-saving surgery that kills the fetus?

 

Self defence doesn't count as murder. Taking a life to save your own has never been considered murder, and that's exactly the specification here.

 

And I don't understand what you mean by surgery that would save a life but kill a living child? The only thing I can think of is a case of siamese twins, where one twin had an illness that would be fatal to both - in that case i believe it is morally acceptable to separate the two, even though one may die.

[Romy]

1. But risking of life does not equal certain death. When the mother is at risk, she's at risk, she's not going to definitely die. So, once again, is murdering a child okay if it removes the risk of the mother's life?

 

2. I said, hypothetically speaking. "say there was a "life-saving surgery" that would kill a living child".

If it existed, would it be okay?

[obfuscator]

1. But risking of life does not equal certain death. When the mother is at risk, she's at risk, she's not going to definitely die. So, once again, is murdering a child okay if it removes the risk of the mother's life?

 

2. I said, hypothetically speaking. "say there was a "life-saving surgery" that would kill a living child".

If it existed, would it be okay?

It's only allowed it it is certain - or at least reasonable so, and there are instances where this is the case.

 

That question is too hypothetical to answer - it would absolutely not be, unless it would be the definitive only method of saving someone elses life, and a guarantee of such, which is what an abortive surgery does.

 

But as I said, that is literally impossible.

[Romy]

Having such a vague border of "what should be legal", that is also based purely on morality, is not feasible.

 

 

 

I'm afraid you're not going to ever see it happening the way you want it for that very reason.

[Skeptical]

I'm not sure exactly what my opinion is concerning abortion.

 

Considering the issue logically, it's a perfectly moral decision. (Stating that from a non-nihilist point of view, a view that I reserve for moral issues.)

 

However, the fact that a life is indeed being cut short bothers me, even if it is only potential life.

 

Usually I support abortion, although not militantly, since I find that pro-lifers are often obnoxious. The very name, "Pro-life", is ridiculous: they're hardly "pro-life" or the title would also mean opposition to the death penalty, which is certainly not always true. They're ant-abortion, not "pro-life."

 

And please, no one mention "tax dollars" when discussing this issue: it displays both a rather disturbingly flexible sense of morality, and, if you're anti-abortion, lack a grasp of basic numbers and mathematic functions.

[magekillr]

Why should something be completely unregulated?

 

Well normally you wouldn't need to ask me this because I like things regulated. However, this doesn't need to be, nor should it be. It is a decision for the doctor and the woman to make (assuming the woman is in good mental-health). If a doctor feels comfortable performing one at 8 months and the woman, for whatever reason, wants it, then that's her choice.

 

a.) The mental health of the mother would be in question of the highest order if she wanted to abort at that late in the game if her health wasn't in danger, and neither was the fetus's. I put that qualifier there for a reason.

 

b.) Some people say "only if the health of the mother is at risk!" According to these people, a woman should be forced to give birth to dead fetuses and fetuses with severe birth defects. That's wrong

 

Why is that wrong?

 

Really? You don't see anything wrong with forcing a woman to give birth to a dead fetus? The emotional trauma that she's already forced to bear knowing that her child will be dead isn't enough for you? You need to punish her further? This is exactly why abortion is never about "life," but about punishing women.

 

Do you also make special exceptions for rape and incest, too? The misogyny is overwhelming.

 

The exception in America is ONLY a threat to a woman's life in the third trimester. So if a dead fetus is more of an inconvenience (rather emotionally painful at that) than a direct threat, you are forced to give birth. In fact, this is THE biggest problem with the ban on IDX.

 

I don't understand what you're saying here?

 

I'm saying that a lot of people argue that abortion should only be legal if it threatens the mother's life, when I'm saying that this doesn't account for the fetus's well-being, either. Removing a dead fetus is an abortion.

 

So it comes down to this: a woman should be able to have an abortion in the first and second trimester for whatever reason that she wants. Ideally you could put a restriction on the third trimester for "only if the health of the fetus or mother is in danger," but there's no reason for that because of the reasons I laid out above.

 

I see restrictions creep with chauvinists wanting to take away a woman's freedom, and I stand by my convictions that I do not trust the right-wing to settle for "late term only if..." They will continue to march, taking every last inch of that rope. Don't believe me? Look in America with states like Oklahoma, forcing women to get an ultrasound and have the doctor describe the fetus in great detail before she has the abortion.

 

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person.

 

It's not murder, it's a clump of cells, or a zygote, or a fetus, depending on the stage of development. It can't be murder by the mere definition! Murder is a legal term, it doesn't mean killing. It is the unlawful killing of another person, and even then there are distinctions (manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc). Abortion is legal, and can't be murder by that reason alone. If you really think that, tell me this:

 

There's 5 petri dishes on my counter. I also have 5 individuals standing there with a shotgun collar similar to that used in the Saw films. Whose lives do you save, and why? Anyone telling me the petri dishes is a liar.

 

And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

 

Why do you make this distinction? You don't need to answer, as I already know the answer: women are too stupid to control their bodies, and men need to do it for them. Only when their own lives are threatened should they have control over their own uterus!

 

Not all of us feel like Canada is doing fine. I personally don't like the fact that my tax dollars are being used to murder innocent children.

 

and I don't like my tax dollars being given to religious organizations through faith based initiatives. I don't like my tax dollars going to jails and prisons, forcing people there who in my opinion have no business being there (drug offenders, especially). I don't like my tax dollars going to corn and wheat farmers, subsidizing their products and inflating their value, giving them unfair competition with smaller farmers around the world and making unhealthy food cheaper. I don't like my tax dollars going to the War in Iraq. I don't like my tax dollars funding oil and gas companies like BP.

 

There's a million things I don't want my tax dollars going towards. What makes your issue so special?

 

edit: Oh, and I see you're against contraception? Do you know how many millions people like you have killed, indirectly? The Pope has arguably killed more people than all of the cult leaders put together. I hope that you don't have sex, ever, even if you're married. Otherwise, unless your spouse is very infertile, you're going to be having a lot of children.

[tortilliachp]

so i see the pro-choice / pro-life propaganda continues.

 

Pro against abortion.

[obfuscator]

 

Really? You don't see anything wrong with forcing a woman to give birth to a dead fetus? The emotional trauma that she's already forced to bear knowing that her child will be dead isn't enough for you? You need to punish her further? This is exactly why abortion is never about "life," but about punishing women.

 

Do you also make special exceptions for rape and incest, too? The misogyny is overwhelming.

 

I'm not understanding you. Why would you get an abortion if your child is about to die anyway? And as for special exceptions for rape and incest, absolutely not. A child is still a child, regardless of the circumstances of its conception.

 

 

I'm saying that a lot of people argue that abortion should only be legal if it threatens the mother's life, when I'm saying that this doesn't account for the fetus's well-being, either. Removing a dead fetus is an abortion.

 

Removing a dead fetus is not an abortion if the fetus is already dead.

 

 

It's not murder, it's a clump of cells, or a zygote, or a fetus, depending on the stage of development. It can't be murder by the mere definition! Murder is a legal term, it doesn't mean killing. It is the unlawful killing of another person, and even then there are distinctions (manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc). Abortion is legal, and can't be murder by that reason alone. If you really think that, tell me this:

 

There's 5 petri dishes on my counter. I also have 5 individuals standing there with a shotgun collar similar to that used in the Saw films. Whose lives do you save, and why? Anyone telling me the petri dishes is a liar.

 

Of course I would save the people I can see and talk to. I'd also be traumatized and very upset that I couldn't have saved both.

 

 

Why do you make this distinction? You don't need to answer, as I already know the answer: women are too stupid to control their bodies, and men need to do it for them. Only when their own lives are threatened should they have control over their own uterus!

 

If I were a woman, would this argument work? Why don't I get my sister or girlfriend, or mother to post here saying the exact same thing, then what would you say?

 

and I don't like my tax dollars being given to religious organizations through faith based initiatives. I don't like my tax dollars going to jails and prisons, forcing people there who in my opinion have no business being there (drug offenders, especially). I don't like my tax dollars going to corn and wheat farmers, subsidizing their products and inflating their value, giving them unfair competition with smaller farmers around the world and making unhealthy food cheaper. I don't like my tax dollars going to the War in Iraq. I don't like my tax dollars funding oil and gas companies like BP.

 

There's a million things I don't want my tax dollars going towards. What makes your issue so special?

 

Nothing, I just don't like it. Just as you protest about religion, jails, BP, and the Iraq war, so I protest about abortion. We are one and the same.

 

edit: Oh, and I see you're against contraception? Do you know how many millions people like you have killed, indirectly? The Pope has arguably killed more people than all of the cult leaders put together. I hope that you don't have sex, ever, even if you're married. Otherwise, unless your spouse is very infertile, you're going to be having a lot of children.

 

I'm glad to see your willing to accept my personal beliefs as usual. I'll be sure to post a picture of my over 9000 children just for you.

 

But no, I plan to have 2-3 kids. A good reasonable number, who I can love, care for, and instill in them a respect for the value of life.

[Orpheus]

I don't see this topic really going anywhere unless we define "life". When does it start exactly? We all know it ends on death physically, but we can't say when someone's "life" starts. There's just nothing that can really definitely say so.

 

I personally see life starting as soon as they are able to leave the mother's womb. I don't consider fetii to be "life" in a sense. Sure, they're functioning organisms, but they do not have the ability to survive long at all, "long" being more than a mere few minutes or so. Same applies for those who are in a vegetative state. They really are unable to function at all, and then the question stands of whether they're truly "happy" at all in that way and want to continue their existence as such(this last statement only applying to those in a vegetative state, not to fetii).

 

As for abortion itself, I personally don't see it as murder. It's not unlawfully killing someone, and abortion here in the U.S. is legal, so it can't be called murder. Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking it's the same in Canada. I'd also rather a kid who'd be born into sheer poverty, suffering, and the inability to live with even a bit of happiness in their life whatsoever rather not be born at all. I figure it would save themselves the suffering.

[Levon_]

Pro-choice.

 

Anyone should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies as long as it is not harming someone else.

 

Abortion - The fetus is part of their body and is not conscious. I see it as an organ type thing.

Gay marriage - Really who gives a rat's [wagon] if you like the same sex. It doesn't harm you stop being a [puncture].

Drugs - Yea i understand people getting robbed for crack money. But if you don't physically harm anyone i don't see whats wrong with them.

Ect

[meol]

In countries where abortion is legal, where is the line drawn? Is it legal to abort a week before birth, but illegal to kill the newborn baby? It just seems too arbitrary a line.

 

And even if I agree with magekillr's point and say that the life of a foetus is simply worth less than the life of a grown up (which just sounds awful), it still doesn't mean it's valueless. Just as we protect humans over animals, but still have animal rights, it'd follow that unborn babies should still be protected. Just not as fervently as some groups might want to.

 

On other line, I'd support aborting dead or severely unhealthy fetuses. It's the act of prematurely terminating what could be a good life that bothers me.

 

@tortilliachp: Point taken with the pro life/choice. :thumbup:

[Faux]

I'm glad that abortion is legal and supported in Canada. Mainly because it gives a safe way for women to abort. Making abortion illegal won't stop it, it just means women will have to resort to dangerous illegal means. It also creates less strain on the government budget. Without abortion, there would be a lot of unwanted kids that would cost way too much to take care of (which is why the gov't would rather pay for abortion than give $1000 every month til the kid is 18). A LOT of people aren't ready to have kids.

 

edit: Lol so you never had sex and yet you're extremely vocal about abortion? Mmkaaaay. Lay off the Jesus juice bud, this isn't the [developmentally delayed] south.

[michel555555]

My opinion is that abortion should only be legal if the fetus/baby is a result of rape or if the baby has seriouse medical conditions, like baby k wasn't it? who was born without a brain, or if it poses a risk to the mothers life.

 

the thing that i hate about the pro-choice argument is that you "chose" to have sex. You may have used birth control but you should have known that it isn't 100% full proof. You "chose" to take that risk when you sliped on the glove or took the pill. At then end of the day saying get rid of it after you excepted that risk just seems, how should i put it? irresponcible? I don't know how els to put it.

[Riku3220]

My opinion is that abortion should only be legal if the fetus/baby is a result of rape or if the baby has seriouse medical conditions, like baby k wasn't it? who was born without a brain, or if it poses a risk to the mothers life.

 

the thing that i hate about the pro-choice argument is that you "chose" to have sex. You may have used birth control but you should have known that it isn't 100% full proof. You "chose" to take that risk when you sliped on the glove or took the pill. At then end of the day saying get rid of it after you excepted that risk just seems, how should i put it? irresponcible? I don't know how els to put it.

You "chose" not to do your homework at home, so "choosing" to do it at lunch is irresponsible too? In my opinion, not doing anything is even less responsible.

[Faux]

My opinion is that abortion should only be legal if the fetus/baby is a result of rape or if the baby has seriouse medical conditions, like baby k wasn't it? who was born without a brain, or if it poses a risk to the mothers life.

 

the thing that i hate about the pro-choice argument is that you "chose" to have sex. You may have used birth control but you should have known that it isn't 100% full proof. You "chose" to take that risk when you sliped on the glove or took the pill. At then end of the day saying get rid of it after you excepted that risk just seems, how should i put it? irresponcible? I don't know how els to put it.

So AIDS patients are irresponsible also because they took a chance when they chose to have sex

 

Responsibility is out the window in most cases - especially in teenagers. I can't explain to you the difference between going raw and using a condom, but there's a huge gap. That's why if possible, I'd support if the state sponsor other means of contraception other than giving out condoms.

 

But either way, treating a baby as "punishment" for irresponsibility is kind of ignorant isn't it? Not to mention allowing irresponsible people to have kids to begin with.

[sees_all1]

Question for any of you pro-choicers:

When does a human life begin?

Define that, and then we'll debate. Everyone that is pro-"choice" that I've talked to has yet to answer that simple question - they refuse to, because then they can no longer talk in their circular logic.

 

Abortion, in its very nature, proves that the unborn child is alive. Think about it: if the mother didn't abort her child, she would give birth. Also, abortionists like to wait until 12 weeks gestation before aborting the baby. Why? Because its bigger, and harder to miss with their vacuums. They let it grow and develop so that its easier to kill.

 

Quit playing games with language and face the cold hard truth: nobody wants abortion. Abortion is always the undesirable outcome. Abortion proponents usually have hidden agendas, whether its overpopulation, money, or racism. (Hell, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, pushed birth control on the African American population because she believed, like Hitler, in eugenics).

As a society we should spend our time, money and effort making it easier for women to carry their children to term and give birth. Whether they keep their child or give it up for adoption is their decision. Most women that go to procure an abortion think its their "only option". How is that the result of being pro-choice?

 

 

Also, because this discussion about sexuality is all in the same vein: What message are we sending teenagers by giving them contraceptives in middle school / high school? After sex ed: Everyone take some rubber. Girls, get on the pill. Don't you think its a little suspicious that the place giving away condoms is the same one scheduling abortions? (I'm talking of course about Planned Parenthood. Consumer reports indicated that their condom brands failed many times over more than other brands.)

 

 

Anyhow, I'm a bit of an apologetic when it comes to this debate. If you need me to cite any of the above, let me know. I'll happily argue with any of you.

[Iamdan]

I think life begins at conception, but they aren't human until they can survive outside the womb.

They are a fetus until then, which isn't human imo. (I don't wish to argue this point, as it will go nowhere)

 

If you'll read my other posts then you'll know you can't play the murder card against me anyway.

 

I don't think people ever see abortion as the only option, it's not exactly a stroll in the park for the women having it.

 

Also the issue with planned parenthood or whoever else isn't their fault. The main failure with condoms is incorrect use. Don't keep them in your wallet, put them on properly etc. Teenagers are going to have sex anyway, educating them on safe sex is better than letting them do whatever they want.

[Nenga]

Question for any of you pro-choicers:

When does a human life begin?

Define that, and then we'll debate. Everyone that is pro-"choice" that I've talked to has yet to answer that simple question - they refuse to, because then they can no longer talk in their circular logic.

 

Abortion, in its very nature, proves that the unborn child is alive. Think about it: if the mother didn't abort her child, she would give birth. Also, abortionists like to wait until 12 weeks gestation before aborting the baby. Why? Because its bigger, and harder to miss with their vacuums. They let it grow and develop so that its easier to kill.

 

Quit playing games with language and face the cold hard truth: nobody wants abortion. Abortion is always the undesirable outcome. Abortion proponents usually have hidden agendas, whether its overpopulation, money, or racism. (Hell, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, pushed birth control on the African American population because she believed, like Hitler, in eugenics).

As a society we should spend our time, money and effort making it easier for women to carry their children to term and give birth. Whether they keep their child or give it up for adoption is their decision. Most women that go to procure an abortion think its their "only option". How is that the result of being pro-choice?

 

 

Also, because this discussion about sexuality is all in the same vein: What message are we sending teenagers by giving them contraceptives in middle school / high school? After sex ed: Everyone take some rubber. Girls, get on the pill. Don't you think its a little suspicious that the place giving away condoms is the same one scheduling abortions? (I'm talking of course about Planned Parenthood. Consumer reports indicated that their condom brands failed many times over more than other brands.)

 

 

Anyhow, I'm a bit of an apologetic when it comes to this debate. If you need me to cite any of the above, let me know. I'll happily argue with any of you.

I really don't care when life begins, say it begins when you're a sperm, whatever. My issue with pro-life is that once a woman becomes pregnant she would not be in control of her own body, she can only choose to have the child, and that's just wrong forcing a life altering choice on somebody.

 

And you're condemning places for trying to prevent pregnancies? People are going to have sex, instead of putting our fingers in our ears and pretending not to hear it, we should try to help them.

[sees_all1]

I really don't care when life begins, say it begins when you're a sperm, whatever.

Sperm don't undergo mitosis: once they're sperm (or eggs), they no longer grow, divide, and grow. Sperm also don't carry enough genetic material to be a full human being.

A unique human being comes into existence at fertilization; an egg and sperm are joined, completing the 23 pairs of chromosomes. Shortly after fertilization, mitosis begins and the human being grows. Destroying this life is murder - a completely unique individual dies. Life doesn't begin before that, or after that (ACOG would define it as "implantation" to avoid calling the pill, plan b, etc. an abortifacient, this was a purely political move and is technically incorrect).

 

My issue with pro-life is that once a woman becomes pregnant she would not be in control of her own body, she can only choose to have the child, and that's just wrong forcing a life altering choice on somebody.

She became pregnant, she was never "in control" of her own body anyways.

 

And you're condemning places for trying to prevent pregnancies? People are going to have sex, instead of putting our fingers in our ears and pretending not to hear it, we should try to help them.

Planned Parenthood (and other abortion providers) profits from abortion. How do you get people pregnant? You convince them to have sex. Only way for someone to "accidentally" get pregnant is by having sex. If you don't want a kid, keep your pants zipped up. And as a society we need to change our mentality: a baby is a blessing and not a problem.

This whole "people are going to do it anyway, so lets [help them... legalize it... etc]" argument is trash. Murder is wrong, but people are going to do it anyway. Why should we help them do it?

[Iamdan]

And as a society we need to change our mentality: a baby is a blessing and not a problem.

 

In an overpopulated world, for a teenager without the financial means or maturity for a baby who just wants to have fun and enjoy being young. Yes it's a problem. When working on checkouts, I get told MINIMUM 5 times a day: Don't have kids. Not by just teenage parents either.

 

This whole "people are going to do it anyway, so lets [help them... legalize it... etc]" argument is trash. Murder is wrong, but people are going to do it anyway. Why should we help them do it?

 

Murder and suffering isn't black and white 'wrong,' it's necessary, and no morals are universal anyway.

 

You can't override our instinct to mount each other, no matter how hard you try. It's not society's fault.

 

With our culture changing waaaay faster than evolution, and with the church and the merchants running the show, we're all [bleep]ed anyway. Why not have some sex?