if you can't afford a kid don't have sex.

Should couples living below the poverty line be barred from having sex and kids? Because, seriously, if the family is already below the poverty line, how can they possibly afford a kid on top of it?Having sex is a privilege, not a right. You can't afford the consequences, don't sleep around. Pretty simple concept here.

if you can't afford a kid don't have sex.

Should couples living below the poverty line be barred from having sex and kids? Because, seriously, if the family is already below the poverty line, how can they possibly afford a kid on top of it?Having sex is a privilege, not a right. You can't afford the consequences, don't sleep around. Pretty simple concept here.

But yet if they can afford the consequence of a free abortion it's not okay?

 

Seriously how does an abortion harm you? You are alive and well. If you think they are killing a soul, because that is formed as soon as the sperm meets the egg it seems with most folks anti-choice, then you should also believe that in the end that they will get theirs from God, don't you? And that God is smart enough to realize you are against it, so he won't punish you for what some woman down the block did.

Oh, so now we're going to have free abortions? Like, government paid for? Brilliant! So the Social Contract reads something like this:

 

"Yo gov'ment, this the people speaking. Here's how it's going to be. We want you to protect us from outside invasion and also from civil unrest. Now, we want you to do all this while staying completely and totally out of our lives. However, if for some reason we can't do things right - like, you know, get an education, work, or keep our pecker in our pants - we want you to pay for the consequences. But that's the only time you can keep track of us! Don't you dare ever watch us or make us obey your laws. It's not about consistency here, it's about you doing everything and us not contributing anything to the world.

 

And oh, btw, we're going to complain if you raise taxes, take away services that are paid for by taxes even though we don't want them raised, and we're going to complain about the debt if you for some reason have to invent money since we don't want to pay anything. Just making sure that's ok with you - and if it isn't, tough, because we'll just vote other people in and complain to them when they can't possibly meet our unattainable demands."

Oh, so now we're going to have free abortions?

 

If you cared to read the whole post you responded to, or do some research on your own you would realize they already exist. Insurance covers the cost in a lot of cases, because think about it, to them it's either pay for that, or for the whole giving birth process. I am not saying it's right, I am just saying how it is.

 

Or the clinics offer free abortions, or heavily reduced prices to those that don't have the money to pay on their own.

 

 

I think a common misconception from people on the right is that people who are pro-choice think abortion is a positive thing. I don't think that is true though. I believe a lot, if not most people who are pro-choice realize that women having the procedure are doing it as a last option, for whatever reason, and the sin is on them, not that they think abortion is something they would ever do.

 

Still the question remains:

How are the abortions hurting you?

I'm not arguing against abortion on legal standing. I'm doing so from a stance of personal objection.

 

You know what, if you can for some reason swindle your way out of paying for an abortion but still getting to have it, more power to you. If a clinic will offer you a free abortion or one at a reduced price, hit it up. But the point remains - if you can't get an abortion you can afford (free is obviously affordable) without government intervention, don't have sex. Period.

 

My personal problem with abortion? I think it's wrong. If my parents would have decided to have an abortion for one reason or another, I wouldn't be here. Just because you aren't directly involved in an act doesn't mean you can't be against it. There's no issue of standing in a court of morality - if you think something is wrong, it's always wrong. You don't have to have suffered an injury in fact or have a significant stake in the controversy. And just as you may wonder why I care about something that doesn't directly affect me, I wonder why you don't care about something that if my inference from your third paragraph is correct you are at issue with. Do I lose sleep because people are having abortions? Nope. Does that make it right? Nope.

I wonder why you don't care about something that if my inference from your third paragraph is correct you are at issue with.

 

I do care about it. In my perfect world, no one would have abortions because people wouldn't need to. But of course that is no where near the actual reality. I would never tell someone to have an abortion unless they have tried every other outlet first, or at least considered every outlet.

 

I think most people are like that, I think most people would agree with you believe it or not. That they don't think abortion is a good thing, but they realize the right shouldn't be taken away, and the right shouldn't be made a political issue. In fact I doubt the number of people who think abortion is a positive thing is more than the smallest of percentages.

 

The problem is are there are people who see abortion as a sin and an attack on life, and that it somehow reflects on them so they have to stop it, through the outlets avaliable. They are the ones who paint the left as a death loving society. The problem is that is not true. Just because you want to protect someone's choice to make a what could be considered a bad decision, doesn't mean you agree with it, but you honor them and their decision. Just like how some soldiers will stand by letting Nazi's march the streets spreading their message even though they may not agree with them at all, etc.

Oh, I definitely do think that abortion is a sin.

 

However, we do not live in a nation where our government is entrusted with the ability to enact laws on moral standing. Since we aren't under the jurisdiction of Vatican City and our government is not one that needs to be answering moral questions in any shape or form, the matter of abortion falls to how it stands on a secular level. Since banning abortions would mean the government is passing legislation governing the use of one's body that does not beyond a reasonable doubt infringe on the rights of someone else, it shouldn't even be considered.

 

/my take

I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions.

 

 

Or OMG get on the pill

Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you.

 

Guess what, teenage boys and girls DO have access to condoms and contraceptives. Go to mother f***ing Eckerd and buy a box of rubbers. Go to the health center and get on the pill. You can't pay 30 bucks a month for the pill? Get a f***ing part time job. Go figure, it will give you something to do besides having unprotected sex with your pothead classmates.

 

But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!!

Wake up and smell the coffee dodge. The ultimate goal of the religious right goes well beyond discouraging mass abortions. It goes down to the fundamental right to use contraceptives in the first place. It goes down to preventing teenagers from getting free or paid access to condoms. They have a chip away strategy theyve been using. While youve blindly been attacking the "cookie cutter" leftists, you dont even know the strategy in place until its too late.

 

Nobody is saying hand out abortions. But look at what you, chewbacca, and juanky have all stated. You said youre pro-choice, but that people shouldnt be running around getting pregnent and aborting. Chewbacca said abortion should be an option. Juanky, from what I can tell, thinks there is enough doubt on 1st trimester abortion that the govt cant make it illegal. But look at what we are debating here! SD banned all abortion!! Do you not see where the debate is right now? That means that when a little spermodude slips through the cracks and a teenage girl who has a future just found out about it within the first trimester, she cant have an abortion. So where does she turn? To the coathanger. And do you tell her "too bad honey, shoulda tried harder?" Do you see why futuregm made that comment?

 

Listen, you and I agree that teenagers have sex all the time right? So whats the better policy? Give them access to condoms or prevent them from getting condoms, tell them to abstain, hope that they actually listen, and when they irresonsiblly get pregnant, make them have a kid? Id say give them access to condoms, but that makes me a cookie cutter leftist.

I wish the Catholic Church would endorse contraception, it would have saved many lives in Africa from AIDS. It's one of my many problems with the church these days.

I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions.

 

 

Or OMG get on the pill

Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you.

 

Guess what, teenage boys and girls DO have access to condoms and contraceptives. Go to mother f***ing Eckerd and buy a box of rubbers. Go to the health center and get on the pill. You can't pay 30 bucks a month for the pill? Get a f***ing part time job. Go figure, it will give you something to do besides having unprotected sex with your pothead classmates.

 

But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!!

Wake up and smell the coffee dodge. The ultimate goal of the religious right goes well beyond discouraging mass abortions. It goes down to the fundamental right to use contraceptives in the first place. It goes down to preventing teenagers from getting free or paid access to condoms. They have a chip away strategy theyve been using. While youve blindly been attacking the "cookie cutter" leftists, you dont even know the strategy in place until its too late.

 

Nobody is saying hand out abortions. But look at what you, chewbacca, and juanky have all stated. You said youre pro-choice, but that people shouldnt be running around getting pregnent and aborting. Chewbacca said abortion should be an option. Juanky, from what I can tell, thinks there is enough doubt on 1st trimester abortion that the govt cant make it illegal. But look at what we are debating here! SD banned all abortion!! Do you not see where the debate is right now? That means that when a little spermodude slips through the cracks and a teenage girl who has a future just found out about it within the first trimester, she cant have an abortion. So where does she turn? To the coathanger. And do you tell her "too bad honey, shoulda tried harder?" Do you see why futuregm made that comment?

 

Listen, you and I agree that teenagers have sex all the time right? So whats the better policy? Give them access to condoms or prevent them from getting condoms, tell them to abstain, hope that they actually listen, and when they irresonsiblly get pregnant, make them have a kid? Id say give them access to condoms, but that makes me a cookie cutter leftist.

 

And therein lies the problem with America - God forbid we take the good part from the Democratic platform (abortions when necessary) and mix it with the good part from the Republican platform (not putting condoms in fishbowls in the school cafeteria, or keeping your pecker in your pants until you're an adult - gasp!).

 

I hope (and assume) that you already know my views on the subject and which parts I agree/disagree with you on. I do not feel the need to dissect your post and respond to its components.

My curiousity is what right does anyone of us have to tell another what to do with their own body?

 

Has anyone in this thread whom are anti abortion actually adopted a child?

 

Hs anyone in this thread been in the situation of the woman before an abortion?

 

 

My sister had to face the choice and decided to keep her child. I am very very happy she did and love my niece every day of her life. But it was her choice, it was her body and her life.

 

 

The federal government doesnt have the right to infringe upon the personal freedoms of the individual.

 

It is a governement for the people, not to control the people.

Killing your fetus is debatably not a "personal freedom"

Killing your fetus is debatably not a "personal freedom"

 

 

 

it is debatable if it is killing or not.

 

Besides I repeat, the people critizing should have adopted 3-4 children (not just babies) before they complain.

Let's cut out some of the stupid dribble in this post with the key point.

 

Government goes not have the power to restrict the personal choices of any free adult in this country, of course this includes all the women who choose to have abortions.

 

Government does not have the right to end the life on any free and innocent person in this country.

 

The question which we currently do not have an answer to is the debate between biological human being and psychological human being. If life starts when the fetus reaches a level of psychological 'existence' then the fetus is not human and as such the pregnant woman has the choice of what she wants to do with this appendage of her body. Government cannot restrict it. If its the biological approach then government cannot condone the taking of a human life.

 

The problem is the answer to this has not and cannot be proven at this time. Until then its useless to argue about the merits of allowing or banning abortion.

 

Now the social utility argument of abortion is a good one, and it seems to be the one f_m is espousing. The problem with that argument is that most people who want to ban abortion are not arguing against the social utility of abortion, they are arguing a theoretical point. So i find it funny how people get so heated about a discussion which in reality hinges on how you personally feel about the first question i presented. (except of course those who use the social utility argument, although i feel many use that just to expand on their belief of life starting at psychological humanity

A fetus isn't a human being. You'll never get me to believe that a bunch of congregated cells can be considered human. Now, at the point where brainwave activity starts: you've got a point. But that's not for awhile.

 

If that's true I'm a mass murderer billions of times over because I jerk off like any hot-blooded male with access to porn. Semen ARE cells. And if pro-life is anti-masturbation than I'm against it with the whole of my being.

A fetus isn't a human being. You'll never get me to believe that a bunch of congregated cells can be considered human. Now, at the point where brainwave activity starts: you've got a point. But that's not for awhile.

 

If that's true I'm a mass murderer billions of times over because I jerk off like any hot-blooded male with access to porn. Semen ARE cells. And if pro-life is anti-masturbation than I'm against it with the whole of my being.

 

 

Lets cut to the important facts here...exactly how often do you masturbate?

"When you do it, you think of guys."

A fetus isn't a human being. You'll never get me to believe that a bunch of congregated cells can be considered human. Now, at the point where brainwave activity starts: you've got a point. But that's not for awhile.

 

If that's true I'm a mass murderer billions of times over because I jerk off like any hot-blooded male with access to porn. Semen ARE cells. And if pro-life is anti-masturbation than I'm against it with the whole of my being.

 

 

 

Weak argument...biological studies have said that the biological human being begins when the zygote is formed aka conception. The question is the definiton of 'human' not of biological life. Whne a human is alive biologically has already been proven. The question is whether to use the biological definition or some other one, such as psychologically. By the way i didnt take any sides in my argument as you can see. Just stating a few facts

And this is all the more reason why both sides need to sit down and figure out when in this nation 'life' is going to be designated as beginning.

 

 

This would go a long way to solving the abortion issue, but this will not happen anytime soon, one becuase neither side wants to compromise and becuase well its a fun little issue to campaign about.

And this is all the more reason why both sides need to sit down and figure out when in this nation 'life' is going to be designated as beginning.

 

 

This would go a long way to solving the abortion issue, but this will not happen anytime soon, one becuase neither side wants to compromise and becuase well its a fun little issue to campaign about.

 

 

The problem is even if the legislature were to designate a particular time frame for when abortions can happen and when they can't, many people will want in banned altogether and others will want it allowed althogether, so i dont see this issue going away any time soon

And this is all the more reason why both sides need to sit down and figure out when in this nation 'life' is going to be designated as beginning.

 

 

This would go a long way to solving the abortion issue, but this will not happen anytime soon, one becuase neither side wants to compromise and becuase well its a fun little issue to campaign about.

 

 

The problem is even if the legislature were to designate a particular time frame for when abortions can happen and when they can't, many people will want in banned altogether and others will want it allowed althogether, so i dont see this issue going away any time soon

 

ya cause its either my way or the highway on this issue and thats it.

A fetus isn't a human being. You'll never get me to believe that a bunch of congregated cells can be considered human. Now, at the point where brainwave activity starts: you've got a point. But that's not for awhile.

 

If that's true I'm a mass murderer billions of times over because I jerk off like any hot-blooded male with access to porn. Semen ARE cells. And if pro-life is anti-masturbation than I'm against it with the whole of my being.

 

 

Those are gametes. They're not alive.

A fetus isn't a human being. You'll never get me to believe that a bunch of congregated cells can be considered human. Now, at the point where brainwave activity starts: you've got a point. But that's not for awhile.

 

If that's true I'm a mass murderer billions of times over because I jerk off like any hot-blooded male with access to porn. Semen ARE cells. And if pro-life is anti-masturbation than I'm against it with the whole of my being.

 

 

Those are gametes. They're not alive.

 

They're still a part of life and they still move around and have a function and they contain half of the genetic material required to produce life. How are they not "alive"?

 

You know what, you're right. They're about as alive as a recently fertilized egg.

A fetus isn't a human being. You'll never get me to believe that a bunch of congregated cells can be considered human. Now, at the point where brainwave activity starts: you've got a point. But that's not for awhile.

 

If that's true I'm a mass murderer billions of times over because I jerk off like any hot-blooded male with access to porn. Semen ARE cells. And if pro-life is anti-masturbation than I'm against it with the whole of my being.

 

 

Those are gametes. They're not alive.

 

They're still a part of life and they still move around and have a function and they contain half of the genetic material required to produce life. How are they not "alive"?

 

You know what, you're right. They're about as alive as a recently fertilized egg.

 

A fertilized egg is a zygote. That is miles closer to life than gametes (sex cells).

A fetus isn't a human being. You'll never get me to believe that a bunch of congregated cells can be considered human. Now, at the point where brainwave activity starts: you've got a point. But that's not for awhile.

 

If that's true I'm a mass murderer billions of times over because I jerk off like any hot-blooded male with access to porn. Semen ARE cells. And if pro-life is anti-masturbation than I'm against it with the whole of my being.

 

 

Those are gametes. They're not alive.

 

They're still a part of life and they still move around and have a function and they contain half of the genetic material required to produce life. How are they not "alive"?

 

You know what, you're right. They're about as alive as a recently fertilized egg.

 

A fertilized egg is a zygote. That is miles closer to life than gametes (sex cells).

 

Still not human though and has no characteristics of being human. At that point it is still only "potentially human."