Pro choice means a "mother" can have her baby murdered because its inconvienient for her. And she can';'t be bothered to have the baby and give it up for adoption. While not only taking away the poor defenceless babys choice but its very life. I wish u pro choice peopel take a look at the short video"The silent Scream" it shows a womens choice taking place in full veiw.
That's a foofy way of disguising the ramifications of the topic. Abortions keep babies from being born in: rape cases, poor homes unfit to raise a child, and of unfit mothers (e.g. teenagers and poor kids still living with their parents). Many of these children end up becoming criminals according to statistics ( which I should post, but am lazy). Women will get abortions no matter what the law says if they want it! Keeping it legal keeps it safe!
@chrisdoranable Of course not. Adoption is another logical way to solve the problem...but the issue with that is still that that MOST children born into problematic circumstances DON'T adopted, and just remain to be raised in unfit homes. Adoption could easily be integrated as another option besides abortion.
@x89codered89x But a woman (and her partner), should certainly have the options of either, with no cost (other than perhaps what all ready comes out of taxes), to abort or put up for adoption.
Easy guidelines for Palinites, Tea Party supporters and all who want to keep the "right kind" of people in power:
1) use comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes and lack of respect for scientific knowledge.
2) create straw men and argue against things neither said nor even implied by others. Any irrelevancies you can mention will be appreciated.
3) forgo all civility in your discourse, You are, after all, anonymous.
I just don't think that the government should be able to regulate what a woman can, or cannot do with her own body. That's not freedom. If you don't want to get an abortion, then don't get one. It's pretty simple.
@DontFriendInviteMeAs For the "fathers should also have a say" card...should they? They aren't going to have to go through either A) pregnancy, or B) the abortion. Fathers only have parental rights after their child has been born. But those are just my thoughts.
Before seeing all of these religious nuts being promoted by the Republican party, I thought I'd be voting a straight Democratic ticket in 2012. Now I KNOW I'll be voting a straight Democratic ticket!!
@xInfected27x I actually live in Orlando. My house is about 4 minutes from where "Zanney the Nanny" supposedly lived. You don't know if she's guilty or innocent because you weren't there. Call me a skeptic, but you'll have to excuse me for not feeding into media sensationalism. People like you should be disqualified from jury duty; you've already made up your mind before you've heard the damn evidence.
@MrKeefuh hahaha! Vela Bela Means "Beautiful Life" In Italian And Cassey Anthony Put That On Her Back After Her Daughter Goes Missing Thats Enough Evidence To Convince Me
@xInfected27x okay, get your pen and pad because you're about to get taken to class.
First of all, it's spelled "Casey Anthony." okay? one 'S'. Second, "vela bela" means nada. It's "Vita Bella" in Italian that means beautiful life, which she tattooed backwards. Her tattoo said "Bella Vita". and if that's enough evidence for you, you don't know a lot about the human psyche. Also, you only capitalize the first letter of each sentence. Not each word.
@xInfected27x that's your only intelligent argument? "Don't use God's name in vain?" I think the only thing more irritating to God than people using His name in vain is when people use His name to justify murder by claiming it's His will. By quoting His book, they justify killing His children.
@MrKeefuh When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. ~Norm Crosby Real Justice Is Never Served
@xInfected27x Thank Christ we aren't putting our fate into the hands of twelve people who let mainstream news media interpret facts and evidence for them.
Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. Abortion should be up to a woman not the state. Education and birth control work. Besides who can afford to adopt when there are no jobs and no decent way to raise them? Who is going to adopt all the kids and give them a real chance in life? the 2% wealthiest who only pretend to care about the rest of us?
Take away women's birth control rights? "Women should be empowered," says Stupid Sarah, "to embrace a culture of life." Meaning The Bible of course---as if there's anything "empowering" about that.
More abortions for America, and the world!!! I read an estimate somewhere, that the earth can sustain about 5 hundred million people over the long term when you factor in food sustainability and environmental pressures. This 7 billion shit is going to end very abruptly some day.
@DeathToTheseWalls Makes no god-damn sense. Sounds like you're just making shit up. You ARE violating their right to choose by forbidding them to have an abortion. Yes, they chose to have sex, and if they're stupid enough to have unprotected sex, then that's their fucking deal, but they should be able to choose what they want to do with their bodies.
However, conservatives are opposed to protected sex, too, so you're trying to fuck them either way.
@DeadFishFactory If that really made no sense.. If what I said REALLY made NO sense to you, then you are beyond help. I could not have listed an easier to understand logically sound argument for you. I could not have made it more simple.
@DeathToTheseWalls I understand all the words, but when they're together, it makes no fucking sense. I know in your tiny little world, it probably does make sense, but to anyone else, no, it doesn't make sense at all, you shithead.
@DeadFishFactory In contrast, let me put your argument into form to demonstrate how horrible it is.
Premise #1: Sex leads to pregnancy.
Premise #1: "Yes, they chose to have sex" - You
Conclusion: "but they should be able to choose what to do with their bodies." - You
Explain that dumbfuckery, please, because it is beyond me.
How does choosing to be irresponsible by having sex when you did not want a child GIVE YOU THE RIGHT to kill the child, cause it's your body, that you PUT IN YOUR BODY?
@DeathToTheseWalls You calling it a "child" does not make it a living being, you god-damn retard. You're making it sound like they're going to give birth to it, and then kill it. If you terminate it way at the beginning, than it's no different than not having it at all, you dipshit.
If we're talking about them terminating it late, then yes, they cannot do that because the fetus has developed enough to be considered a "child", you asshole.
@DeadFishFactory "You calling it a "child" does not make it a living being"
Right. The biology discovered through fetology, and a basic understanding of the biological definition of life, makes it a living being. Understanding biogenesis makes it human. Understanding reproduction and the processes that went forth to create this being make him or her a "child."
As you are pro-choice, I know you're accustomed to plugging your ears and basing your opinion on emotion and stupidity.. I'm pro-life
Do you have a book entitled, "Things to say to make me sound stupid," which you reference now and then? I'm guessing that's where you got your last comment.
Turn off Family Guy, research the financial biases behind your anti-conservative sources, and pull your head out of your ass. And, have a great day! :]
@DeathToTheseWalls Once again, never an intelligent response, I would give you guys more credit if you ever came up with a more well thought out argument backing up your beliefs but it's always the same thing "go fuck yourself" "you're retarded" etc... you'll probably respond with something similar which once again will prove nothing, but really whats the best thing you can say about someone who is defending Sarah Palin?
@DeathToTheseWalls Thats your definition of an intelligent response? may God have mercy on your soul
I was merely pointing out the fact that conservatives always seem rather emotionally stunted and have to resort to "fuck you" as a counter argument and I'm not just talking about you, hell Elizabeth Hasselback did it just this week with Bill Maher
@284436 Red herring! I repeat myself: first YOU said "intelligent response," ... YOU SAID THIS. Then YOU said this: "[NEVER] an intelligent response," emphasis added.
Explain. That is all you have to do. You don't have to change the subject, and you don't have to insult me or your presumption of my beliefs non-related to this fail of yours. Just explain. :]
@PashminaAfgan - As a liberal woman I hate to admit it, but sometimes, creating a "potential" life has an impact on the man who supplied the seed as well. Yeah, she's gotta carry it, but, it's his "potential" child too. If he doesn't want to help carry the burden than fuck him, but if he has an emotional investment and the desire to take care of it, than he should have a say.
@PashminaAfgan "Feminists" (and I use that word in quotes here) wouldn't understand that comment. The rights of men on any issue do not exist in their world as far as they are concerned.
@PashminaAfgan yes ... "and men" ... if a woman gets pregnant, she is not the sole parent. Who does she think she is to kill the child of a man who might want the child. There have been many cases where a female didn't want the child but the man and his family did. That is just as much his baby as it is hers. Fathers don't have parental rights?
She's so wonderful! What a strong woman! What a true leader! I hope she is elected president, and will make America strong again! It will be so wonderful to see ALL WOMEN who CHOOSE to have sex forced to bear their children again!
So she's for controlling someone's body? To me, it seems immoral to force girls and women to carry a baby for 9 months and then give birth to it.
Adoption sounds like the "right" thing to do in theory, but look at how many unwanted children there already are in the world. Are we just going to continue to overpopulate?
We have to be reasonable. We can't save every single sperm and egg. Why not concentrate on improving the quality of life, instead of quantity?
This is the most cockamamie argument ever. A fetus is viable but for the intervention of doctors to terminate them. If it's okay to have an abortion on the count of the fetus being dependent on the mother, then infanticide is also perfectly okay.
A sperm or an egg is also a potential human being. Does it deserve rights, too? And who do you think should have more rights: a teen/adult, or an undeveloped fetus?
So in your opinion, it's okay to force a woman to be an incubator, no matter the circumstance, therefore giving her even less rights with her own body. Not to mention that her body can change forever after the pregnancy/birth.
We have enough people in the world already. No more.
What, pray tell, am I ignorant of? Or did you not realize ignorant simply means unaware? I'm very aware of the controlling a woman's body argument. It is quite trite. That the fetus is attached by umbillical cord seems like flimsy justification for termination. Legally, death is defined as lacking both a heartbeat and brain activity. Life and death being mutually exclusive means life must be the opposite. Fetuses have a heartbeat and brain activity by 6 wks. Sperm and eggs do not.
I know ignorant means unaware. It's why I avoid using the term "stupid."
You have yet to realize that a fetus in the first trimester isn't comparable to a full-grown being that's out of the womb. To force a woman to be pregnant is unconstitutional. I can almost guarantee that more women would simply commit suicide if abortion weren't an option.
Sperm and eggs are alive, but they don't have a heartbeat or brain activity. They could if they don't get shed, though. So should we save all of those?
The Constitution has nothing to say about pregnancy and thus is a question for States or the people to decide. It is certainly not unconstitutional for States to regulate or outlaw abortion. Complete speculation on your part about female suicide.
My argument is clear, death has a legal definition, which implies a definition for life, which fetuses 6 wks and older meet, which means abortions (in general) terminate life. That a sperm and eggs COULD be a life is irrelevant.
It *is* unconstitutional; you're taking away a woman's freedom and happiness. And while the female suicide is speculation, I can almost guarantee that there will be *some* increase in suicide if abortion were illegal. Another factor is death from abortions being performed in dangerous, underground conditions. Would you rather have women go through that than to just get a safe procedure done?
Okay, so what if a fetus less than 6 weeks old is terminated? And my sperm/eggs example *is* relevant.
Can you quote verse and text of the Constitution where people have the right to "freedom and happiness"? If you believe freedom and happiness includes abortions and that abortions should be legal, great, we have state legislatures to make those decisions corporately. There is no constitutional question here.
I'm happy to concede that I have no way to argue a fetus is "alive" prior to heartbeat and brain activity if you're willing to agree that afterwards, it is a life. Fair enough?
I don't believe the state should be able to decide that. People shouldn't have to go elsewhere just to be able to get a *basic* right. Not everyone can afford to go somewhere else to get a safe procedure done; it's not convenient and is less affordable when taking travel expenses into account.
Fetuses are alive prior to heartbeat like a cell is. However, that doesn't mean it deserves the same rights a born human has. That's my point.
No one is guaranteed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" carte blanche in the Constitution. That wording is an excerpt from the Declaration. Google "Constitution" and search for "pursuit of happiness"...I guarantee you you'll never find it. Abortion is not a Constitutional right, because it's never discussed. States can choose to deem it a personal liberty within its own boundaries, but they can also outlaw it. The 10th amendment leaves it up to the States.
Anyway, my main point is that people shouldn't be denied basic needs. If people can't get safe procedures, they'll simply find other, more dangerous ways.
The 19th amendment is relevant to abortion; women's suffrage defines the rights of women. And women, as people, are no longer the property of men. Thus, they have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. And it's hard for a man to empathize with pregnancy since they'll never know what it's like.
That's a perfectly acceptable argument. It's a personal opinion that I can't argue is invalid, just that I disagree with it.
The 19th amendment guarantees voting rights will not be denied on account of gender. What does that have to do with abortion, other than trying to find something, anything that might be a legal argument. You're just going to have to argue the merits of legalized abortion instead of arguing it's a right...it's just not protected regardless of Roe v Wade.
Yes, I know it refers to voting rights, but it was from there and because of it that women continued to define their individual rights. I should've worded that better the first time, but it's difficult to do with a character limit.
Once again, here's my point: People will get them, regardless of it being illegal or not. It's better to provide safe alternatives, and we cannot save everyone. I don't think I'd support late-term abortions, but it's ethical early on.
Character limits do make it more difficult. I guess we just have to agree to disagree, but others can read the conversation and learn something, hopefully.
Yeah, I usually end up omitting big pieces of info due to the character limit (though I'll admit that the Constitution/Declaration slip-up was my fault; I often mix up history-related things).
Yes, agreeing to disagree is the best way to go. :)
I'm arguing that legally any human with a beating heart and brain activity is not dead and thus is alive. Human life is worthy of legal protection. My distinction between life and cells is premised on the legal definition of death. Your distinction is premised on location relative to womb and attachment of umbillical cord. What's more logical? Is it moral to terminate a newborn if the umbillical cord is still attached? It's still part of the woman's body.
Then shouldn't forcing women and girls to end a life seem equally or more immoral to you?
If women get pregnant -- which is not easy, for women, usually, engage in long, unprotected, consensual sex before getting knocked up -- they are responsible for their actions. No one forced them to get pregnant.
In the cases of rape and risks involving the mother's life, I think abortion should be allowed -- which is the only exception I hold.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said anything about "forcing women and girls to end a life"? Abortion is a CHOICE, an OPTION.
Pregnancy can happen even if sex is protected. Sometimes accidents happen, even when the partners are being responsible. Should we continue to dump more unwanted children into the world when there are other people who are homeless and starving? THAT'S immoral.
Fetuses are basically bundles of cells, and I don't believe they deserve more rights than a grown girl or woman.
Whether leftists like you admit it or not, embryology confirms the notion of an unborn child.
Killing unborn babies is ever more immoral.
Look up "fetus" on the Columbia Encyclopedia. A 9-week-old fetus' "heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation."
You basically said there are many homeless people, therefore we should kill fetuses.
I love how you assume I'm "leftist" based on one belief I have. Yes, I am "leftist" in some senses, but being pro-choice doesn't equate to being a leftist 100% of the time.
Haha, once again, if killing fetuses is immoral, then why do you think it's moral for leftists/homosexuals to get gassed in chambers? Seriously, I find that extremely hypocritical and ironic.
No, I said there are too many helpless people in the world to worry about saving every fetus. This world is overpopulated.
And my original post was a reply to someone else. You interrupted like a moron -- a category-five moron -- without reading the other person's original reply.
You spewed some nonsense: "pregnancies happen even if sex is protected...blah blah blah." The keyword in that phrase was "usually." Anyway, what you pointed has nothing to do with the central argument. It was a red herring.
I think congress should legalize smoking leftist fagots like you in gas chambers.
I was adding my input. Thanks for the personal attacks. It shows how "mature" you righties really are.
Wow, so you're pro-life for fetuses, yet you think "leftist faggots" (do I detect HOMOPHOBIA?) should be killed in gas chambers? Wow, get some psychiatric help. You lack empathy.
The point of Roe v Wade is not forcing women to get abortions. No one is trying to force people to get abortions. The point is to give people a choice.
And on an unrelated topic, almost all "pro-life" arguments seem to be based on the concept that "every life is precious to god" (or something similar). This of course refers to the same god in the old testament who killed countless people and often specifically targeted children for his "plagues".
She doesn't know what she's talking about. She contradicts herself consistantly- - - I respect other people's opinions, but I'm just going to prevent them from making their own personal decisions. I am SO glad McCain didn't win!
It's just her body, right? The fetus is just another apendage of the mother's to be disposed of at will with or without cause? That's ridiculous. The fetus has a functioning brain and heart and is a distinct life, even if it is dependent on the mother. Mom can do whatever she likes with her body, but just like she can't kill her newborn kid, she shouldn't be allowed to kill her fetus. What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus. The umbillical cord and location relative to womb??
you make her body seem like it's nothing. You cant tell somebody to do something with their bodies that they don't want to do. It's like telling mentally retarted people that they have to be sterilized. the fetus has a functioning brain in the devloped stages of birth. without the mother, the fetus would not live. Most states in the US have a law that you can get an abortion up to 3 months, which the fetus is hardly devloped to live on its own. i do not support late term abortions.
Infants are unviable. Mom and dad actually have to feed them; they can't do it themselves. Do you really want to hang your hat on viability? It's a very slippery slope.
You posted first here, by the way. If you didn't want to discuss, perhaps you should've kept your thoughts to yourself. Or perhaps you realize the intellectual simplicity and dishonesty of your argument. Suicide affects just one's own body; abortion leaves the woman's body largely unaffected while the fetus itself is terminated. Apples and oranges.
yes i posted my opinion just like everyone else. I will discuss, but i will not let someone to tell me im wrong because they dont agree with my opinion. thats not a discussion, that is just someone being a complete asshole. There was no intellectual simplicity or dishonesty to my argument. Sorry that you feel that you need to control what women do to their bodies but guess what, that will NEVER happen so do what you want with your life and let other people do what they want with theirs.
It is a simplistic argument. There's little depth and nuance to it. It's more of an excuse than an argument. Further, abortion does not really impact the woman's body, it impact's the fetus. Just like mom can't commit infanticide, abortion should not be legal. I have no problem with someone choosing to crash a car to harm their own bodies, but when they take someone else with them, the argument that it's their body no longer holds.
Excuse for what? The baby is not born yet, aka the women does not have to have if she does not want to. The argument doesnt get much more into depth than that. It's none of your business what women do with their body, get over it.
What occurs after birth that grants the right of life to a child? Here's another one, what about children that are born but have yet to have the umbillical cord cut? The child is still attached to the woman's body. Is it still okay to terminate the child given that it's the woman's body? Since legally speaking death occurs when one's heartbeat and brain activity stop, when said bodily functions start defines the start of life. Fetuses have heartbeats and brain activity at 6 wks.
@oterj0 yes it is. The start to life is one's based opinon. You think it is at conception, others think it is at birth. If it is in a woman's body, then she can terminate the pregnancy. Once again, I do not support late term abortions.
I do not think life starts at conception, why do you assume that? Life has an implicit legal definition. Legally, someone is dead when their heartbeat and brain activity stop. If these 2 stopping is death and life and death are mutually exclusive, then those 2 starting is the start of life. Fetuses have a heartbeat and brain activity at 6 wks. Any abortion beyond 6 wks is terminating life. Your opinion on when life begins is arbitrary; designed to fit your belief. Mine is based on reason.
Did you really just say that it's okay to abort a newborn if the umbillical cord is still attached? I appreciate your honesty and consistency of argument (about the whole attached to woman's body therefore it is woman's body), but that's a POV that you should step back from and look at. Do you really think there's any reason to suppose life and physical attachment are related in any way? This argument forces one to conclude abortion post-birth is okay if umbillical cord is attached. Really??
NO I said if it is in the womb in the early stages of pregnancy then you can abort. People do no belive in the same thing you do and you cannot make somebody do something with their body that they don't want to do.
If you argue the birth canal make a child alive, then you must reject partial birth abortions, which you seem to. However, you're still making the "her body" argument, which is an attachment argument. Nothing changes about the child when it passes through the birth canal, so you can't argue inside the womb it's not alive, outside it is. You're basically left with the completely arbitrary argument of it's alive when I say it is, because I said so. Not very convincing.
We make people do things they don't want to do with their body all the time. We criminalize drug use and suicide, but somehow abortion, which is only an act against one's own body by an arbitrarily defined concept of life, is exempt from corporate regulation? I realize you're argument is one of just feeling one's way through what's okay and what's not, but you really should consider putting some thought into what life is and when it begins. Your current argument here is ill defined.
How do we criminalize drug use and sucide? I have my opinion of when life begins and it is different than yours. I'm tired of arguing with someone that clearly does not agree with me on my opinion, which is fine everyone can have a CHOICE in life. Bye
I'm sorry that you're not willing to be challenged on your ideology. I love a challenge; it keeps the mental juices flowing. That you're not interested in providing a rationale for why life begins when you say it does is consistent with it being completely arbitrary. It's sad that there are so many people with arbitrary opinions (and particularly sad that we let them vote), but I guess that's mobocracy.
You clearly do not understand the concept that everyone has different opinions. I do not care what your views are on abortion, they will NEVER change mine. I have better things to do than argue with an arrogant ass like you. Abortion gives everyone a choice to give birth. It benefits both sides of the argument. I AM DONE WITH THIS STUPID ASS CONVERSATION DONT COMMENT ME BACK I DONT CARE. GOOD BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
You were done with the conversation last go round. You even said "bye" and yet you just couldn't resist writing something back. I don't need to change your opinion, I'm just making it clear to all who read this string that my rationale for when life begins is based on the legal definition of death and it's implications for the definition of life and your rationale is non-existent, completely arbitrary.
Remember, if you're done, you are free to not comment back.
If we all want fewer abortions, then we need to provide teens with comprehensive sex education in schools as a first step. We need to provide continued education through adulthood as well. And on top of all that, we need free contraception. THen maybe we can start talking about scaling back abortions to "special" circumstances. I also agree that we need to support women more, and support the poor in our country more. We need community based living wages and cheaper childcare.
Prolifers I support you all IF you are willing to Adopt.
Also, if you were not hypocrits by paying hitmen that torture Billions of conscious mammals in factory farms for months and then kill them. You and these kids each harm 1000s of animals.
GoVeg (dot) com/theissues.asp also spells out how cooked flesh drastically contributes to World Hunger, destroys the Environment we all rely on and is the leading cause of human health deaths costing us all in health care.
That's right. That's why we should outlaw income taxes! Who are members of Congress to decide that their "personal beliefs" suggest SS is a good idea. What about Medicare? What about anything else that is funded corporately by legalized theft we call taxation. No personal beliefs of Congress ever imposed on the citizenship!
Some of these posts are so misinformed. Please research adoptions and foster care before making posts like many of the ones here. Foster care by definition is a temporary living situation, generally where the child ends up back with its birth parent(s). Adoption laws in the US often lack rights for the adoptive parents and grant ability of the birth parent(s) to take back the child at any time. Many adopt in the US, they just choose to adopt overseas because the US adoption laws are so bad.
Rich people are pro-life, because they know that children that would have been aborted grow up to work low paying jobs, and are generally uneducated. This creates crime, this creates the sale of drugs. The more uneducated people who don't grow up with a firm family foundation, the easier it is for them to find employees who will work for beans.
This re-enforces a class system where the rich stay rich, and the poor reproduce and create more customers for the company's that support politicians.
Prolifers I support you all IF you are willing to Adopt.
Also, if you were not hypocrits by paying hitmen that torture Billions of conscious mammals in factory farms for months and then kill them. You and these kids each harm 1000s of animals.
GoVeg (dot) com/theissues.asp also spells out how cooked flesh drastically contributes to World Hunger, destroys the Environment we all rely on and is the leading cause of human health deaths costing us all in health care.
Abortions should be allowed, some people aren't capable financailly to support a child. Usually people who come from poor families are criminals. Abortions keep criminals off the streets. Banning abortions is unamerican!
The issue is not only abortion, the prolife movement also opposes contraception, sex education and even the HPV vaccine because they believe that it would encourage women to have sex. It's not about "saving babies", it's about punishing women for having non procreative sex.
I'm not sure where your information is coming from but would love a citation. I am pro-life but I am also for contraceptive use, sex education, and for the HPV vaccine. It is true that many are pro-life from a religious standpoint and argue all of these points, but there are quite a lot that disagree with your overgeneralization here. The pro-life movement is not about punishing women, it's about women being responsible for the decisions that they choose to make.
"it's about women being responsible for the decisions that they choose to make"
How come some pro-lifers have to make the woman out to be the villain? As if it's our fault that we might get pregnant just because we have a uterus.
We should have all the same rights as men, including not having to be pregnant if we don't want to be. Then you won't have to hear people whining about women "having another bun in a oven." It pisses me off.
People who support the reversal of Roe v. Wade are supporting reversing woman's rights altogether. A woman's first and most important right is to decide what she wants to do with her body. It is her choice, to terminate her pregnancy if she deems it necessary. When we bring morals into the question, the basis of our constitution goes out the window. You wanna send us back to the dark ages of being barefoot and pregnant? Vote McCain/Palin and watch what happens.
I would love to know what situations are considered "necessary". If a woman is in a situation where she can't afford a child, can't miss work/school/etc. due to pregnancy, etc. then she should be responsible enough to do what she can to avoid becoming pregnant. If that means she can't have sex, needs to pay for/receive medicaid for birth control, refuse to have sex without a condom, etc. then she needs to do that.
You argue that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body and that the pro-life movement wants to reverse women's rights. What I want to see is women who respect themselves enough to be responsible. I know so many girls who say their boyfriend "doesn't like to wear a condom" so they don't insist on it and risk pregnancy. Respect yourself enough to demand that you are protected, both from pregnancy and STDs. It's the woman's body, so choose to make wise decisions about it.
You know "so many" girls who don't make their boyfriends wear condoms? Where the hell do you live? In places where sex education is abstinence-only? Seriously, either you're exaggerating or making it up entirely.
Actually no I'm not exaggerating or making it up. Spend a little time on a college campus and you'll see it for yourself.
My argument is not that the woman is the villain at all. My argument is that there are many options for contraception, many of which do not require a prescription and are readily available and inexpensive and that I wish that women would be more pro-active about preventing pregnancy before it happens and not ending it after.
A lot of women do use contraception. And colleges tend to be places where condoms are used a lot. I'm surprised you go somewhere in which people don't use them often. All I'm saying is that that's not the norm.
Abortion is a last resort. Pregnancy can still happen, even with contraception. Nothing is 100%. But abortion should be an option instead of expecting women to "take responsibility" for something that's not their fault.
I do not want to argue with you but I do not agree with you that using contraception is "the norm" at college campuses. Sure, a lot of people do use protection. But a lot of people still do not. According to the Guttmacher Institute, "46% of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant".
Of the 54% who did actually use protection, "76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use". That's a lot of people who are either not using protection or are using it incorrectly. I see this as a HUGE problem.
I'm not saying that abortion should not be an option, I'm only saying that proper contraceptive use would prevent a lot of abortions.
The problem with abortion is it is a moral issue, not a political issue. Rather than making a potentially life saving procedure illegal (prohibition on any level never works) we should push moreso for education on the choices women have (rather than dwindle them), the pro's and cons for each choice along with potential future consequenses. It is a choice that should be made between the mother, the father, the physician and God......not your congressman.
You can't "'abort' a one-month-old." "Abort" means to terminate a fetus. A one-month old is no longer a fetus.
Abortion isn't murder; overpopulation is. I think it's a bigger problem that we have homeless people starving on the street. An egg or sperm could've been a life, but you can't save every one of those. It's the same thing with a fetus in the first trimester or so.
No overpopulation? Wow, you are either ignorant or in denial. Have you ever seen a homeless person on the street? Have you ever seen kids in orphanages waiting to be adopted? Have you ever seen kids bouncing from home to home, only to be given up, unwanted? Eventually they become the homeless people, and the cycle continues.
If abortion is "murder" then is releasing eggs or sperm "murder" as well? How close-minded of you.
NO... LOL there is no overpopulation. There have been study after study on this. We arn't even close to overpopulation. We right now have the ability to grow our population by 50% and still be able to function properly. That's 3 billion more people.
You are a crazy person. You really need to do some research before you make ignorant posts.
If everyone in the world moved to South Africa, the population density per square mile would be 11 502 - this is less than Budapest (16 691) or Milan (13 806) and about the same as Berlin (11 026) or New York (11 480).18 South Africa's population density is one-third that of Austria,19 and Austria does not have a problem with overcrowding and poverty. The answer is not to control population. It is to encourage people to become productive.
The world as a WHOLE is overpopulated. So no, I'm not crazy. I'm sane enough to realize that putting more unwanted people into this world (and maybe leading to more loans/welfare) is not the smartest thing to do.
I don't suppose you're aware of the One-Child Policy practiced in China and India? It's in place because those places are overpopulated. Also, there are many children in the world who don't make it past their childhood because they're starving. We need to concentrate on the people who are already here instead of dumping more unwanted people into the world.
When I say "as a whole," I mean that you can find countries that are overpopulated if you look at the world from a global standpoint instead of just the U.S. So a statement such as "We're not overpopulated" is too general.
I'm just saying that we don't need any more people put into this world when there are plenty of people who have nothing. Let's spend more of our resources helping others instead of continuing to add more to our population (no matter what that population amounts to).
Pro choice means a "mother" can have her baby murdered because its inconvienient for her. And she can';'t be bothered to have the baby and give it up for adoption. While not only taking away the poor defenceless babys choice but its very life. I wish u pro choice peopel take a look at the short video"The silent Scream" it shows a womens choice taking place in full veiw.
PraetorianGuardsUK 1 month ago
pro-choice: the belief that unborn children have less rights just because they are located inside the uterus rather than outside it.
NickoliLion 1 month ago
"Culture of life?"
That's a foofy way of disguising the ramifications of the topic. Abortions keep babies from being born in: rape cases, poor homes unfit to raise a child, and of unfit mothers (e.g. teenagers and poor kids still living with their parents). Many of these children end up becoming criminals according to statistics ( which I should post, but am lazy). Women will get abortions no matter what the law says if they want it! Keeping it legal keeps it safe!
x89codered89x 2 months ago
@x89codered89x I was adopted because my mom was too poor to take care of me... should I have been aborted?
chrisdoranable 2 weeks ago
@chrisdoranable Of course not. Adoption is another logical way to solve the problem...but the issue with that is still that that MOST children born into problematic circumstances DON'T adopted, and just remain to be raised in unfit homes. Adoption could easily be integrated as another option besides abortion.
x89codered89x 1 week ago
@x89codered89x sorry..."Don't get* adopted"
x89codered89x 1 week ago
@x89codered89x But a woman (and her partner), should certainly have the options of either, with no cost (other than perhaps what all ready comes out of taxes), to abort or put up for adoption.
x89codered89x 1 week ago
HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP
Tanksareforcowards 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good guys and bad guys? What are we talkin' kindergarten here?
Listen here Sarah, things are a little more complicated than just dividing people in 'good guys and bad guys'.
A 'good guy' in the eyes of the one is a 'bad guy' in the eyes of another.
Can anybody teach her about perspective?
multitalentino 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Easy guidelines for Palinites, Tea Party supporters and all who want to keep the "right kind" of people in power:
1) use comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes and lack of respect for scientific knowledge.
2) create straw men and argue against things neither said nor even implied by others. Any irrelevancies you can mention will be appreciated.
3) forgo all civility in your discourse, You are, after all, anonymous.
zerogullibility 4 months ago
Who in this economy is gonna want to support an unwanted child? People who think elsewise have to suffer because of your lofty political position?
Termiteruler 4 months ago
I just don't think that the government should be able to regulate what a woman can, or cannot do with her own body. That's not freedom. If you don't want to get an abortion, then don't get one. It's pretty simple.
@DontFriendInviteMeAs For the "fathers should also have a say" card...should they? They aren't going to have to go through either A) pregnancy, or B) the abortion. Fathers only have parental rights after their child has been born. But those are just my thoughts.
mrwhitecloud2 4 months ago
Before seeing all of these religious nuts being promoted by the Republican party, I thought I'd be voting a straight Democratic ticket in 2012. Now I KNOW I'll be voting a straight Democratic ticket!!
dimefeet 5 months ago
@dimefeet that sounds like a vary dumb comment.
mrdeleted2 3 months ago
so dumb so dumb... culture of life... lol... by logic she is doing exactly the opposite.
this woman need some explanations and some mental training back to normality
cipihevent 5 months ago
Culture of life, huh? What about all the people we ruthlessly kill? This bitch needs to die.
HowlMoonBeam 5 months ago
you can always tell when a woman is a little bit stupid when the word empowered is used.
Dazzler59 5 months ago
You want my womb, bitch. Then sweetie come and get it. I'm right here waitin for ya.!!
Skaramoosh5 5 months ago
I'm against abortion AND the death penalty... but could is it too late to perform an abortion on Palin?
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
And here, children, we have classic conservative ideology.
a pro-LIFER who supports the DEATH penalty.
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
@MrKeefuh Have You Heard About Cassey Anthony? And If You Havent Then Look Her Up And Tell Me If She Doesnt Deserve Death?
xInfected27x 6 months ago
@xInfected27x I actually live in Orlando. My house is about 4 minutes from where "Zanney the Nanny" supposedly lived. You don't know if she's guilty or innocent because you weren't there. Call me a skeptic, but you'll have to excuse me for not feeding into media sensationalism. People like you should be disqualified from jury duty; you've already made up your mind before you've heard the damn evidence.
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
@MrKeefuh hahaha! Vela Bela Means "Beautiful Life" In Italian And Cassey Anthony Put That On Her Back After Her Daughter Goes Missing Thats Enough Evidence To Convince Me
xInfected27x 6 months ago
@xInfected27x okay, get your pen and pad because you're about to get taken to class.
First of all, it's spelled "Casey Anthony." okay? one 'S'. Second, "vela bela" means nada. It's "Vita Bella" in Italian that means beautiful life, which she tattooed backwards. Her tattoo said "Bella Vita". and if that's enough evidence for you, you don't know a lot about the human psyche. Also, you only capitalize the first letter of each sentence. Not each word.
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
@MrKeefuh Im sorry did you not understand what i said? Shut Up!
xInfected27x 6 months ago
@xInfected27x You asked what I'd do if you killed my family. Exactly what the law should be- I'd let you rot in prison. Don't get so sensitive.
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
@xInfected27x that's your only intelligent argument? "Don't use God's name in vain?" I think the only thing more irritating to God than people using His name in vain is when people use His name to justify murder by claiming it's His will. By quoting His book, they justify killing His children.
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
@MrKeefuh ??? Haha Ok ??? Killing His Own Children ?
xInfected27x 6 months ago
@xInfected27x By the way, that isn't using God's name in vain.
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrKeefuh Jesus Christ Is God If U Read The Bible
xInfected27x 6 months ago
@MrKeefuh If I Killed Your Mom And Dad And Everything That Matters Too You What Are They Going To Do Huh?
xInfected27x 6 months ago
@xInfected27x let you rot in prison for your whole life without chance of parole. Ever been to prison? It's not a fun place- trust me.
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
@MrKeefuh Oh Noo! Haha Or Maybe Just Get 25 Years Or Somthing Good Like That Or In Cassey Anthonys Case No Time At All :D Yay!
xInfected27x 6 months ago
@xInfected27x Maybe she didn't deserve to be in jail.
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
@MrKeefuh When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. ~Norm Crosby Real Justice Is Never Served
xInfected27x 6 months ago
@xInfected27x Thank Christ we aren't putting our fate into the hands of twelve people who let mainstream news media interpret facts and evidence for them.
MrKeefuh 6 months ago
@MrKeefuh haha, dont be using Gods Name In Vain
xInfected27x 6 months ago
Kudos to Sarah Palin for her integrity: saying what what she believes is right .. and courage: saying so even if it might cost her.
LemonSaucy 7 months ago
Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. Abortion should be up to a woman not the state. Education and birth control work. Besides who can afford to adopt when there are no jobs and no decent way to raise them? Who is going to adopt all the kids and give them a real chance in life? the 2% wealthiest who only pretend to care about the rest of us?
sharkeykirk 7 months ago
@sharkeykirk Thanks for your opinion.
LemonSaucy 7 months ago
Take away women's birth control rights? "Women should be empowered," says Stupid Sarah, "to embrace a culture of life." Meaning The Bible of course---as if there's anything "empowering" about that.
37Dionysos 8 months ago
@37Dionysos Abortion is a form of birth control? Wow.
jejo02 8 months ago
More abortions for America, and the world!!! I read an estimate somewhere, that the earth can sustain about 5 hundred million people over the long term when you factor in food sustainability and environmental pressures. This 7 billion shit is going to end very abruptly some day.
requiemdexter 11 months ago
She didnt even answer the question, only babbling about how important and sensitive this topic is...
susankreber 1 year ago
Let's look at this statistically, with liberal-bias-mode turned off!
- 99% of abortions result from pregnancies caused by consensual sexual intercourse.
- 100% of the women in those scenarios chose to have sex.
The woman's right to choose has been met! Hooray! Let's see what happens next ...
- 100% of the women in those scenarios want to now have an abortion...
Sorry, no, you chose to have sex.
- 100% of the women in those scenarios claim we have violated their right to choose.
WTF?!?!
DeathToTheseWalls 1 year ago
@DeathToTheseWalls Makes no god-damn sense. Sounds like you're just making shit up. You ARE violating their right to choose by forbidding them to have an abortion. Yes, they chose to have sex, and if they're stupid enough to have unprotected sex, then that's their fucking deal, but they should be able to choose what they want to do with their bodies.
However, conservatives are opposed to protected sex, too, so you're trying to fuck them either way.
DeadFishFactory 11 months ago
@DeadFishFactory If that really made no sense.. If what I said REALLY made NO sense to you, then you are beyond help. I could not have listed an easier to understand logically sound argument for you. I could not have made it more simple.
DeathToTheseWalls 11 months ago
@DeathToTheseWalls I understand all the words, but when they're together, it makes no fucking sense. I know in your tiny little world, it probably does make sense, but to anyone else, no, it doesn't make sense at all, you shithead.
DeadFishFactory 11 months ago
@DeadFishFactory In contrast, let me put your argument into form to demonstrate how horrible it is.
Premise #1: Sex leads to pregnancy.
Premise #1: "Yes, they chose to have sex" - You
Conclusion: "but they should be able to choose what to do with their bodies." - You
Explain that dumbfuckery, please, because it is beyond me.
How does choosing to be irresponsible by having sex when you did not want a child GIVE YOU THE RIGHT to kill the child, cause it's your body, that you PUT IN YOUR BODY?
DeathToTheseWalls 11 months ago
@DeathToTheseWalls You calling it a "child" does not make it a living being, you god-damn retard. You're making it sound like they're going to give birth to it, and then kill it. If you terminate it way at the beginning, than it's no different than not having it at all, you dipshit.
If we're talking about them terminating it late, then yes, they cannot do that because the fetus has developed enough to be considered a "child", you asshole.
DeadFishFactory 11 months ago
@DeadFishFactory You're pretty darn upset for simply being told you were wrong.
I'm assuming you've had an abortion recently and still haven't successfully smothered the grieving process?
DeathToTheseWalls 11 months ago
@DeadFishFactory "You calling it a "child" does not make it a living being"
Right. The biology discovered through fetology, and a basic understanding of the biological definition of life, makes it a living being. Understanding biogenesis makes it human. Understanding reproduction and the processes that went forth to create this being make him or her a "child."
As you are pro-choice, I know you're accustomed to plugging your ears and basing your opinion on emotion and stupidity.. I'm pro-life
DeathToTheseWalls 11 months ago
You know why we need abortion? population control, and so more people like Sarah Palin are never born
284436 1 year ago 26
@284436 And a rousing, passionate "fuck you" to you, sir. :]
DeathToTheseWalls 11 months ago
@DeathToTheseWalls how clever, you never actually find a conservative who gives an intelligent response to anything
284436 11 months ago
@284436
Do you have a book entitled, "Things to say to make me sound stupid," which you reference now and then? I'm guessing that's where you got your last comment.
Turn off Family Guy, research the financial biases behind your anti-conservative sources, and pull your head out of your ass. And, have a great day! :]
DeathToTheseWalls 11 months ago
@DeathToTheseWalls Once again, never an intelligent response, I would give you guys more credit if you ever came up with a more well thought out argument backing up your beliefs but it's always the same thing "go fuck yourself" "you're retarded" etc... you'll probably respond with something similar which once again will prove nothing, but really whats the best thing you can say about someone who is defending Sarah Palin?
284436 11 months ago
@284436 So first I gave an "intelligent response," but then you say "never an intelligent response."
Sounds like you're suffering from bipolar disorder. Good luck with that.
By the way, what a long response you have for someone having absolutely nothing to say.
DeathToTheseWalls 11 months ago
@DeathToTheseWalls Thats your definition of an intelligent response? may God have mercy on your soul
I was merely pointing out the fact that conservatives always seem rather emotionally stunted and have to resort to "fuck you" as a counter argument and I'm not just talking about you, hell Elizabeth Hasselback did it just this week with Bill Maher
284436 11 months ago
@284436 Red herring! I repeat myself: first YOU said "intelligent response," ... YOU SAID THIS. Then YOU said this: "[NEVER] an intelligent response," emphasis added.
Explain. That is all you have to do. You don't have to change the subject, and you don't have to insult me or your presumption of my beliefs non-related to this fail of yours. Just explain. :]
DeathToTheseWalls 11 months ago
@284436 Population Control STFU You And A Whole Lot Of Other People Just Need Excuses! To Cover Up Your Mistakes!
xInfected27x 6 months ago
@284436
You sound like Mao Zedong.
MidNiteR32 2 months ago
she's germans-attacked-pearl-harbor-dumb
magbast9 1 year ago
Palin came across as balanced and well-spoken in this grab.
I think that's a first, for me.
123OBrown 1 year ago
@123OBrown She didn't answer any question directly. She is a talking parrot.
She believes abortion should be illegal, yet, didn't give a straight answer on that.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
condoms are against the bible!! and they ruin the sensitivity...
Long live raw doggin!!!
DGfootball14 1 year ago
and men.....?
PashminaAfgan 1 year ago 12
@PashminaAfgan - As a liberal woman I hate to admit it, but sometimes, creating a "potential" life has an impact on the man who supplied the seed as well. Yeah, she's gotta carry it, but, it's his "potential" child too. If he doesn't want to help carry the burden than fuck him, but if he has an emotional investment and the desire to take care of it, than he should have a say.
buzzardbeatniks 8 months ago
@PashminaAfgan "Feminists" (and I use that word in quotes here) wouldn't understand that comment. The rights of men on any issue do not exist in their world as far as they are concerned.
LemonSaucy 7 months ago
@PashminaAfgan yes ... "and men" ... if a woman gets pregnant, she is not the sole parent. Who does she think she is to kill the child of a man who might want the child. There have been many cases where a female didn't want the child but the man and his family did. That is just as much his baby as it is hers. Fathers don't have parental rights?
DontFriendInviteMe 4 months ago
@PashminaAfgan I think she was referring to the fact that men and women are often both involved in the decision to have an abortion.
gymnasticsloverxoxo 1 month ago
She's so wonderful! What a strong woman! What a true leader! I hope she is elected president, and will make America strong again! It will be so wonderful to see ALL WOMEN who CHOOSE to have sex forced to bear their children again!
ForcedBirther 1 year ago
She didn't really say anything. lol
jethrodassam 2 years ago
empty amatorish words. no political mojo.
lyriclex 2 years ago
So she's for controlling someone's body? To me, it seems immoral to force girls and women to carry a baby for 9 months and then give birth to it.
Adoption sounds like the "right" thing to do in theory, but look at how many unwanted children there already are in the world. Are we just going to continue to overpopulate?
We have to be reasonable. We can't save every single sperm and egg. Why not concentrate on improving the quality of life, instead of quantity?
NintendoArielle 2 years ago 9
This is the most cockamamie argument ever. A fetus is viable but for the intervention of doctors to terminate them. If it's okay to have an abortion on the count of the fetus being dependent on the mother, then infanticide is also perfectly okay.
oterj0 2 years ago
My argument is "cockamamie?" You're so ignorant.
A sperm or an egg is also a potential human being. Does it deserve rights, too? And who do you think should have more rights: a teen/adult, or an undeveloped fetus?
So in your opinion, it's okay to force a woman to be an incubator, no matter the circumstance, therefore giving her even less rights with her own body. Not to mention that her body can change forever after the pregnancy/birth.
We have enough people in the world already. No more.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
What, pray tell, am I ignorant of? Or did you not realize ignorant simply means unaware? I'm very aware of the controlling a woman's body argument. It is quite trite. That the fetus is attached by umbillical cord seems like flimsy justification for termination. Legally, death is defined as lacking both a heartbeat and brain activity. Life and death being mutually exclusive means life must be the opposite. Fetuses have a heartbeat and brain activity by 6 wks. Sperm and eggs do not.
oterj0 2 years ago
I know ignorant means unaware. It's why I avoid using the term "stupid."
You have yet to realize that a fetus in the first trimester isn't comparable to a full-grown being that's out of the womb. To force a woman to be pregnant is unconstitutional. I can almost guarantee that more women would simply commit suicide if abortion weren't an option.
Sperm and eggs are alive, but they don't have a heartbeat or brain activity. They could if they don't get shed, though. So should we save all of those?
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
The Constitution has nothing to say about pregnancy and thus is a question for States or the people to decide. It is certainly not unconstitutional for States to regulate or outlaw abortion. Complete speculation on your part about female suicide.
My argument is clear, death has a legal definition, which implies a definition for life, which fetuses 6 wks and older meet, which means abortions (in general) terminate life. That a sperm and eggs COULD be a life is irrelevant.
oterj0 2 years ago
It *is* unconstitutional; you're taking away a woman's freedom and happiness. And while the female suicide is speculation, I can almost guarantee that there will be *some* increase in suicide if abortion were illegal. Another factor is death from abortions being performed in dangerous, underground conditions. Would you rather have women go through that than to just get a safe procedure done?
Okay, so what if a fetus less than 6 weeks old is terminated? And my sperm/eggs example *is* relevant.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
Can you quote verse and text of the Constitution where people have the right to "freedom and happiness"? If you believe freedom and happiness includes abortions and that abortions should be legal, great, we have state legislatures to make those decisions corporately. There is no constitutional question here.
I'm happy to concede that I have no way to argue a fetus is "alive" prior to heartbeat and brain activity if you're willing to agree that afterwards, it is a life. Fair enough?
oterj0 2 years ago
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I don't believe the state should be able to decide that. People shouldn't have to go elsewhere just to be able to get a *basic* right. Not everyone can afford to go somewhere else to get a safe procedure done; it's not convenient and is less affordable when taking travel expenses into account.
Fetuses are alive prior to heartbeat like a cell is. However, that doesn't mean it deserves the same rights a born human has. That's my point.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
No one is guaranteed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" carte blanche in the Constitution. That wording is an excerpt from the Declaration. Google "Constitution" and search for "pursuit of happiness"...I guarantee you you'll never find it. Abortion is not a Constitutional right, because it's never discussed. States can choose to deem it a personal liberty within its own boundaries, but they can also outlaw it. The 10th amendment leaves it up to the States.
oterj0 2 years ago
Ah, my bad.
Anyway, my main point is that people shouldn't be denied basic needs. If people can't get safe procedures, they'll simply find other, more dangerous ways.
The 19th amendment is relevant to abortion; women's suffrage defines the rights of women. And women, as people, are no longer the property of men. Thus, they have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. And it's hard for a man to empathize with pregnancy since they'll never know what it's like.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
That's a perfectly acceptable argument. It's a personal opinion that I can't argue is invalid, just that I disagree with it.
The 19th amendment guarantees voting rights will not be denied on account of gender. What does that have to do with abortion, other than trying to find something, anything that might be a legal argument. You're just going to have to argue the merits of legalized abortion instead of arguing it's a right...it's just not protected regardless of Roe v Wade.
oterj0 2 years ago
Fair enough.
Yes, I know it refers to voting rights, but it was from there and because of it that women continued to define their individual rights. I should've worded that better the first time, but it's difficult to do with a character limit.
Once again, here's my point: People will get them, regardless of it being illegal or not. It's better to provide safe alternatives, and we cannot save everyone. I don't think I'd support late-term abortions, but it's ethical early on.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
Character limits do make it more difficult. I guess we just have to agree to disagree, but others can read the conversation and learn something, hopefully.
oterj0 2 years ago
Yeah, I usually end up omitting big pieces of info due to the character limit (though I'll admit that the Constitution/Declaration slip-up was my fault; I often mix up history-related things).
Yes, agreeing to disagree is the best way to go. :)
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
I'm arguing that legally any human with a beating heart and brain activity is not dead and thus is alive. Human life is worthy of legal protection. My distinction between life and cells is premised on the legal definition of death. Your distinction is premised on location relative to womb and attachment of umbillical cord. What's more logical? Is it moral to terminate a newborn if the umbillical cord is still attached? It's still part of the woman's body.
oterj0 2 years ago
Then shouldn't forcing women and girls to end a life seem equally or more immoral to you?
If women get pregnant -- which is not easy, for women, usually, engage in long, unprotected, consensual sex before getting knocked up -- they are responsible for their actions. No one forced them to get pregnant.
In the cases of rape and risks involving the mother's life, I think abortion should be allowed -- which is the only exception I hold.
This only applies for fetuses, not cells.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 years ago
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said anything about "forcing women and girls to end a life"? Abortion is a CHOICE, an OPTION.
Pregnancy can happen even if sex is protected. Sometimes accidents happen, even when the partners are being responsible. Should we continue to dump more unwanted children into the world when there are other people who are homeless and starving? THAT'S immoral.
Fetuses are basically bundles of cells, and I don't believe they deserve more rights than a grown girl or woman.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
@NintendoArielle
Whether leftists like you admit it or not, embryology confirms the notion of an unborn child.
Killing unborn babies is ever more immoral.
Look up "fetus" on the Columbia Encyclopedia. A 9-week-old fetus' "heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation."
You basically said there are many homeless people, therefore we should kill fetuses.
You are an idiot.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 years ago
I love how you assume I'm "leftist" based on one belief I have. Yes, I am "leftist" in some senses, but being pro-choice doesn't equate to being a leftist 100% of the time.
Haha, once again, if killing fetuses is immoral, then why do you think it's moral for leftists/homosexuals to get gassed in chambers? Seriously, I find that extremely hypocritical and ironic.
No, I said there are too many helpless people in the world to worry about saving every fetus. This world is overpopulated.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
@NintendoArielle
And my original post was a reply to someone else. You interrupted like a moron -- a category-five moron -- without reading the other person's original reply.
You spewed some nonsense: "pregnancies happen even if sex is protected...blah blah blah." The keyword in that phrase was "usually." Anyway, what you pointed has nothing to do with the central argument. It was a red herring.
I think congress should legalize smoking leftist fagots like you in gas chambers.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 years ago
I was adding my input. Thanks for the personal attacks. It shows how "mature" you righties really are.
Wow, so you're pro-life for fetuses, yet you think "leftist faggots" (do I detect HOMOPHOBIA?) should be killed in gas chambers? Wow, get some psychiatric help. You lack empathy.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
"smoking leftist faggots like you in gas chambers"
hahaha american right wingers crack me up
cabouse1324 2 years ago
The point of Roe v Wade is not forcing women to get abortions. No one is trying to force people to get abortions. The point is to give people a choice.
And on an unrelated topic, almost all "pro-life" arguments seem to be based on the concept that "every life is precious to god" (or something similar). This of course refers to the same god in the old testament who killed countless people and often specifically targeted children for his "plagues".
FistInTheAir420 1 year ago
She doesn't know what she's talking about. She contradicts herself consistantly- - - I respect other people's opinions, but I'm just going to prevent them from making their own personal decisions. I am SO glad McCain didn't win!
SaraAsIs 2 years ago 8
you know what should be illegal, fathers who abandon their children
a good reason why so many women get abortions is because they have no support system to help them have a child
still, i am for abortion because i dont think it is right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body
it is no ones choice but hers
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago 4
It's just her body, right? The fetus is just another apendage of the mother's to be disposed of at will with or without cause? That's ridiculous. The fetus has a functioning brain and heart and is a distinct life, even if it is dependent on the mother. Mom can do whatever she likes with her body, but just like she can't kill her newborn kid, she shouldn't be allowed to kill her fetus. What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus. The umbillical cord and location relative to womb??
oterj0 2 years ago
you make her body seem like it's nothing. You cant tell somebody to do something with their bodies that they don't want to do. It's like telling mentally retarted people that they have to be sterilized. the fetus has a functioning brain in the devloped stages of birth. without the mother, the fetus would not live. Most states in the US have a law that you can get an abortion up to 3 months, which the fetus is hardly devloped to live on its own. i do not support late term abortions.
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago
Infants are unviable. Mom and dad actually have to feed them; they can't do it themselves. Do you really want to hang your hat on viability? It's a very slippery slope.
oterj0 2 years ago
look i dont want to get into an argument. People can do what they want with their bodies, its not one elses decision thats just how it is.
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago
You posted first here, by the way. If you didn't want to discuss, perhaps you should've kept your thoughts to yourself. Or perhaps you realize the intellectual simplicity and dishonesty of your argument. Suicide affects just one's own body; abortion leaves the woman's body largely unaffected while the fetus itself is terminated. Apples and oranges.
oterj0 2 years ago
yes i posted my opinion just like everyone else. I will discuss, but i will not let someone to tell me im wrong because they dont agree with my opinion. thats not a discussion, that is just someone being a complete asshole. There was no intellectual simplicity or dishonesty to my argument. Sorry that you feel that you need to control what women do to their bodies but guess what, that will NEVER happen so do what you want with your life and let other people do what they want with theirs.
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago
It is a simplistic argument. There's little depth and nuance to it. It's more of an excuse than an argument. Further, abortion does not really impact the woman's body, it impact's the fetus. Just like mom can't commit infanticide, abortion should not be legal. I have no problem with someone choosing to crash a car to harm their own bodies, but when they take someone else with them, the argument that it's their body no longer holds.
oterj0 2 years ago
Excuse for what? The baby is not born yet, aka the women does not have to have if she does not want to. The argument doesnt get much more into depth than that. It's none of your business what women do with their body, get over it.
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago
What occurs after birth that grants the right of life to a child? Here's another one, what about children that are born but have yet to have the umbillical cord cut? The child is still attached to the woman's body. Is it still okay to terminate the child given that it's the woman's body? Since legally speaking death occurs when one's heartbeat and brain activity stop, when said bodily functions start defines the start of life. Fetuses have heartbeats and brain activity at 6 wks.
oterj0 2 years ago
@oterj0 yes it is. The start to life is one's based opinon. You think it is at conception, others think it is at birth. If it is in a woman's body, then she can terminate the pregnancy. Once again, I do not support late term abortions.
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago
I do not think life starts at conception, why do you assume that? Life has an implicit legal definition. Legally, someone is dead when their heartbeat and brain activity stop. If these 2 stopping is death and life and death are mutually exclusive, then those 2 starting is the start of life. Fetuses have a heartbeat and brain activity at 6 wks. Any abortion beyond 6 wks is terminating life. Your opinion on when life begins is arbitrary; designed to fit your belief. Mine is based on reason.
oterj0 2 years ago
Did you really just say that it's okay to abort a newborn if the umbillical cord is still attached? I appreciate your honesty and consistency of argument (about the whole attached to woman's body therefore it is woman's body), but that's a POV that you should step back from and look at. Do you really think there's any reason to suppose life and physical attachment are related in any way? This argument forces one to conclude abortion post-birth is okay if umbillical cord is attached. Really??
oterj0 2 years ago
@oterj0
NO I said if it is in the womb in the early stages of pregnancy then you can abort. People do no belive in the same thing you do and you cannot make somebody do something with their body that they don't want to do.
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago
If you argue the birth canal make a child alive, then you must reject partial birth abortions, which you seem to. However, you're still making the "her body" argument, which is an attachment argument. Nothing changes about the child when it passes through the birth canal, so you can't argue inside the womb it's not alive, outside it is. You're basically left with the completely arbitrary argument of it's alive when I say it is, because I said so. Not very convincing.
oterj0 2 years ago
@oterj0
If it is attached to a human body, then yes, it is an imortant argument. Anything that comes out of a womans body is her choice and no one elses.
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago
We make people do things they don't want to do with their body all the time. We criminalize drug use and suicide, but somehow abortion, which is only an act against one's own body by an arbitrarily defined concept of life, is exempt from corporate regulation? I realize you're argument is one of just feeling one's way through what's okay and what's not, but you really should consider putting some thought into what life is and when it begins. Your current argument here is ill defined.
oterj0 2 years ago
@oterj0
How do we criminalize drug use and sucide? I have my opinion of when life begins and it is different than yours. I'm tired of arguing with someone that clearly does not agree with me on my opinion, which is fine everyone can have a CHOICE in life. Bye
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago
I'm sorry that you're not willing to be challenged on your ideology. I love a challenge; it keeps the mental juices flowing. That you're not interested in providing a rationale for why life begins when you say it does is consistent with it being completely arbitrary. It's sad that there are so many people with arbitrary opinions (and particularly sad that we let them vote), but I guess that's mobocracy.
oterj0 2 years ago
@oterj0
You clearly do not understand the concept that everyone has different opinions. I do not care what your views are on abortion, they will NEVER change mine. I have better things to do than argue with an arrogant ass like you. Abortion gives everyone a choice to give birth. It benefits both sides of the argument. I AM DONE WITH THIS STUPID ASS CONVERSATION DONT COMMENT ME BACK I DONT CARE. GOOD BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
heyxgirlfran 2 years ago
You were done with the conversation last go round. You even said "bye" and yet you just couldn't resist writing something back. I don't need to change your opinion, I'm just making it clear to all who read this string that my rationale for when life begins is based on the legal definition of death and it's implications for the definition of life and your rationale is non-existent, completely arbitrary.
Remember, if you're done, you are free to not comment back.
oterj0 2 years ago
Nothing is wrong with Abortion
elevatedclown925 2 years ago 4
Murderers believe nothing is wrong with murder. Thieves believe nothing is wrong with stealing. Is that statement of opinion relevant?
oterj0 2 years ago
If we all want fewer abortions, then we need to provide teens with comprehensive sex education in schools as a first step. We need to provide continued education through adulthood as well. And on top of all that, we need free contraception. THen maybe we can start talking about scaling back abortions to "special" circumstances. I also agree that we need to support women more, and support the poor in our country more. We need community based living wages and cheaper childcare.
acadawhat 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sarah should get out of the Alaskian Govoner seat, and be vice president!
republicanboy79 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its good that Palin wants to over turn roe v. wade. Unlike Gorge W Bush.
ivankaman21 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Prolifers I support you all IF you are willing to Adopt.
Also, if you were not hypocrits by paying hitmen that torture Billions of conscious mammals in factory farms for months and then kill them. You and these kids each harm 1000s of animals.
GoVeg (dot) com/theissues.asp also spells out how cooked flesh drastically contributes to World Hunger, destroys the Environment we all rely on and is the leading cause of human health deaths costing us all in health care.
MeetYourMeat (dot) com
houstonhelpanimals 2 years ago
Politicians shouldn't force their personal beliefs on the entire nation.
MarowakDidIt 2 years ago 8
thats what im talking abouuuuuuuuut!!! :D n1
lobelito 2 years ago
That's right. That's why we should outlaw income taxes! Who are members of Congress to decide that their "personal beliefs" suggest SS is a good idea. What about Medicare? What about anything else that is funded corporately by legalized theft we call taxation. No personal beliefs of Congress ever imposed on the citizenship!
oterj0 2 years ago
Some of these posts are so misinformed. Please research adoptions and foster care before making posts like many of the ones here. Foster care by definition is a temporary living situation, generally where the child ends up back with its birth parent(s). Adoption laws in the US often lack rights for the adoptive parents and grant ability of the birth parent(s) to take back the child at any time. Many adopt in the US, they just choose to adopt overseas because the US adoption laws are so bad.
PrincessBecca04 3 years ago
Rich people are pro-life, because they know that children that would have been aborted grow up to work low paying jobs, and are generally uneducated. This creates crime, this creates the sale of drugs. The more uneducated people who don't grow up with a firm family foundation, the easier it is for them to find employees who will work for beans.
This re-enforces a class system where the rich stay rich, and the poor reproduce and create more customers for the company's that support politicians.
ElsePlace 3 years ago
Don't put pro-life in a box.
If you actually understood pro-life you wouldn't have said that.
It has nothing too do with money.
W don't make decisions on what we can get best out of our life.
If I was a hobo I would still believe in pro-life. I would try my very best to help my child along without killing it even if my wife was a hobo.
nagzul 3 years ago
So abortion kills poor people. You support abortion, thus you support killing poor people.
oterj0 2 years ago
Well dont Palin!
Finally a politician with a spine to speak her mind and not be scared of liberal and sin loving people to rebuke her!
if u fight so hard for your opinions, why cant she state hers?
hypocrisy comes with sinners who are blinded
kalb2000 3 years ago
Sarah Palin is a role model.
republicanboy79 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Prolifers I support you all IF you are willing to Adopt.
Also, if you were not hypocrits by paying hitmen that torture Billions of conscious mammals in factory farms for months and then kill them. You and these kids each harm 1000s of animals.
GoVeg (dot) com/theissues.asp also spells out how cooked flesh drastically contributes to World Hunger, destroys the Environment we all rely on and is the leading cause of human health deaths costing us all in health care.
MeetYourMeat (dot) com
houstonhelpanimals 2 years ago
Abortions should be allowed, some people aren't capable financailly to support a child. Usually people who come from poor families are criminals. Abortions keep criminals off the streets. Banning abortions is unamerican!
lionslicer9999 3 years ago 5
The issue is not only abortion, the prolife movement also opposes contraception, sex education and even the HPV vaccine because they believe that it would encourage women to have sex. It's not about "saving babies", it's about punishing women for having non procreative sex.
maryansmith 3 years ago 3
I'm not sure where your information is coming from but would love a citation. I am pro-life but I am also for contraceptive use, sex education, and for the HPV vaccine. It is true that many are pro-life from a religious standpoint and argue all of these points, but there are quite a lot that disagree with your overgeneralization here. The pro-life movement is not about punishing women, it's about women being responsible for the decisions that they choose to make.
PrincessBecca04 3 years ago
"it's about women being responsible for the decisions that they choose to make"
How come some pro-lifers have to make the woman out to be the villain? As if it's our fault that we might get pregnant just because we have a uterus.
We should have all the same rights as men, including not having to be pregnant if we don't want to be. Then you won't have to hear people whining about women "having another bun in a oven." It pisses me off.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
Oh this isn't me being heartless, this is me having a brain.
jglovetaco 3 years ago
People who support the reversal of Roe v. Wade are supporting reversing woman's rights altogether. A woman's first and most important right is to decide what she wants to do with her body. It is her choice, to terminate her pregnancy if she deems it necessary. When we bring morals into the question, the basis of our constitution goes out the window. You wanna send us back to the dark ages of being barefoot and pregnant? Vote McCain/Palin and watch what happens.
jglovetaco 3 years ago 2
Because the conservative-republicans are an authoritarian, theocratic lot! The hell with them all!!!
Beamshipcaptain 3 years ago 3
"If she deems it necessary"
I would love to know what situations are considered "necessary". If a woman is in a situation where she can't afford a child, can't miss work/school/etc. due to pregnancy, etc. then she should be responsible enough to do what she can to avoid becoming pregnant. If that means she can't have sex, needs to pay for/receive medicaid for birth control, refuse to have sex without a condom, etc. then she needs to do that.
(continued)
PrincessBecca04 3 years ago
You argue that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body and that the pro-life movement wants to reverse women's rights. What I want to see is women who respect themselves enough to be responsible. I know so many girls who say their boyfriend "doesn't like to wear a condom" so they don't insist on it and risk pregnancy. Respect yourself enough to demand that you are protected, both from pregnancy and STDs. It's the woman's body, so choose to make wise decisions about it.
PrincessBecca04 3 years ago
You know "so many" girls who don't make their boyfriends wear condoms? Where the hell do you live? In places where sex education is abstinence-only? Seriously, either you're exaggerating or making it up entirely.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
@NintendoArielle
Actually no I'm not exaggerating or making it up. Spend a little time on a college campus and you'll see it for yourself.
My argument is not that the woman is the villain at all. My argument is that there are many options for contraception, many of which do not require a prescription and are readily available and inexpensive and that I wish that women would be more pro-active about preventing pregnancy before it happens and not ending it after.
PrincessBecca04 1 year ago
I'm actually in college, thank you very much.
A lot of women do use contraception. And colleges tend to be places where condoms are used a lot. I'm surprised you go somewhere in which people don't use them often. All I'm saying is that that's not the norm.
Abortion is a last resort. Pregnancy can still happen, even with contraception. Nothing is 100%. But abortion should be an option instead of expecting women to "take responsibility" for something that's not their fault.
NintendoArielle 1 year ago
I do not want to argue with you but I do not agree with you that using contraception is "the norm" at college campuses. Sure, a lot of people do use protection. But a lot of people still do not. According to the Guttmacher Institute, "46% of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant".
PrincessBecca04 1 year ago
Of the 54% who did actually use protection, "76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use". That's a lot of people who are either not using protection or are using it incorrectly. I see this as a HUGE problem.
I'm not saying that abortion should not be an option, I'm only saying that proper contraceptive use would prevent a lot of abortions.
PrincessBecca04 1 year ago 2
But, it isn't a personal issue if she is trying to change the law of the land.
nakedwaterskier 3 years ago
The problem with abortion is it is a moral issue, not a political issue. Rather than making a potentially life saving procedure illegal (prohibition on any level never works) we should push moreso for education on the choices women have (rather than dwindle them), the pro's and cons for each choice along with potential future consequenses. It is a choice that should be made between the mother, the father, the physician and God......not your congressman.
GildedCunt420 3 years ago 2
Yay, let's raise the population some more, that's what we need. More fucking babies.
kjingalls 3 years ago
what are the people thinking this woman is a fuckin idiot im gonna go puke now
joshkat292 3 years ago 2
everyone watch GEORGE CALIN-PRO LIFE IS ANT WOMEN THEN WATCH GEORGE CARLIN SANCTITY OF LIFE
strawberEfieldz4ever 3 years ago
Reverse Roe v Wade. 4000 abortions a day is WAY too many.
madandmel15 3 years ago
abortion is murder... why won't people admit that? You wouldn't let someone "abort" your 1 month old would you?
dex1391 3 years ago
You can't "'abort' a one-month-old." "Abort" means to terminate a fetus. A one-month old is no longer a fetus.
Abortion isn't murder; overpopulation is. I think it's a bigger problem that we have homeless people starving on the street. An egg or sperm could've been a life, but you can't save every one of those. It's the same thing with a fetus in the first trimester or so.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
There is no overpopulation. The waiting list for adoptions in the US is 18-24 months. Abortion is murder. It is the taking of a life. End of story.
dex1391 2 years ago
No overpopulation? Wow, you are either ignorant or in denial. Have you ever seen a homeless person on the street? Have you ever seen kids in orphanages waiting to be adopted? Have you ever seen kids bouncing from home to home, only to be given up, unwanted? Eventually they become the homeless people, and the cycle continues.
If abortion is "murder" then is releasing eggs or sperm "murder" as well? How close-minded of you.
NintendoArielle 2 years ago
NO... LOL there is no overpopulation. There have been study after study on this. We arn't even close to overpopulation. We right now have the ability to grow our population by 50% and still be able to function properly. That's 3 billion more people.
You are a crazy person. You really need to do some research before you make ignorant posts.
dex1391 2 years ago
The world as a WHOLE
NintendoArielle 1 year ago
@NintendoArielle
If everyone in the world moved to South Africa, the population density per square mile would be 11 502 - this is less than Budapest (16 691) or Milan (13 806) and about the same as Berlin (11 026) or New York (11 480).18 South Africa's population density is one-third that of Austria,19 and Austria does not have a problem with overcrowding and poverty. The answer is not to control population. It is to encourage people to become productive.
dex1391 1 year ago
The world as a WHOLE is overpopulated. So no, I'm not crazy. I'm sane enough to realize that putting more unwanted people into this world (and maybe leading to more loans/welfare) is not the smartest thing to do.
NintendoArielle 1 year ago
@NintendoArielle
What's your evidence that the world as a whole is overpopulated?
dex1391 1 year ago
I don't suppose you're aware of the One-Child Policy practiced in China and India? It's in place because those places are overpopulated. Also, there are many children in the world who don't make it past their childhood because they're starving. We need to concentrate on the people who are already here instead of dumping more unwanted people into the world.
NintendoArielle 1 year ago
@NintendoArielle
Those nations are overpopulated. But the world as a whole is not.
The Earth has about 6 billion people
We have the resources to support about 50% more.
The reason we have starvation is because of governmental problems not because of lack of resources.
The US alone produces enough food to feed the world at it's current population level.
dex1391 1 year ago
When I say "as a whole," I mean that you can find countries that are overpopulated if you look at the world from a global standpoint instead of just the U.S. So a statement such as "We're not overpopulated" is too general.
I'm just saying that we don't need any more people put into this world when there are plenty of people who have nothing. Let's spend more of our resources helping others instead of continuing to add more to our population (no matter what that population amounts to).
NintendoArielle 1 year ago
@NintendoArielle
OK then we can finally agree. The world is not overpopulated.
I agree that there are some countries that are.
Tell me because this all stemmed from an abortion debate I assume...
How is ending a life helping that individual?
dex1391 1 year ago