Jump to content

Abortion Debate


Nuclear

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Since when has the right to kill another innocent human being ever been part of the freedoms you cite?

i have no qualms when i say that as a woman i will continue to do what is right for me without apology or permission to the masses

i believe reproductive choices are rights of women, and women’s rights are human rights

what a horrible pretence, you can't want to give women freedom, equality and liberation and then continue to be brazen an issue you own rule of thumb

the only appeal that women usually want is that they are allowed to think for themselves so that they can in end

- take up responsibility for their action including the right to plan a family at an appropriate time

- can make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion from the masses and violence

all I am saying that you continue to failed to respect and invade women’s privacy when you try to make a decision on their behalf

for us women we will continue to seek to end tradition and traditional practices in all its biases from a male perspective

and make sure that you do not deny comprehensive health measures and put in place for policies for women’s health

why are we not arguing to protect men from unplanned and unwanted children.

paternity laws are highly discriminatory in favor of women and men should begin to have a viable discussion on a parallel reproductive choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fetus is not a part of the mother. She is universally recognised by science as a unique human being. Therefore, why should the mother have the right to kill her unborn any more than she has the right to kill anyone else?

This is even more ridiculous when you consider that in more than 99% of abortion cases, the woman herself consented to the act that made her pregnant. How can you argue that she was denied choice? She was not. She chose to have sex, sex makes babies, and with freedom of choice comes responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

The viewpoint you espouse is an extremely selfish and horrible wish to avoid being held accountable for your actions even to the extent that it will cost another innocent human being her life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviously, we do not all share the same value system

a system of abortion is clearly a need to balance individual need against a majority need that’s why women continue to strive for their rights and make unto law that are formed to encompass some majority. i respect that we cannot all agree hence the debate

having sex without thinking about the consequences in my mind is breaking the rules “house rules” and should not carry as big a punishment as breaking a law

so that even though consent to sex is given on impulse or however, people should be given a choice to allowed to reverse their decisions in the mornings after so that they do not bear suffering, and be punished and be judge ipso facto.

that is what 99% of the abortion folks you quoted are saying - we had sex but we also would like some contingencies, like some solution

abortion should not be viewed as punishment to appease others but practice because it is one workable solution available for “if nots” scenarios.

Let me ask you this

1) should we set-up laws that punish people for having sex?

2) and does our current laws do this?

3) and perhaps should we have enforceable regulated sex?

sort of treat problems even before they occur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this

1) should we set-up laws that punish people for having sex?

2) and does our current laws do this?

3) and perhaps should we have enforceable regulated sex?

You're missing the point. Personal accountability is the issue here, not criminality. Obviously, the act of criminalizing sex is ridiculas. That fact is that the social infrastructures in place that dictate acceptable sexual behavior have deteriorated over the course of decades. This unadultered progression of liberal values has resulted in the problems we see today, specifically, high rates of unwanted pregnancies, and the subsequent spike is the number of abortions.

While many women consider the right of abortion to be represenative of their social liberation, it is in fact this very policy that ultimately does far more damage to women in society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we would like to take up "personal" accountability and responsibility for our actions of sex ... only it is not in congruent with your ideas

see below we are bombarded with juxtaposition criminal labels taken from some of your various recent post that identifies sex as the root cause of all this evil

“abortion kills more females than males”

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

“A dead person is deprived of all rights and choices”

“right to kill”

“murderers”

“evil”

the usage of words like kill, die, dead, murderers, kill, kill has connotations of criminal intention

just maybe, maybe we might be able to agree on something workable for unwanted pregnancies, that we can now treat sex as criminal offence EQUALS criminal intention

making sure of the such a thing as strict liability on the intent to commit a criminal offence.

and by the way might even encourage persons to always complete the committed offence

for example if someone set out to commit their offence, but abandon the idea before completing it … the same liability will now apply ... how useful that fits in because in a round about way it is the same conformist approach you wish us to take

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mother's "right to choose" is an invented right, Abortion is killing a human being, I don't understand why you can't see that, instead you have to ask more questions. Its just frustrating. You think you can avoid the fact that it is killing. Its killing a human being. Yes it is still inside the mother but it is human.

Abortion is just a way for the mother to get rid of her baby easily without giving the baby a chance for life.

I am sick of people sticking out all these definitions of.

" Its not a baby, Its a featus" Please Its a baby when the sperm combines with the egg.

It just demeans our society, and im sick of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mother's "right to choose" is an invented right, Abortion is killing a human being, I don't understand why you can't see that, instead you have to ask more questions. Its just frustrating. You think you can avoid the fact that it is killing. Its killing a human being. Yes it is still inside the mother but it is human.

Abortion is just a way for the mother to get rid of her baby easily without giving the baby a chance for life.

I am sick of people sticking out all these definitions of.

" Its not a baby, Its a featus" Please Its a baby when the sperm combines with the egg.

It just demeans our society, and im sick of it.

Derek, there is nothing right about abortion, nobody can deny that. However your argument while making perfect sense to you and others like you contains two unshakable personal opinions; that the fetus is a human and that it has rights over the mother. These two things are the crux of your argument.

The first; that it is a human is obvious. A developing human mind you but human. Heart beat and brain activity are touted as proof that it is a human but then of course at some point it is going to have these functions, you cannot give birth to a non functioning being - it would be dead and therefore a non functioning being. As for having human atributes and features that is a given, would you think that it would have the features of a camel? As for having nerves and reactions, so does a Norwiegian Rat fetus. These things may make it human to you but does not give the same proof to all others.

The next point of rights is also personal. I am here, I exist and am truely human. I function, think, interact and hold beliefs. For a second person to tell me that a being that I do may think is a human, has more right than I is wrong. Just as it is wrong for me to order you what to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we keep asking the questions because we are inquisitive and curious and therefore seek the thoughts of others while we try to compromise, adjust and figure the usual why? how? recurring why?

and it has come time for communities, societies and attitudes to change, adjust and embrace facts

a right to choose is hardly arbitrary, come what may invention. respect that a right to choose is a right already fought for.... and included in laws,[nowadays we have to try to save it because of this bushy moral agenda], but was stemmed from a frantic outcry, a struggle to change the notion of “bare foot, pregnant and in the kitchen”, to what is now it is a right/fight for equality and a right to reproductive freedom

abortion rights jurisprudence in Canada is by far very liberal, it is so broad that it is not even define and practice in mostly every hospital – no disappointments here

easy to read bit on history of canadian abortion below

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.o...nada.html#intro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fetus is not a part of the mother. She is universally recognised by science as a unique human being. Therefore, why should the mother have the right to kill her unborn any more than she has the right to kill anyone else?

This is even more ridiculous when you consider that in more than 99% of abortion cases, the woman herself consented to the act that made her pregnant. How can you argue that she was denied choice? She was not. She chose to have sex, sex makes babies, and with freedom of choice comes responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

The viewpoint you espouse is an extremely selfish and horrible wish to avoid being held accountable for your actions even to the extent that it will cost another innocent human being her life.

The fetus is not a part of the mother. She is universally recognised by science as a unique human being. Therefore, why should the mother have the right to kill her unborn any more than she has the right to kill anyone else?

Hi Hugo, you have to remember that those who do not believe as you feel that the fetus is part of their body and is not a separate entity. A growth or whatever. If they do believe such as you then they can convince themselves otherwise, it is this selfishness that enable some of them. To these, no argument save one that is in their self interests is of worth considering.

This is even more ridiculous when you consider that in more than 99% of abortion cases, the woman herself consented to the act that made her pregnant. How can you argue that she was denied choice? She was not. She chose to have sex, sex makes babies, and with freedom of choice comes responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

So now that the woman has had sex she is on her own in making this religious, life changing, anti social decision? Where is dad? Where is money? Where is the people that will take care of her? I'm not talking about some ladies club comming to tea at her group home but tens of thousands of dollars so she can buy a whole housefull of furniture, a car, hire babysitters so she can go to school and party out on a friday night like she wants to? This is not Pollyanna world, these are kids who are giving up a future as a kid. They don't want to be subjected to sitting in a dorm bottle feeding some child while the world passes them by to make Pro Life people happy. You have to provide that to make a viable argument. The high profile Female CEOs I'm sure are not your target here and can take care of themselves anyhow.

The viewpoint you espouse is an extremely selfish and horrible wish to avoid being held accountable for your actions even to the extent that it will cost another innocent human being her life.

If it is a human life. Of course it is innocent, cut the rhetoric. Do you think for a moment that somebody who is unfeeling enough to kill or rid themselves of something that is possibly life gorwing inside themselves worries a lot about accoutablility?

My solutions are first to come together. Stop being Pro Murder and Pro Dictatorship and beome Pro Choice and Pro Life. The decision of when and where life starts is easy for you, at conception. Others do not see it that way. Let the judges off the hook so that they can make decisions without cutting the branches they are sitting on. Instead of all or nothing set term limits for abortions. Make the father accountable, make a realistic dollar amout available for girls that will carry a baby to term.

You spoke of adoption but let's be realistic, a million and a half? I doubt not the numbers but try and screen them Hugo. Devil worshippers, sexual predators, slavery brokers. It's unfeasable, now screen the kids and moms to match. No way you are going to reach your goal of cancelling all abortions, not even twenty percent on this proposal. Money talks, freedom talks, judges are reluctant to cut off freedom from voters to give it to a being that is not even a being in much of the country's eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about some ladies club comming to tea at her group home but tens of thousands of dollars so she can buy a whole housefull of furniture, a car, hire babysitters so she can go to school and party out on a friday night like she wants to?

Firstly, you seem to be buying into the pro-abort idea that kids are nothing but a burden and a nuisance. You seem to believe that a life is empty and void of meaningful existence if it does not contain "parties on a friday night".

Secondly, the fact is that there are many groups out there designed to help young mothers. Fathers are held accountable, their wages are garnished for child support. This can be ordered by a court if necessary.

Thirdly, and this is something that people do not want to face up to, actions have consequences! The simple thing is that if you are not in a good situation in your life to be having a child, or you are with somebody you don't want to have a child with, perhaps you should not be sleeping with them or at least take your contraception a little more seriously. You can't claim "no fair!" if you blow your head off playing Russian Roulette. Actions have consequences, and if you wouldn't like those consequences, think twice before performing the act.

You spoke of adoption but let's be realistic, a million and a half? I doubt not the numbers but try and screen them Hugo.

No, you don't understand. Those 1.5m people are on the waiting lists for adoption. They have already been screened, vetted, interviewed and proven their financial means. But even if that figure were 1/5 of what it is, there would still be enough adoptive parents to take in unwanted children that would have been aborted.

No way you are going to reach your goal of cancelling all abortions, not even twenty percent on this proposal.

Abolitionists were once told much the same thing - that ending slavery was not possible, that negroes were not able to function independently, that the economy would collapse - and luckily, that was all proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i had to momentarily pause to reflect that we are still with this notion of natural activity for women to bear children

if you agree with the above statement, then women who opt not to have kids are not in sync with laws of nature

i suspect that we would like to apply different laws to different issues such that we can confer with the invented criminal law to the rights of the unborn but take up natural law to explain our ethics and moral justification on some issues

i wish to say that natural laws in all its ethical reflection seeks to embrace a hierarchical system and puts women in a predetermine role.

what this means for women, sure we can have the right of choices, only it is endorsed when the reflection has the least compromise … sort of it is a natural function, no intercept (this is unnatural).

so women speaking out on their own behalf are unnatural functions

declaration of sentiments and resolutions affirms men and women were created equal and endowed with inalienable human rights… individual rights to liberty/freedom

but you also want other readings and interpretations, now you are in a sense saying for bad behavior a right that was bestowed is now inalienable, and has been forfeited forever my darlings because of inappropriate misbehavior … you must think before you act to enjoy freedom.

OR maybe this is a better scenario you forfeit your individual rights until your punishment is over which could mean 9 months or less.

clearly the dilemma is the division of 2 freedoms of difference views of pregnancy.

• freedom to abort

• freedom not to abort

now you want to compromise one of those freedom, but then you really have the answer if you can sincerely admit which freedom you ought to “choose” to protect

this significance of this choice and freedom is beginning to sound like recurring themes of continuous wishy-washy chantings “now you see it …. now you don’t”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think about it, it should be the Baby's choice (featus) Please give him/her the chance!!!!

I still stand by my remarks earlier :P

People who abort are using existing "true" freedoms to get bye with their invented ones. Its quite disgusting, and it is abusing the amendments/ judicial system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, you seem to be buying into the pro-abort idea that kids are nothing but a burden and a nuisance. You seem to believe that a life is empty and void of meaningful existence if it does not contain "parties on a friday night".

Kids are a blessing to me. But Hugo, scince when am I undergoing an abortion? It's not me you have to convince.

Hugo, I am a 47 year old self employed male. I have acted responsibly and still do, somewhat anyhow. I was reffering to the young teenager who is watching her life go down the drain (in her mind). A firday night does mean a lot to these people, if you can't relate then perhaps that is part of the problem. They don't want to lose their adolesence with all the activities and all. To say simply "too bad baby, you spread you legs" is a sure fire way to get them to say "Ofay Big Bubba" and go for the abortion. As I said, to send over some support group that gives them a pat on the back and a sermon on responsibility and then leaves a box of formula and kraft dinner is crap. You want to stop the abortions provide a real incentive, ca$$$h that they can build a real life on, one that they can buy a car, hire baby sitters to go out and go to school, rock concerts like they used to, boyfriends like they used to and so on. A friday isn't a big deal to me as I'm usually somewhere making money but it is to an 18 year old. You had better come up with a better incentive for them than "Pip pip and keep a stiff upper lip"

Thirdly, and this is something that people do not want to face up to, actions have consequences! The simple thing is that if you are not in a good situation in your life to be having a child, or you are with somebody you don't want to have a child with, perhaps you should not be sleeping with them or at least take your contraception a little more seriously. You can't claim "no fair!" if you blow your head off playing Russian Roulette. Actions have consequences, and if you wouldn't like those consequences, think twice before performing the act.

Right on Hugo. You, of course are stating the obvious for the millionth time. Now try to state it to the right audience in the right way, that is your problem. A sexual libido with a euphoria of self immortality. That is the enemy, fight that in a way that a young person who stopped listening to anybody over thirty a long time ago will go to the bank on.

No, you don't understand. Those 1.5m people are on the waiting lists for adoption. They have already been screened, vetted, interviewed and proven their financial means. But even if that figure were 1/5 of what it is, there would still be enough adoptive parents to take in unwanted children that would have been aborted.

I didn't know that. That is great info to know.

Once again, I do not doubt you. Taking this information a step further a way must be made to make carrying a baby to full term available to thse would be mothers. They do not want to lose a school year, forget about their social life, get fat, end up on a soup line, face up to dad or mom, look dumb in front of friends and so on and forth.

Hugo, I suppose my whole notion here is that it is one thing to say what we all know but quite another to get a selfish kid to give it up to make you happy. The last thing they are worried about is the fetus, they want to carry on like nothing happened. Hopes and dreams, you have to find a way to replace those with real, tangible things. To provide counselling and a food donation is not tangible reality to a person who had dreams of becomming a rock singer or going to spring break.

Sure it's possible, but better get some new shtick, it ain't working like it is. Just as an example (not a very good one BTW) My girlfriend (now my wife) came to me years ago and said that she was pregnent. We had not talked about children or anything and she knew me from the practical person I was that I might be (you know, pro murder or something evil like that.) She wanted to know what we thought about it and of course we talked a lot but it involllved phone calls, dates, insurance, house renovations and whatever. Abortion never was mentioned once, even in passing. Then again, we were financily able, mature, responsible, had our childhood and adolesence and were good to go. The ones you are aiming for have zilch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krusty,

What is your point with all this - that you think abortion is wrong, but kids are never going to believe it or care, so never mind trying to tell them?

Great attitude. Should we take the same approach with hard drugs? What about oral sex in classrooms and drunk driving? What about gang warfare and the murders and the prostitution and drug rackets that go with it? Perhaps we should agree that kids will be kids, and they seem to want to do these things nowadays, and as they won't listen to us fuddy-duddy adults, why bother trying to straighten them out? After all, a mere 46 million lives lost each year is trifling (that's the entire bodycount of World War II, by the way - every year).

I just find it hard to understand your attitude. You believe it's wrong, but you refuse to take action or even acknowledge that action should be taken because you are afraid that your message might fall upon deaf ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugo, I didn't write in ancient Chinese. What is so hard to understand that it is not so easy to simply say "NO!"

You have a lot of things to fight against, people that have abortions are not swayed by the same arguments that give you conviction. They are more material and immediate satisfaction orientated than you or I. That is the point.

As for afraid to take action, that is a presumtion on your part. It is not a section of society that this is happening to but the WHOLE society. It's crumbling around us, not just this segment. Man, a pack animal currently living in a HIVE environment. Note the occurence of violence in large cities compared to smaller (yet similarly populated states or provinces.) Big difference.

Now, imagine you live in a town of one thousand. Think many abortions would be happening there?

Oh, I just realised that I never gave an answer on what to do.

Divide and conquer. Late term, easy. Now put some money and aim for the early teens. Safe houses and a cash bonus of $10 Grand when they deliver to an adoption agency. Can't come up with that kind of money? Oh well, guess abortions will stay as is in this capitalistic society. Unless of course we convert to communism or some form of government where we can kill the woman if she aborts.

Change of tactics rather than same old rhetoric that works on responsible people is what is needed, and a change in the society as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safe houses and a cash bonus of $10 Grand when they deliver to an adoption agency. Can't come up with that kind of money?

I'm sure that adoptive parents would be happy to pay the biological mother that sum. After all, many of them spend a lot more adopting children from former Eastern Bloc countries and the Third World, such is the shortage of newborn babies compared to the lists of would-be parents waiting to adopt them. The fees to adopt any child are at that kind of level anyway and it does not seem to deter anybody from adopting, as I said, despite the fact that it costs thousands to actually get the child (before you've even started raising her) there are still 1.5m couples waiting to adopt in the US alone.

Even if a part of that $10k has to come from public funds, firstly, it's a good price to save a child's life, and secondly, it can be argued that it is definitely in the interests of the general public to have our children raised in happy and well-adjusted households with financial security rather than by single, teen mothers with all the problems that entails. Of course, better that latter than death, but better the former than the latter, I'm sure you'll agree.

The only pitfall I see is that some unscrupulous women might just birth child after child from a variety of men so that they can collect their $10,000 cheques. I don't believe this would be a widespread problem, but nevertheless it would probably happen. There are women who abuse the welfare system in much the same way.

The other thing I would like to see done is a withdrawal of public funding for abortion. At the moment, abortion is done at tax-payer's expense. I see no reason for this, after all, the mother's indiscretion was not the fault of the tax-paying public! Ironically, a lot of these mothers (and fathers) pursuing abortion care more about money than about the lives of children, so perhaps we can exploit that in order to save lives.

After all, if mothers knew that their abortion could cost them a few thousands from their own pockets, they might be more careful. For that matter, the bill is likely to end up in the laps of the parents of a teen mother, and they might take more interest in their daughter's sexual activity if they knew that it might end up costing them thousands. This is undoubtedly better than the laissez-faire attitude promoted today.

I definitely don't believe that anyone has the right for state-funded abortion, any more than anyone has the right to state-funded cigarettes or gasoline. At least a case can be made that the state should provide the basics of life, but are abortions necessary to live?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mother's "right to choose" is an invented right

So is the right to bear arms.

So is freedom of speech, wiseguy. Abortion is nothing but birth control for those who are irresponsible. Abortion should only be considered if it threatens the life of the mother and the child.

It's murder in the name of convinence.

Hitler did that with the Jews. So you murder someone inside their mother still, it's called abortion, you murder someone outside the womb and it's a holocaust....

It's ending a life, so there for it's murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitler did that with the Jews. So you murder someone inside their mother still, it's called abortion, you murder someone outside the womb and it's a holocaust....

It's ending a life, so there for it's murder

You amuse me greatly Nuke. :) Could you get any more contradictory about the issue of murder? Or is it because this is a different thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Posted: Nov 20 2003, 09:36 PM

If you think about it, it should be the Baby's choice (featus) Please give him/her the chance!!!!

I still stand by my remarks earlier 

People who abort are using existing "true" freedoms to get bye with their invented ones. Its quite disgusting, and it is abusing the amendments/ judicial system

politicians try to do this a lot by swaying the populace believe with appeal of emotion or pity.

you cannot want to manipulate feelings with pleas, begs “please give…..a chance”, make up your own rules based on your own standards and value systems, willing the folks to succumb to some seduction and then say now think about it – there is no allowance for logic and application of rules

there are much imbalances in the law. we have “Rights of the child”, the word parent or rights of parent is not mentioned anywhere, not even in the good charter

adopting law that appears among the roman jurists “Law of Persons” has jurisprudence freedoms and rights might be worthwhile to explore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugo

The only pitfall I see is that some unscrupulous women might just birth child after child from a variety of men so that they can collect their $10,000 cheques. I don't believe this would be a widespread problem, but nevertheless it would probably happen. There are women who abuse the welfare system in much the same way.

The other thing I would like to see done is a withdrawal of public funding for abortion. At the moment, abortion is done at tax-payer's expense. I see no reason for this, after all, the mother's indiscretion was not the fault of the tax-paying public! Ironically, a lot of these mothers (and fathers) pursuing abortion care more about money than about the lives of children, so perhaps we can exploit that in order to save lives.

After all, if mothers knew that their abortion could cost them a few thousands from their own pockets, they might be more careful. For that matter, the bill is likely to end up in the laps of the parents of a teen mother, and they might take more interest in their daughter's sexual activity if they knew that it might end up costing them thousands. This is undoubtedly better than the laissez-faire attitude promoted today.

I definitely don't believe that anyone has the right for state-funded abortion, any more than anyone has the right to state-funded cigarettes or gasoline. At least a case can be made that the state should provide the basics of life, but are abortions necessary to live?

I think you have the solution here, in theory anyhow. I always thought that money talked. If morality doesn't get through then another approach may. It needs a lot of work to be sure, but I like it a lot better than simply provding freedom for a being that is considered by many, not to be a human by taking freedom from one who we know is one.

The pro life crowd can still educate and so forth but I think that here is an area that they also should concentrate on. They, no, we all should start to pressure the government to work on this problem from this direction. It, like you said, also crosses over into the realm of welfare. A system that stinks from the bottom to the top. Reflective of the "society owes me" mentality of our population in general is it any wonder why fetuses are considered a complicatin in life rather than a blessing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

abortion economics as an argument with a resultant savings to our tax dollars? i did'nt think so

in ontario, canada since equal health care is accessible to all, we can only deduce that the removal of public funds for abortion would also suggest removal of public funds for child birth and associated post op.

you could not justly implement some wise policy to descrimate the tax dollars.

but if you wish to encourage "childbirth over abortion" by paying for the former and not the latter... they i am sure you are able to figure a cost differential

the cost for abortion is approx. 485$ over the cost of an uncomplicated child birth $1,370

but you also did not calculate the resultant effects of pregnancies not wanted. trying putting figures to these problems if we say 50% of all pregnancies are unattended

1) the poorer the women the more likely they are unable to take care of the pregnancy such as: prenatal care

2) health and social cost such as:

- smoking

- drinking

- result low birth weight

- teen association of complications such as risk of

obstertrical complications, premature

2) teen drop out of school means for future employment less skill jobs with low wages, are kept forever in proverty or perhaps you intended to keep them @ 4

3) more likely to access to welfare

adapted from the link below

here for more cost on contraception, prevention, abortion http://www.cbctrust.com/ECONOMIC.html

In Quebec, 64% of teenage mothers receive social assistance, and over 80% head single parent families.

Alberta pays $22 million/year to support new single parent families created by first births to single parent mothers.

Alberta found the cost of providing support for young, single parent families over a 20 year time period was close to half a billion dollars.

4)you would like to encourage a cycle of poverty, let the teens become parents would likely have a child that mirrors

the cost for abortion by far out weight the cost of carrying a child to term. planning for kids is the best way, and a solution is to allow people to choose when it is right for themselves.

it is rather condescending to keep saying it is the "mother" "daughter" "women" phenomena and to isolate action events such as "spreading of legs" leading up to the practice of impermissible sex discrimination.

what i mean is heck, people (men and women) can have sex whenever they want it is a private matter and decisions thereafter are also private, you make it public when you wish to intrude

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...