Is Abortion a right someone should have?

James R said:
Abortions will happen, regardless of whether they are legal or not. If women cannot access legal abortions, some will resort to dangerous, illegal procedures. This is historical fact.
nobody has refuted this either
 
leopold99 said:
i don't think anyone refuted this


And WTF does that have to do with consensual sex and abortion?! If a man gets a women pregnant when she is in a coma (I'm not even sure that's possible but I'll go with it), that would be a form of rape.
 
leopold99 said:
nobody has refuted this either

What? That women will have abortions whether they are legal or illegal? Tell me, how many abortions were performed while they were illegal as compared to when they were legal? I would be willing to bet the number has gone up exponentially.
 
the fact is
men are more responsible for children than women
abortions (induced) will happen regardless

you also have no right to tell another person what they WILL do with their bodies
 
That is quite literally like the 100th time that has been repeated in this thread, even though it has been responded to the previous 99 times. You've got to come up with something else. :eek:
 
mountainhare:

I never claimed that people should not have sex, I pointed out that if they do have sex, they should be prepared to take care of the product of it. In otherwords, they should accept the consequences. If they aren't prepared to accept the inherent risk in having sex, then they shouldn't do so!

That's all very well in an ideal, fluffy, conservative world. But our real world isn't like that.

You call murdering an unborn baby a 'solution'? The typical twisted liberal mindset in action. If we were to apply their rationale consistently, I would have the right to murder a neighbour who was giving me problems. After all, murder is a great 'solution' to my 'problem'.

Your neighbour and yourself presumably have an equal right to life. Abortion, as I keep explaining, involves weighing up the interests of the mother against the interests of the foetus. Is that too difficult to understand?

Quite simply, if you aren't prepared to either...

1. Raise a child
or...
2. Put the child up for adoption.

Then you shouldn't have sex!

What percentage of sex acts are undertaken with the intent to have a child, do you think? Essentially, you are advocating abolishing sex, except for conception.

Perhaps instead of engaging in murder, a couple would be better off keeping their pants on until they know that they can support, or put up for adoption, the product of their procreation. If they feel real horny, there is plenty of stuff they could do with each other that doesn't involve baby making. Oral, anal, and hand jobs don't produce children (although I have heard reports that anal sex can produce liberals and neo-cons!). If they get real desperate, there are always sex toys, vibrators, etc. And sometimes it never hurts to fall back on good ole self-satisifaction. I'm sure Adam used his hand before Eve was created!

You really have no clue about how people behave. In fact, I doubt you apply your own advice to yourself. That's if you have a partner, which is doubtful with those kinds of attitudes.
 
leopold99 said:
sure they have been responded to
but they have not been refuted (proven false)


*sigh*

One last time, seriously, this is the last time, I will not respond to that argument anymore.

leopold99 said:
men are more responsible for children than women

The women chooses to have consensual sex, the women chooses not to take birth control pills, the women chooses to have sex when she knows she is not ready for children, the women chooses to take the chance of pregnancy instead of using protection. Um, yeah, looks to me like she is just as responsible as the man.

abortions (induced) will happen regardless

Yes, but they will happen less. Look at the numbers of abortions before it was legal, the number has jumped exponentially. In fact, in the first year of legality in 1973, there were 774,600. In 2001 it has jumped to 1.31 million abortions performed (I can't find any more recent statistics, but trends show that abortions are decreasing by about 0.1% per year).

And this nonsense of women accidently getting pregnant once, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.

Almost half of the abortions are performed on women who have already had an abortion! And you tell me that abortion is this heart wrenching experience and the women would surely learn from her mistake? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
 
Quarkmoon:

QuarkMoon said:
James R said:
All kinds of reasons. Let me give you one common situation as an example.

Common? How do you know that? I would say that kind if situation is quite rare...

Then you'd be wrong.

She shouldn't have had unprotected sex in the first place, circumstances are no excuse, unless she was piss drunk and the guy forced himself onto her, which would be considered rape.

I said she was drunk. Is she still at fault? What about the man? Does he take ANY blame in this situation? Or are all men absolved of all responsibility for pregnancy, according to you?

And what if this was a "date rape" situation? That's common enough, and many such events are not reported, for many reasons.

She could take 2 semesters off from school (6 months; 3 semesters if she wants to stretch it - 9 months off from school is not the end of the world), and return after giving the baby up for adoption.

Yes, she could. And you want to tell her she must, despite whatever her wishes may be.

And you continue to try and argue morality and psychological affects between abortion and adoption! Abortion is the termination of your future child, adoption allows your child to live his/her life to their full potential. Termination vs adoption, yeah, adoption please. And until you can show me a study that shows adoption is more traumatizing then abortion, you can go ahead and drop this argument.

I doubt you'd change your mind if I presented a study which showed that adoption was more traumatic for the mother than abortion. Would you?

She does not have to support the child either, put him/her up for adoption so that child will have a chance at life.

Again, you completely disregard the interests of the mother in favour of the interests of the child. Why are you so keen to treat the mother as if she doesn't exist? Is this your general approach to women?

And if I were the father, of course I would be reponsible.

It's very easy to make that kind of statement in the abstract. The fact is, nobody knows what you'd do if you were actually confronted with such a decision. As I said before, it's all care and no responsibility for your conservative men.

However, I'm smart enough not to have unprotected sex when I'm not ready (I would rather finish college first). See, it's as simple as that. That's why I have never had to address the problem before, because I don't have unprotected sex!

That's you. That's fine for you. You are quite free to live a celibate life and only ever have sex to procreate. No sex before marriage for Quarkmoon! Ok.

Now, explain it to me again. What gives you the right to tell other people how to live their lives?

It's called responsibility, it's called accountability. If a women is having consensual sex, they have to be responsible for the results. They have to be held accountable for their choices.

You don't think having to face an agonisingly difficult decision like this is accountable enough? Of course not. You want to be moral policeman, on an issue you personally will never face.

How noble of you.
 
Look at the numbers of abortions before it was legal, the number has jumped exponentially. In fact, in the first year of legality in 1973, there were 774,600. In 2001 it has jumped to 1.31 million abortions performed (I can't find any more recent statistics, but trends show that abortions are decreasing by about 0.1% per year).

What did you expect? Before abortion was legalised, ALL abortions were illegal, and hence unrecorded in official statistics.

In the years it has been legalised, 2 things have happened:

1. Fewer and fewer illegal abortions, as safe abortion has become more readily available.
2. Population has increased.
 
QuarkMoon said:
The women chooses to have consensual sex, the women chooses not to take birth control pills, the women chooses to have sex when she knows she is not ready for children, the women chooses to take the chance of pregnancy instead of using protection. Um, yeah, looks to me like she is just as responsible as the man.
the same can be applied to both sexes
with the exception that a man must aquire and maintain an erection during the entire process
that, in my opinion, makes a man more resposible than women.

if you honestly look at the situation you would see that women have a god given right to an abortion

you say that you have protected sex
has the thought ever occure to you that the condom might break?
i can honestly say it was on the females mind.

i also assume that you are male
if that is true then you must also know what sexual animals they are.
a young man is nothing more than a virtual walking hard on
looking for a receptive female to impregnate.

no, abortions are a right for every female
 
QuarkMoon said:
And this nonsense of women accidently getting pregnant once, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
i expicitly stated in one of my posts "that it should be stressed that abortions are not a cure for pregnancy"
 
James R said:
Then you'd be wrong.

Prove it. Until then, I will not refer to it as rare and you will not refer to it as common, deal?

I said she was drunk. Is she still at fault? What about the man? Does he take ANY blame in this situation? Or are all men absolved of all responsibility for pregnancy, according to you?

And what if this was a "date rape" situation? That's common enough, and many such events are not reported, for many reasons.

If she was drunk and the man forced himself onto her, then yes, abortion is completely acceptable. I'm not sure anyone here has been arguing against abortion in instances of rape or incest. In fact I have repeated that numerous times.

Yes, she could. And you want to tell her she must, despite whatever her wishes may be.

You brought up how it could burden her studies, I responded with a solution.

I doubt you'd change your mind if I presented a study which showed that adoption was more traumatic for the mother than abortion. Would you?

Of course I would! Why wouldn't I? Show proof and we can acknowledge it as a valid argument.

Again, you completely disregard the interests of the mother in favour of the interests of the child. Why are you so keen to treat the mother as if she doesn't exist? Is this your general approach to women?

9 months of labor, in order to give a Human being a chance at life without the "burden" of raising the child herself. I would say that is quite reasonable.

It's very easy to make that kind of statement in the abstract. The fact is, nobody knows what you'd do if you were actually confronted with such a decision. As I said before, it's all care and no responsibility for your conservative men.

It's very easy to make that kind of a statement because it's what I believe. If you weren't going to acknowledge my answer, why did you ask?

That's you. That's fine for you. You are quite free to live a celibate life and only ever have sex to procreate. No sex before marriage for Quarkmoon! Ok.

Who said anything about celibacy? Is the idea of protected sex so hard for you to comprehend? Is the idea that someone would think to use condoms and birth control pills so foreign to you that you automatically assume celibacy? Do you think maybe that's part of the problem?

Now, explain it to me again. What gives you the right to tell other people how to live their lives?

Because it is wrong. It's as wrong an act as anything else the government prohibits. Abortion for reasons other then rape or incest are morally wrong, and should be prohibited right along with any other crime.

You don't think having to face an agonisingly difficult decision like this is accountable enough? Of course not. You want to be moral policeman, on an issue you personally will never face.

How noble of you.

Ad hominem attacks because you lack substance. Fact: 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
 
leopold99 said:
you say that you have protected sex
has the thought ever occure to you that the condom might break?
i can honestly say it was on the females mind.

Condoms are 99% affective. Birth control pills are also 99% affective. In the small minute chance that a condom fails, birth control pills will be a back up. Use both and the chances of pregnancy are negligible.
 
James R said:
What did you expect? Before abortion was legalised, ALL abortions were illegal, and hence unrecorded in official statistics.

In the years it has been legalised, 2 things have happened:

1. Fewer and fewer illegal abortions, as safe abortion has become more readily available.
2. Population has increased.


Hey look, I can twist facts too!

In the years it has been legalized, two things have happened:

1. More abortions have been performed
2. More women are having multiple abortions

Legalized abortion has led to abortions becoming commonplace. Millions are performed each year, with almost half being on women who have already had one. Tell me, before they were legal, how many women do you think had multiple abortions?
 
it should be stated that i am not female
therefor i am not going to reverse my opinion

females are the ones to decide if they have an abortion not males
 
leopold99 said:
two questions
who should use birth control pills?
what happens when "accidents" do occur?

If two consensual partners want to have sex before they are ready to raise a child, then the women should use the birth control pills (obviously) and the man should use condoms.

As for "what ifs", that's what adoption is for. In the rare occasion that both the condom and the birth control pill fail, put the baby up for adoption.

Hell, if more people just used one of the protective measures, either condoms or birth control pills, accidental pregnancies would plummet!
 
QuarkMoon said:
If two consensual partners want to have sex before they are ready to raise a child, then the women should use the birth control pills (obviously) and the man should use condoms.
birth control pills alter a females body chemistry, is that fair?
condoms do nothing but sit there like a sock, is that fair?

about adoptions
have you considered the worlds population?
what solution would you propose to keep our numbers in check?
 
leopold99 said:
birth control pills alter a females body chemistry, is that fair?

Provide any evidence that shows the use of birth control pills has any permenant negative affect on a women.

condoms do nothing but sit there like a sock, is that fair?

Yeah, pretty simple, huh? Now all we have to do is get people to use them!

about adoptions
have you considered the worlds population?
what solution would you propose to keep our numbers in check?

The U.S. is currently precreating at a rate barely above replacement level, abortion only has a minimal affect on population size. In fact, I believe the United States is the only industrialized nation that procreates above replacement level.

The countries you need to worry about are the third world Muslim countries, where birth rates are as high as nearly 7 children per mother. Go over there and tell those people to have abortions, I'm sure they will welcome you with open arms. :rolleyes:

Keeping the worldwide population size "in check" is not my concern. If you want to keep it in check, nuke a few countries and call it a day. Because with or without abortion, the population size will increase unabated.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top