This is actually a very interesting way to put it, I always knew that and am really considering changing my views to anti-abortion after I learned that bill gates wants to use vaccines, abortion, Monsanto seeds and carbon taxes to lower CO2 output to "zero". He calculates something of about 900million would easily go this way and is even taking steps to make it a reality. Stated it on a TED talks presentation and I have been doing research on it for the last 3 months. So sickening it actually makes me want to throw up. Along with this the new gaming console Xbox One is to always be connected to the internet and the machine will not work if the Kennect camera is not firmly mounted and connected to the machine. The kennect itself is scary because it will be collecting data on our emotions, heart rate, and our game statistics among other things. I feel like big brother is putting cameras into all our homes while silently killing us like how Hitler killed thousands of unsuspecting people in the shower.
(note: don't be fooled by Gates when he sounds like he'd be for the people. The entire presentation is about bringing CO2 levels to Zero. Humans exhale C02 and he is avid on getting the CO2 levels to 0. So every human has to die, every industry has to put out zero emissions, as well as every service.)
And pro-life is selfish enough to revoke ALL choice in the name of what THEY think is right for OTHER people that THEIR religion told them is right. Lets not forget that choice means they can choose to KEEP the child or give it up for adoption. Pro-lifers ALWAYS assume that the choice leads to abortion. No, they can still choose to not abort it...thats what choice means...
So instead of letting that woman choose to keep or abort, pro lifers are selfish enough to take one of those options away because THEY know what's right for HER.
People have been attempting to resolve this discussion for years. The truth is that no one KNOWS what the right answer is. Why? I'll tell you why. Because there are multiple possibilities but two main ones:
1. The mother's rights are more important.
2. The child's life is more important.
That's what everyone assumes. Now, as you've probably already heard, a lot of people argue that it's denying a woman their civil right to their body to force pro-life. Okay, so this is the way I see it. There are a ton of arguments you can provide. Maybe the mother knows what's right for HERSELF, but what if that baby was going to become president of the US or something and save the world from a nuclear explosion (opinion). What about the baby's rights? What if pro-lifers are right and the BABY'S life is more important? What then? I mean, letting a woman have abortion is like letting her play god of some other person's life who was never born. What I mean is that you don't know if the person you are aborting will deserve life or not. Hitler and many other serial killers were almost aborted. So were Langston Hughes and Steve Jobs.
Then again, you ALSO CAN'T say that the child's life WILL be more important than the mother's because maybe the mother will be a champion athlete and the baby will grow up to be a homeless person, or maybe the mother will be a business owner and the baby will grow up to be a middle class worker. What about a terrorist? Who knows? People always assume it's one way or the other but I think it isn't. I think it should be a category and not one law.
What I mean by one "category" is that I think abortion in general is too broad of a category to make one overruling law for every case. I think different women should be treated differently. I think the solution should consider both things. But I think that what YOUR saying is that it's all about what's right for the MOTHER. What I'm saying is what about THE CHILD? Also I think a few rules would solve NOT ALL cases, but a pretty general scale:
I would say you could abort your child IF:
You were raped
OR You are under 21 AND NOT in college. (Being either under 21 OR below college is enough.)
OR Somehow you DID NOT choose to have sex.
OR You DID NOT choose to have the baby when having sex
OR (and this should probably be tried) the abortion had to be approved by a local judge. That would probably solve the problem of a lot of the arguments that come from diverse situations right?
but couldn't abort your child IF:
YOU were the one who decided to have sex AND AGREED to have the baby. Learn to live with your own choices people.
Even then, I would have some laws about forcing adoption in some sort of instance because still, you don't know who the baby would become per-say they lived.
They instate and overturn abortion laws all of the time. I think that's because it's not a general rule you can make which is what YOUR ASSUMING. Here are some examples:
I rest my case. This abortion thing has gone on forever. Like I said, everyone assumes either the woman has to keep the baby or she gets to abort it, which I think you'll agree on. No one ever thinks of the possibility of an individual abortion approval law right? Where in there articles does it talk about that. Try and find one on google. You'll probably find nothing.
going to become president of the US or something and save the world from a nuclear explosion (opinion).
Or it could be a psychotic serial killer, the next fascist dictator...
then? I mean, letting a woman have abortion is like letting her play god of some other person's life who was never born. What I mean is that you don't know if the person you are aborting will deserve life
Your actions have infinite consequences on you and other people, what of it?
Yes, and I addressed your first argument: "Or it could be a psychotic serial killer, the next fascist dictator..." when I stated the part about either becoming Steve Jobs or Hitler so I think that's right. My point is, and you won't agree with me, it would be a lot better to just force them to give up the baby for adoption because then, you live with your decisions.
In life you have to make decisions. Please don't say "What if her decision was to not have the baby?" when I say this please. In life, if you overdose on drugs, you get sick and probably die. If you shoot someone illegally, your probably going to be executed. If you steal from your local deli, you are probably going to get in trouble, by paying a fine, or prison. You may even get scolded for this type of thing. If you choose to defend yourself when you don't know any martial arts, you may put yourself in the hospital with a cast on your leg. And finally, if you choose to let a man have sex with you, you may get pregnant.
You didn't address the decisions argument at all. That's my larger point here. We can't even determine which point the baby is alive at. At which point, when they do, they'll probably be a whole debate about specifically aborting after that time(I know thats obvious but I wanted it said). My point is, even if it has to happen by punishment, you have to LIVE with your decisions. I think that there probably should be some exceptions, but if a woman is over 18, their condom didn't break, and they CHOSE to have the baby, they should have to have the baby, even if they don't keep it. Take responsibility for your actions.
Of course. That's why there should be a law that if a man offers to pay for abortion and the woman refuses, he is not responsible for the child nor has any rights to it.
What I meant was it would be a better solution to FORCE the mother to put the baby up for adoption, other than in a special exception circumstance. I mean that if the woman DECIDED TO HAVE the baby they should HAVE TO LIVE WITH DECISIONS. THEN AFTER, they have the option of putting the baby up for adoption.
No, this completely neglects the well-being of the child in question. I don't care that you didn't agree to have an abortion or if you did, you have a responsibility to take care of any offspring you sire.
The woman has a responsibility to take care of (and financially support) her offspring. She has a responsibility in the union/coupling that took place. She is not an unwilling victim. She is an active participant. In other words, she is thinking with her vagina. ;)
If she can not afford a child and chooses to bring it into this world, she is completely neglecting the well-being of the child in question. If the father does not want the child and she chooses to bring it into this world under those conditions (where the father simply pays but does not help to raise the child, i.e., the child grows up without a father), then (under those conditions) she is completely neglecting the well-being of the child in question. If she doesn't help support her child financially, she is a dead beat mom. Under these circumstances, she has a responsibility to abort. ;)
The woman has a responsibility to take care of (and financially support) her offspring. She has a responsibility in the union/coupling that took place. She is not an unwilling victim.
I never said she was an unwilling victim, both parents have equal responsibility to any children that they bear.
If she can not afford a child and chooses to bring it into this world, she is completely neglecting the well-being of the child in question.
I agree, but now the child is there and you can't just abandon it you need to do the best with the situation at hand to ensure that said child grows up as healthy as possible.
but now the child is there and you can't just abandon it you need to do the best with the situation at hand to ensure that said child grows up as healthy as possible.
That's is exactly my argument as to why it should not be aborted ;)
What I meant was FORCED ADOPTION other than given a legal grant by a judge only for a list of exceptions. I mean, if its at the point where you CHOSE to have a baby or have unprotected sex, you should know what your in for. I think people should learn to live with their own decisions' consequences. I mean, the list would probably start with (I think): under 18, raped, condom failure(meaning a broken condom, etc.) I believe in the right to your own body but you can't turn back the consequences of every decision you make. I just think having a baby should be the same. Every decision, that includes with your own body.
No one is saying that. What they are saying is that if they cannot afford the child and the father doesn't want it, they can't force the father to pay. Instead, they have the choice to either raise the child on their own or abort or give it up for adoption. It's a pro-choice solution where the man gets a choice too ;)
If the father does not want the baby, the options are always the same, abort, adopt, or raise it on your own. The better options are to make sure to use contraceptives or wait until you're married. ;)
You go through the most amount of pain a human has ever experienced without passing out for a long amount of time, so I'd say it's torture, and potentially fatal. (One of the options was the female role in keeping the child, the other was the absentee father paying child support)
Then what is torture? I know people who have torn themselves in childbirth and my cousin in law's mother died in childbirth. My mother nearly died, as well.
Let me put it another way..., if child birth is absolute "torture," most women would NOT have more than one child. Hell..., even women in poor countries, where there are no hospitals and they are forced to have natural child birth, have multiple children. In other words, I'm not persuaded by hyperbole ;)
Second, Third et.c births are supposed to be a hell of a lot easier than the first, and take much less time, 3hours compared to 8-12 hours for the first. Also, women in poor countries are more likely oppressed- believing themselves inferior to men and that having children is their job, have no access to education and are uneducated. Births differ from woman to woman, but my family has a history of difficult births. Also, there is a high death/injury rate from childbirth in LEDC's (As I have said before, an average of 800 women die a day from childbirth) http://www.fistulafoundation.org/whatisfistula/faqs.html Fistula, as described in the link is one of the complications in LEDC's.
So what? 800 women? Really? And how many do NOT die? Many people get in their cars to go to work and end up dying before getting to their destination. But most make it. Does that mean we should not drive? What kind of logic is that? So some women die. Big deal. People die all day every day. And if you have a history of death/injury from child birth, have a C-Section.
You know what, I hate driving. Especially in rush hour traffic. And many people die in driving accidents. Maybe driving is torture and I should be allowed to force you to pay for my chauffeur ;)
So what? 800 women? Really? And how many do NOT die? So some women die. Big deal. People die all day every day. And if you have a history of death/injury from child birth, have a C-Section.